[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56407-56419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-2285]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-894 and A-570-895]


Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper Products 
From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of 
Final Determination for Certain Tissue Paper Products

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective: September 21, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kit Rudd or John Conniff, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-1385, or 482-1009, respectively.

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain tissue paper products and 
certain crepe paper products from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of 
sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of 
this notice.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
determinations. We will make our final determinations no later than 75 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary determinations 
for certain crepe paper products and 135 days after the date of 
publication of this preliminary determination for certain tissue paper 
products.

Case History

    On February 17, 2004, Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc., 
American Crepe Corporation, Eagle Tissue LLC, Garlock Printing & 
Converting, Inc., and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy 
Workers International Union AFL-CIO, CLC (hereafter known as, 
``Petitioners'') filed, in proper form, a petition on imports of 
certain tissue paper products and certain crepe paper products from the 
PRC. On February 18, 2004, February 20, 2004, February 24, 2004, and 
February 27, 2004, the Department requested Petitioners to clarify 
certain aspects of the Petition. On February 23, 2004, February 24, 
2004, February 27, 2004, and March 3, 2004, Petitioners submitted 
responses to the Department's requests for clarification. On March 15, 
2004, the Department published the initiation of these antidumping duty 
investigations (see Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 12128) 
(``Initiation Notice'').

Respondent Selection

    On March 17, 2004, the Department sent a letter to potential 
respondents requesting the quantity and value of all exports to the 
United States. On March 17, 2004, the Department notified the 
Commercial Secretary at the Embassy of the PRC of the initiation of 
these antidumping duty investigations and its request for quantity and 
value information with regard to exports to the United States. On March 
25, 2004, Cleo Inc., Crystal Products Inc., and Marvel Products, Inc., 
importers of tissue paper products and China National Aero-Technology 
Import & Export Xiamen Corporation (``China National''), an exporter of 
tissue paper recommended the Department to collect separate quantity 
and value data for retail reams of tissue paper and for all other 
exports of tissue paper for the purposes of selecting mandatory 
respondents in the tissue paper investigation. On March 30, 2004, 
Petitioners urged the Department to reject the importers' and China 
National's request to collect separate quantity and value data on the 
basis that the Department considers all forms of tissue paper as one 
class or kind of merchandise.
    On March 30, 2004, we received tissue paper quantity and value 
responses from the following companies: Standard Quality Corp., Fujian 
Xinjifu Enterprises, Co., Ltd. (``Fujian Xinjifu Enterprises''), 
Qingdao

[[Page 56408]]

Wenlong Co., Ltd. (``Qingdao Wenlong''), Qingdao Kyung--E Gift Co., 
Ltd., Hunan Winco Light Industry Products Import & Export Co., Ltd. 
(``Hunan Winco Light'') , China National, Fuzhou Light Industry Import 
& Export Co., Ltd. (``Fuzhou Light''), Fujian Provincial Shaowu City 
Huaguang Special Co., Ltd. (``Huanguang''), Fujian Nanping Investment & 
Enterprise Co. (``Fujian Nanping''), Guilin Qifeng Paper Co. Ltd. 
(``Guilin''), Ningbo Feihong Stationary Limited Company (``Ningbo''), 
Everlasting Business & Industry Corporation, Ltd. (``Everlasting 
Business and Industry''), Anhui Light Industrial Import & Export Co., 
Ltd. (``Anhui Light''), Fujian Naoshan Paper Industry Group Co., Ltd. 
(``Fujian Naoshan''), Samsam Production Limited & Guangzhou Baxi 
Printing Products Limited (``Samsam''), Max Fortune Industrial Limited, 
and Fuzhou Magicpro Gifts Co., Ltd. (``Magicpro'').
    On March 30, 2003, we received crepe paper quantity and value 
responses from the following companies: Huaguang, Fuzhou Light, 
Everlasting Business and Industry, Fujian Nanping, Fujian Xinjifu 
Enterprises, and Ningbo Spring.
    On April 5, 2004, China National re-filed its quantity and value 
data noting that the company had found two errors in its quantity and 
value figures. On April 7, 2004, an interested party, who wished not to 
have his name disclosed to the public, filed a declaration with the 
Department in response to the quantity and value data filed by the 
Chinese exporters/producers. The interested party believed that there 
were instances of overstated export volumes, multiple companies 
reporting exports made by only one company, products not covered by 
these investigations, and the inclusion of sales to third countries. In 
response to this information, on April 12, 2004, the Department 
requested from parties who filed quantity and value responses to 
confirm their initially reported figures. All parties that initially 
filed quantity and value responses replied to the Department's request.
    On April 27, 2004, the Department selected Fujian Naoshan and China 
National as mandatory tissue paper respondents and Huaguang and Fuzhou 
Light as mandatory crepe paper respondents. See Memorandum To Joseph A. 
Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Group 
III, From, Edward C. Yang, Office Director, Selection of Respondents 
for the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Tissue Paper Products from 
the PRC, dated April 27, 2004 (``Tissue Respondent Selection Memo'') 
and Memorandum To Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, Group III, From, Edward C. Yang, Office 
Director, Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of 
Certain Crepe Paper Products from the PRC, dated April 27, 2004 
(``Crepe Respondent Selection Memo''). On April 28, 2004, the 
Department issued Sections A, C, and D of the antidumping questionnaire 
to the mandatory respondents and to the Commercial Secretary at the 
Embassy of the PRC. On April 29, 2004, Magicpro requested that the 
Department reconsider its limit of two mandatory respondents in each 
investigation and include Magicpro as a third mandatory respondent. 
Additionally, Magicpro requested that it be considered a voluntary 
respondent in both investigations. Magicpro withdrew its request to be 
a voluntary respondent in the tissue paper investigation on June 25, 
2004.

Physical Characteristics

    On April 5, 2004, the Department sent letters to all potential 
respondents who filed quantity and value responses requesting comments 
on the appropriate physical characteristics of tissue and crepe paper 
products. On April 16, 2004, the Department received comments from 
Petitioners, Fujian Naoshan, China National, Huaguang, Fuzhou Light, 
and Guilin. On May 10, 2004, the Department invited interested parties 
to comment on draft physical characteristics. On May 17, 2004, the 
Department received comments from Petitioners and China National. On 
May 24, 2004, the Department issued the final physical characteristics 
to the mandatory respondents.

Mandatory Respondents

    Fujian Naoshan submitted its responses to the Department's standard 
questionnaire on May 25, 2004 and June 18, 2004. Petitioners submitted 
comments on Fujian Naoshan's A, C, and D responses on June 3, 2004, and 
July 2, 2004. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to 
Fujian Naoshan on June 21, 2004, and July 12, 2004. Fujian Naoshan 
filed their responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires 
on July 2, 2004, August 9, 2004, and August 11, 2004. Petitioners filed 
additional comments on Fujian Naoshan's supplemental responses on 
August 18, 2004.
    China National submitted its responses to the Department's standard 
questionnaire on May 28, 2004 and June 28, 2004. Petitioners submitted 
comments on China National's A, C, and D responses on June 4, 2004, 
July 9, 2004, July 20, 2004, and August 13, 2004. The Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires to China National on June 21, 2004, July 
19, 2004, August 6, 2004, and August 27, 2004. China National filed 
their responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires on July 
12, 2004, August 9, 2004, August 13, 2004, and September 3, 2004. 
Petitioners filed comments on China National's supplemental responses 
on August 13, 2004, and August 18, 2004. On August 19, 2004, China 
National filed rebuttal comments to Petitioners' August 13, 2004, 
comments. On August 20, 2004, China National filed rebuttal comments to 
Petitioners' August 18, 2004, comments.
    Huaguang filed its Section A response on May 27, 2004. On June 3, 
2004, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Huaguang 
requesting the company to clarify whether it had direct exports to the 
United States. On June 7, 2004, Huaguang filed its response stating 
that the company did not have any direct exports to the United States. 
On June 23, 2004, the Department de-selected Huaguang as a mandatory 
respondent because Huaguang is not an exporter of the subject 
merchandise. The Department selected Magicpro as a mandatory respondent 
(see Memorandum To Jeff May, From Edward Yang, titled De-selection of 
Mandatory Respondent, Huaguang and Selection of Magicpro In the 
Antidumping Investigation of Certain Crepe Paper Products from the 
PRC.) Additionally, the Department noted that it will not consider 
further whether a separate rate is appropriate for Huaguang, as 
separate rates in an investigation are applied only to exporters during 
the period of investigation.
    Magicpro submitted its responses to the Department's standard 
questionnaire on May 19, 2004, June 25, 2004, and June 28, 2004. 
Petitioners submitted comments on Magicpro's A, C, and D responses on 
June 29, 2004, and July 7, 2004. The Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Magicpro on July 1, 2004, and July 19, 2004. Magicpro 
filed its supplemental section A responses on July 14, 2004. On August 
2, 2004, Magicpro did not file its response to the Department's C and D 
supplemental questionnaire. On August 10, 2004, Magicpro filed a letter 
with the Department stating that it no longer wishes to participate in 
the crepe paper investigation.
    Fuzhou Light submitted its responses to the Department's standard

[[Page 56409]]

questionnaire on May 28, 2004 and June 18, 2004. Petitioners submitted 
comments on Fuzhou Light's A, C, and D responses on June 4, 2004, and 
June 29, 2004. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to 
Fuzhou Light on June 22, 2004, and July 12, 2004. Fuzhou Light filed 
its response to the Department's section A supplemental questionnaire 
on July 13, 2004. On August 2, 2004, Fuzhou Light filed a letter with 
the Department stating that it is no longer participating in the crepe 
paper investigation. Petitioners filed comments regarding the crepe 
paper investigation on August 18, 2004.
    On July 22, 2004, the Department issued a letter to all mandatory 
respondents clarifying the units of measure reporting requirements for 
the factors of production (``FOP''). On July 29, 2004, the Department 
issued a letter to Fujian Naoshan and Fuzhou Light requesting 
clarification on the respondents' selection of date of sale.

Critical Circumstances

    On June 18, 2004, Petitioners alleged that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of tissue paper and crepe paper products. 
On June 30, 2004, the Department requested that Fujian Naoshan, China 
National, Magicpro, and Fuzhou Light submit monthly shipment data for 
2001, 2002, 2003 and January through June 2004. Fujian Naoshan 
submitted its monthly shipment data on July 15, 2004, and amended data 
on July 16, 2004. China National submitted monthly shipment data on 
July 20, 2004 and amended data on July 26, 2004, and August 13, 2004. 
Magicpro submitted its monthly shipment data on July 20, 2004. Fuzhou 
Light submitted its monthly shipment data on July 23, 2004.
    Petitioners submitted comments on the respondents' critical 
circumstances data on the following dates: July 20, 2004 (Fujian 
Naoshan and China National), July 23, 2004 (Magicpro), and July 26, 
2004 (China National), and August 6, 2004 (Fujian Naoshan). On August 
2, 2004, the Department requested that China National segregate subject 
and non-subject merchandise in its monthly shipment data for 2004 to 
conform to its reporting methodology for 2003. On August 6, 2004, the 
Department asked China National to report its critical circumstances 
data on a per-kilogram basis rather than a per-package basis. China 
National submitted its critical circumstances data incorporating these 
changes on August 13, 2004. See Critical Circumstances section of this 
notice.

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values

    On June 9, 2004, the Department sent a letter to all interested 
parties requesting comments on the appropriate surrogate country and 
publicly available information to value FOPs. On June 16, 2004, 
Petitioners filed comments concerning the selection of the appropriate 
surrogate country in these investigations. On July 28, 2004, 
Petitioners, Magicpro, and China National filed publicly available 
information to value FOPs. On August 2, 2004, the Department selected 
India as the appropriate surrogate country for the purposes of these 
investigations. See Memorandum To The File, Through Edward C. Yang, 
Office Director, titled Antidumping Duty Investigations on Certain 
Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper Products from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country. On August 
9, 2004, Petitioners filed additional comments on publicly available 
factor value information. On August 18, 2003, China National filed 
additional comments on publicly available factor value information.

Section A Respondents

    On May 19, 2004, the Department received Section A responses from 
Fujian Xinjifu Enterprises (tissue and crepe), Anhui Light (tissue), 
B.A. Marketing and Industrial Co., Ltd. (``BA Marketing'') (tissue), 
Ningbo (tissue and crepe), Hunan Winco Light (tissue), and Magicpro 
(tissue), hereafter known as ``Section A Respondents''. On May 26, 
2004, the Department received Section A responses from Qingdao Wenlong 
(tissue), Max Fortune (tissue), and Samsam (tissue). On May 27, 2004, 
the Department received Section A responses from Everlasting Business 
and Industry (tissue and crepe) and Guilin (tissue and crepe). On May 
28, 2004, the Department received Section A responses from Fujian 
Nanping (tissue and crepe) and Fuzhou Light (tissue).
    On June 25, 2004, Magicpro withdrew its request to be considered as 
a voluntary respondent in the tissue paper investigation. On July 15, 
2004, the Department asked Guilin to re-file its responses because the 
Department noted the tissue paper and crepe paper responses were 
identical in form and substance. On July 16, 2004, the Department 
issued supplemental Section A questionnaires to all companies that 
filed a Section A response with the Department except Guilin. On July 
19, 2004, Guilin stated that it only sold tissue paper to the United 
States and therefore would like to be considered for only a tissue 
paper separate rate. Ningbo filed its supplemental Section A responses 
on July 28, 2004 (tissue), and on August 11, 2004 (crepe). On July 30, 
2004, the Department received supplemental Section A responses from 
Fujian Xinjifu Enterprises and Hunan Winco Light. On August 4, 2004, 
the Department received supplemental Section A responses from Qingdao 
Wenlong, Everlasting Business & Industry, Magicpro, BA Marketing, Max 
Fortune, and Samsam. On August 6, 2004, the Department received 
supplemental Section A responses from Fuzhou Light and Fujian Nanping.
    On July 29, 2004, Anhui Light filed its Supplemental Section A 
response. On August 4, 2004, the Department requested that Anhui Light 
re-file their supplemental Section A response due to improper filing. 
The Department did not receive a supplemental Section A response 
following the Department's August 4, 2004 letter. On August 10, 2004, 
the Department received a supplemental Section A response from Guilin.

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On July 1, 2004, Petitioners requested that the Department extend 
the deadline for issuance of the preliminary determinations in these 
investigations by 30 days, or until August 25 2004, to allow the 
Department to fully analyze and consider the information and arguments 
presented by parties in these investigations. On July 12, 2004, the 
Department postponed the preliminary determination by 30 days, to 
August 25, 2004 (see Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe 
Paper Products From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of the 
Preliminary Determinations of the Antidumping Duty Investigations 69 FR 
41785). On August 25, 2004, the Department postponed the preliminary 
determination by an additional 20 days to no later than September 14, 
2004. See Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China: Postponement of the 
Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping duty Investigations, 69 FR 
53414 (August 31, 2004). On September 10, 2004, Petitioners requested 
that the Department resort to total adverse facts available because 
China national failed to report complete and accurate company-specific 
FOP data.

Postponement of Final Determination

    Section 735(a) of the Act provides that a final determination may 
be postponed until no later than 135 days after the

[[Page 56410]]

date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the 
event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such 
postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant 
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise or, in the event of a 
negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is 
made by the Petitioners. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's 
regulations requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a 
final determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the 
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six 
months.
    On September 14, 2004, China National requested that, in the event 
of an affirmative preliminary determination in the tissue paper 
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination for 
tissue paper products until 135 days after the publication of the 
preliminary determination. All requests included a request to extend 
the provisional measures to not more than six months after the 
publication of the preliminary determination. Accordingly, because we 
have made an affirmative preliminary determination and the requesting 
parties account for a significant proportion of the exports of the 
subject merchandise, we have postponed the final determination for 
tissue paper products until no later than 135 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination and are extending the 
provisional measures accordingly as requested by China National.
    We have received no such requests from any of the respondents in 
the investigation of certain crepe paper products at this time, and 
thus the investigation will proceed as scheduled.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is July 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. This period 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the Petition (February 17, 2004). See 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

Tissue Paper Products

    The tissue paper products subject to investigation are cut-to-
length sheets of tissue paper having a basis weight not exceeding 29 
grams per square meter. Tissue paper products subject to this 
investigation may or may not be bleached, dye-colored, surface-colored, 
glazed, surface decorated or printed, sequined, crinkled, embossed, 
and/or die cut. The tissue paper subject to this investigation is in 
the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper with a width equal to 
or greater than one-half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue paper may be flat 
or folded, and may be packaged by banding or wrapping with paper or 
film, by placing in plastic or film bags, and/or by placing in boxes 
for distribution and use by the ultimate consumer. Packages of tissue 
paper subject to this investigation may consist solely of tissue paper 
of one color and/or style, or may contain multiple colors and/or 
styles.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation does not have 
specific classification numbers assigned to them under the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise may 
be under one or more of several different subheadings, including: 
4802.30; 4802.54; 4802.61; 4802.62; 4802.69; 4804.39; 4806.40; 4808.30; 
4808.90; 4811.90; 4823.90; 4820.50.00; 4802.90.00; 4805.91.90; 
9505.90.40. The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') purposes; however, the 
written description of the scope of these investigations is 
dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following 
tissue paper products: (1) Tissue paper products that are coated in 
wax, paraffin, or polymers, of a kind used in floral and food service 
applications; (2) tissue paper products that have been perforated, 
embossed, or die-cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., disposable 
sanitary covers for toilet seats; (3) toilet or facial tissue stock, 
towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind used for household or sanitary 
purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs of cellulose fibers (HTS 
4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00).

Crepe Paper Products

    Crepe paper products subject to this investigation have a basis 
weight not exceeding 29 grams per square meter prior to being creped 
and, if appropriate, flame-proofed. Crepe paper has a finely wrinkled 
surface texture and typically but not exclusively is treated to be 
flame-retardant. Crepe paper is typically but not exclusively produced 
as streamers in roll form and packaged in plastic bags. Crepe paper may 
or may not be bleached, dye-colored, surface-colored, surface decorated 
or printed, glazed, sequined, embossed, die-cut, and/or flame-
retardant. Subject crepe paper may be rolled, flat or folded, and may 
be packaged by banding or wrapping with paper, by placing in plastic 
bags, and/or by placing in boxes for distribution and use by the 
ultimate consumer. Packages of crepe paper subject to this 
investigation may consist solely of crepe paper of one color and/or 
style, or may contain multiple colors and/or styles.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation does not have 
specific classification numbers assigned to them under the HTSUS. 
Subject merchandise may be under one or more of several different 
subheadings, including: 4802.30; 4802.54; 4802.61; 4802.62; 4802.69; 
4804.39; 4806.40; 4808.30; 4808.90; 4811.90; 4818.90; 4823.90; 
9505.90.40. The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of 
these investigations is dispositive.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, an interested party 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested; 
(B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or 
in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as 
provided by section 782(I) of the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act 
further provides that an adverse inference may be used when a party has 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with a request for information.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, the Department 
may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the 
original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of 
the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary 
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements 
established by the administering authority'' if the information is 
timely, can be verified, and is not so incomplete that it cannot be 
used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in 
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the 
statute requires the Department to use the information,

[[Page 56411]]

if it can do so without undue difficulties.
    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of 
partial adverse facts available (``AFA'') is appropriate for the 
preliminary determination with respect to China National in the tissue 
paper investigation and total AFA is appropriate for the preliminary 
determination with respect to Magicpro and Fuzhou Light in the crepe 
paper investigation.

Tissue Paper Investigation

China National's Missing Factors of Production
    In the course of this investigation, China National stated that its 
affiliated converters of subject merchandise, Putian City Hongye Paper 
Products, Co. Ltd. (``Hongye''), Putian City Xingan Paper & Plastic 
Co., Ltd. (``Xingan''), and Putian City Chengxiang Qu Li Feng Paper 
Products Ltd. (``Lifeng'') receive either jumbo rolls of tissue paper 
or sheets of tissue paper from five suppliers, both affiliated and 
unaffiliated. In China National's original Section C and D filing, the 
company provided FOPs from Hongye and Guilin. The company stated that 
it attempted to obtain FOPs from Fujian Naoshan, however, Fujian 
Naoshan, ``a competitor {and mandatory respondent in this 
investigation{time} , declined to provide data directly to China 
National and instead has indicated that it will submit Section D data 
directly to the Department in the context of its own Section D 
response.'' See Response to the Questionnaire, Section D dated June 28, 
2004 (``Supplemental C and D''). Additionally, China National did not 
provide FOPs for merchandise received from Fuzhou Hunan Paper Products 
Co., Ltd. ( ``Hunan'') and Fuzhou Bonded Zone Jianye Packing Products 
Co., Ltd. (``Jianye'') in its original Section C and D response.
    In the Department's supplemental questionnaire, dated July 19, 
2004, the Department requested that China National obtain missing FOPs 
from Hunan, Jianye, and Fujian Naoshan. The Department also requested 
that if China National was unable to obtain FOPs from Hunan, Jianye, 
and Fujian Naoshan that it provide documentary evidence showing that 
these suppliers are unwilling to supply their FOPs. In China National's 
supplemental C and D response dated August 9, 2004, China National 
stated that Fujian Naoshan, Hunan, and Jianye refused to supply their 
FOPs to China National. China National provided correspondences between 
itself and its suppliers showing China National's requests for FOP data 
and Fujian Naoshan's, Hunan's, and Jianye's responses. In lieu of the 
FOPs from Fujian Naoshan, Hunan, and Jianye, China National stated that 
it has calculated ``applied percentages'' to ``merge small amounts 
supplied by unaffiliated suppliers into other amounts supplied in order 
to avoid fragmentation of calculations.'' See Supplemental C and D at 
page 21. China National stated that ``given the small amounts involved 
and the generally homogeneous nature of the product, we believe this 
method is not distortive and will facilitate the Department's 
calculations.'' See Supplemental C and D at 21. In place of the paper 
making factors from Fujian Naoshan, China National has reported its own 
usage rates for jumbo rolls and cut-to-length tissue paper purchased 
from Fujian Naoshan. China National stated that ``allocations between 
paper-making, jumbo rolls, and cut-to-length sheets were made on the 
basis of usage by each affiliated producer of white jumbo roll, colored 
jumbo roll, white cut-to-length sheets, colored cut-to-length sheets, 
and printed sheets.'' See Second Supplemental C and D Response at 6. 
After careful consideration, the Department finds that China National 
appropriately allocated usage rates among paper making, jumbo rolls, 
and cut-to-length tissue paper for production of tissue paper.
    In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department 
finds that ``an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' an 
adverse inference may be used in determining the facts otherwise 
available. Because Fujian Naoshan, Jianye, and Hunan, which, as 
producers of subject merchandise, are interested parties to China 
National's segment of this proceeding, did not act to the best of their 
ability by failing to provide the FOP information requested by the 
Department, we preliminary determine that it is appropriate to make an 
adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act with respect to 
the cut-to-length tissue paper purchased by China National from Fujian 
Naoshan, Jianye, and Hunan. As AFA for the missing FOPs for cut-to-
length tissue paper produced by Fujian Naoshan, we have assigned a 
surrogate value of the Petition normal value in U.S. dollars for 100 
units of 7 x 20, 20-count, white fold tissue paper converted to U.S. 
dollars per kilogram. See Petition at Exhibit 30. As facts available 
for the FOPs not provided by Jianye and Hunan, we calculated the 
percentage of missing factors by summing the quantity of cut-to-length 
tissue paper purchased by China National from Jianye and Hunan and 
dividing this quantity by the total quantity of cut-to-length paper 
purchases to arrive at a missing FOP factor. We increased China 
National's usage rate for Fujian Naoshan cut-to-length tissue paper 
with this calculated missing FOP factor. See China National Analysis 
Memo for calculation and Supplemental C and D Response at Exhibit 8.
China National's Inks and Dyes
    In China National's Section D response submitted to the Department 
on June 28, 2004, the company did not report its ink and dye usage on a 
CONNUM-specific basis. Instead, China National provided worksheets 
showing the calculation of ink and dye usage based on the color or 
pattern produced. In the FOP databases, China National reported the sum 
of the several dye usage rates to make a single color and the sum of 
various ink usage rates to produce a particular pattern. Reporting on 
the sum of dye and ink usage does not permit the Department to assign 
surrogate values to individual dyes and individual inks. Therefore, in 
the supplemental questionnaire dated September 3, 2004, the Department 
requested that China National revise its ink and dye databases to 
``calculate actual dye and ink usage on a CONNUM specific basis rather 
than a pattern or color specific basis.'' In China National's second C 
and D response, the company stated that it had provided links between 
the ink and dye databases and the FOP databases to allocate ink and dye 
usage on a CONNUM-specific basis. However, the Department finds that 
the links provided in China National's September 3, 2004 data filing do 
not permit a CONNUM-specific allocation for dyes and inks.
    In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act the Department 
is assigning a facts available usage rate to China National because it 
failed to provide the data in the manner the Department requested, 
which was to revise its ink and dye databases so the Department would 
be able to calculate their usage on a CONNUM rather than color-specific 
basis. Furthermore, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, if 
the Department finds that ``an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' an adverse inference may be used in determining the 
facts otherwise available. Because China National did not act to the 
best of its ability by not attempting to provide adequate linkages 
between its ink and dye databases and

[[Page 56412]]

the FOP databases to allocate dyes and inks on a CONNUM-specific basis, 
we preliminary determine that it is appropriate to make an adverse 
inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act with respect to all 
China National entities usage rates of inks and dyes. The Department 
has selected the highest surrogate value for dye and ink from Indian 
Import Statistics and applied this value to the sum of dyes and the sum 
of inks, respectively, reported in the company's FOP databases.
Crepe Paper Investigation
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the Department, fails to provide 
such information by the deadline or in the form or manner requested, 
significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information which 
cannot be verified, the Department shall use facts otherwise available 
in reaching the applicable determination. As noted above, both Magicpro 
and Fuzhou Light informed the Department in the course of this 
investigation that they no longer wish to participate in the crepe 
paper investigation. As such Fuzhou Light and Magicpro failed to 
demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate and therefore, we 
preliminarily determined that the PRC-wide rate should apply to them. 
See, e.g. Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of 
China, 69 FR 34125, 34127 (June 18, 2004).

Non-Market Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, the Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses 
for the PRC as a non-market economy. See Initiation Notice. In every 
case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been 
treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(I) of the Act, any determination that a foreign 
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). When the 
Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act directs us to base the normal value on the NME producer's 
factors of production, valued in an economically comparable market 
economy that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The 
sources of individual factor prices are discussed under the ``Factor 
Valuations'' section, below.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (``NV''), 
in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, 
valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to 
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) 
of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level 
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under 
the NV section below.
    The Department determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 
Philippines, Morocco, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in 
terms of economic development. See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to 
James Doyle: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Tissue Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China: Request for a List of 
Surrogate Countries, dated June 9, 2004 and See Memorandum from Ron 
Lorentzen to James Doyle: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 
Crepe Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Request for a 
List of Surrogate Countries, dated June 9, 2004. We select an 
appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability 
of data from the countries. See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: 
Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (``Policy 
Bulletin''), dated March 1, 2004. In this case, we have found that 
India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, certain 
tissue paper and crepe paper products, and there is a greater 
availability and reliability of data from India on such merchandise 
than there is from other potential surrogate countries. See Antidumping 
Duty Investigations on Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe 
Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a 
Surrogate Country, August 2, 2004 (``Surrogate Country Memo''). Since 
our issuance of the Surrogate Country Memo, we have not received 
comments from interested parties regarding this issue.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country 
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. The 
two tissue paper mandatory respondents and the Section A tissue paper 
and crepe paper respondents have provided company-specific information 
and each has stated that it met the standards for the assignment of a 
separate rate.
    We have considered whether each PRC company is eligible for a 
separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test is not concerned, in 
general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export 
licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these 
controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 
controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making 
process at the individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 
22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). In accordance with the 
separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME 
cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure 
and de facto governmental control over export activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining

[[Page 56413]]

whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal measures by 
the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 
FR at 20589. Our analysis shows that the evidence on the record 
supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental 
control based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive 
stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and 
export licenses; (2) the applicable legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) any other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Memorandum to Edward C. Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator, China/NME 
Group, Import Administration, from Hallie Zink, Case Analyst through 
James C. Doyle, Program Manager, Certain Tissue Paper Products and 
Certain Crepe Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: 
Separate Rates for Producers/Exporters that Submitted Questionnaire 
Responses, dated September 14, 2004 (``Separate Rates Memo'').

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.
    We determine that, for the mandatory tissue paper respondents and 
certain Section A tissue and crepe paper respondents, the evidence on 
the record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of 
governmental control based on record statements and supporting 
documentation showing the following: (1) Each exporter sets its own 
export prices independent of the government and without the approval of 
a government authority; (2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its 
sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits 
or financing of losses; (3) each exporter has the authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) each 
exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of 
management.
    Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation 
by the mandatory tissue paper respondents and certain Section A tissue 
and crepe paper respondents demonstrates an absence of government 
control, both in law and in fact, with respect to each of the 
exporter's exports of the merchandise under investigation, in 
accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide. As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary 
determination, we have granted separate, company-specific rates to the 
tissue paper mandatory respondents and certain Section A respondents 
which shipped certain tissue paper and certain crepe paper to the 
United States during the POI. For a full discussion of this issue and 
list of Section A respondents, please see the Separate-Rates Memo.

PRC-Wide Rate

    The Department has data that indicates there are more known 
exporters of certain tissue paper and certain crepe paper products from 
the PRC during the POI than responded to our quantity and value 
(``Q&V'') questionnaire. See Tissue Respondent Selection Memo and Crepe 
Respondent Selection Memo. We issued the Q&V questionnaire to 74 known 
Chinese exporters of tissue paper and 73 known Chinese exporters of 
crepe paper, as identified in the petition. We received 24 tissue paper 
Q&V questionnaire responses and seven crepe paper Q&V questionnaire 
responses, including those from the four mandatory respondents. Also, 
on April 28, 2004, we issued a questionnaire to the Government of the 
PRC (i.e., Ministry of Commerce). Although all known exporters were 
given an opportunity to provide information showing they qualify for 
separate rates, not all of these other exporters provided a response to 
either the Department's Q&V questionnaire or its Section A 
questionnaire. Additionally, the two mandatory respondents in crepe 
paper Fuzhou Light and Magicpro both withdrew from the crepe paper 
investigation. Further, the Government of the PRC did not respond to 
the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, the Department determines 
preliminarily that there were exports of the merchandise under 
investigation from other PRC producers/exporters, which are treated as 
part of the countrywide entity.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that 
there are numerous producers/exporters of certain tissue paper and 
crepe paper products in the PRC. As described above, all exporters were 
given the opportunity to respond to the Department's questionnaire. 
Based upon our knowledge of the volume of imports of subject 
merchandise from the PRC and the fact that information indicates that 
the responding companies did not account for all imports into the 
United States from the PRC, we have preliminary determined that certain 
PRC exporters of certain tissue paper and crepe paper products failed 
to respond to our questionnaires. As a result, use of facts available 
(``FA'') pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act is appropriate. 
Additionally, in this case, the Government of the PRC did not respond 
to the Department's questionnaire, thereby necessitating the use of FA 
to determine the PRC-wide rate.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, the Department may employ adverse inferences if an 
interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with requests for information. See ``Statement of 
Administrative Action'' accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 
870 (1994) (``SAA''). We find that, because the PRC-wide entity and 
certain producers/exporters did not respond at all to our request for 
information, they have failed to cooperate to the best of their 
ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in 
selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is 
appropriate.
    In accordance with our standard practice, as AFA, we have assigned 
the PRC-wide entity the higher of the highest margin stated in the 
notice of initiation (i.e., the recalculated petition margin) or the 
highest margin calculated for any respondent in this investigation. See 
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's 
Republic of China 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000) and accompanying Issues 
and

[[Page 56414]]

Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1. In this case, we have applied a rate 
of 163.36 percent for tissue paper and 266.83 percent for crepe paper, 
the highest rate calculated in the Initiation Notice of these 
investigations from information provided in the petition. See e.g., 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Germany, 63 FR 10847 (March 5, 1998).

Corroboration of Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the 
SAA as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to 
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value. Id. The 
SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate may 
include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics 
and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties 
during the particular investigation. Id. As explained in Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and 
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.
    The Petitioners' methodology for calculating the export price and 
NV in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice. See 
Initiation Notice, 69 FR at 12128. To corroborate the AFA margin of 
163.36 percent for tissue paper, we compared that margin to margins we 
found for a significant exporting respondent. The Department did not 
calculate any margins for the mandatory crepe paper respondents. 
Therefore, to corroborate the AFA margin of 266.83 percent for crepe 
paper, we compared the U.S. price of a significant exporter of crepe 
paper to the U.S. price in the petition. We also compared the paper 
usage rate between a significant producer of crepe paper and the paper 
usage rate calculated in the petition.
    As discussed in the Memorandum to the File regarding the 
corroboration of the AFA rate, we found that the margins of 163.36 
percent for tissue paper and 266.83 percent for crepe paper have 
probative value. See Memorandum to the File from Michael Ferrier, 
Senior Case Analyst through James C. Doyle, Program Manager and Edward 
C. Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator, China/NME Group, Preliminary 
Determination in the Investigation of Certain Tissue Paper Products and 
Certain Crepe Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, 
Corroboration Memorandum (``Corroboration Memo''), dated September 14, 
2004. Accordingly, we find that the margin, based on the petition 
information as described above, of 163.36 percent for tissue paper and 
266.83 percent for crepe paper are corroborated within the meaning of 
section 776(c) of the Act.
    Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate--the PRC-
wide rate--to producers/exporters that failed to respond to the Q&V 
questionnaire or Section A questionnaire, as well as to exporters which 
did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. See e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from 
the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000). The 
PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under 
investigation except for entries from the two tissue paper mandatory 
respondents and certain Section A respondents in both the tissue and 
crepe paper investigations.
    Because this is a preliminary determination, the Department will 
consider all margins on the record at the time of the final 
determination for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final 
PRC-wide margin. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China, 67 
FR 79054 (December 27, 2002).

Margins for Section A Respondents

    The exporters which submitted responses to Section A of the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire and had sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI but were not selected 
as mandatory respondents in this investigation (Section A respondents) 
have applied for separate rates and provided information for the 
Department to consider for this purpose. Therefore, for the tissue 
paper Section A respondents which provided sufficient evidence that 
they are separate from the countrywide entity and answered other 
questions in section A of the questionnaire, we have established a 
weighted-average margin based on the rates we have calculated for the 
two mandatory tissue paper respondents, excluding any rates that are 
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on adverse facts available. Tissue 
paper companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
    For the crepe paper Section A respondents which provided sufficient 
evidence that they are separate from the country-wide entity and 
answered other questions in section A of the questionnaire, we have 
established a 266.83 margin based the petition rate. Section 
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated weighted-
average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers 
individually investigated are zero or de minimis, or are determined 
entirely under Section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any 
reasonable method to establish the estimated ``all others'' rate for 
exports not individually investigated. This provision contemplates that 
the Department may weight-average margins other than zero, de minimis, 
and facts available margins to establish the ``all others'' rate. Where 
the data do not permit weight-averaging such rates, the SAA, at 873, 
provides that we may use other reasonable methods. Because the petition 
contained only a single price-to-NV dumping margin, there are no other 
estimated margins available with which to create the rate for the crepe 
paper Section A respondents. Therefore, we applied the petition margin 
of 266.83 percent as the rate for the crepe paper Section A 
respondents. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Flat Products 
From Indonesia, 66 FR 22163 (May 3, 2001), Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High 
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 
16, 2003), and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from 
Japan 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003).

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(I) of the Department's regulations states that ``in 
identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like 
product, the Secretary normally will use the date of

[[Page 56415]]

invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the 
normal course of business. However, the Secretary may use a date other 
than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different 
date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer 
establishes the material terms of sale.'' Fujian Naoshan stated and 
provided sample sales contracts and invoices demonstrating that during 
the POI there were changes in delivery terms between the sales 
confirmation and the sales invoices. See Fujian Naoshan's Supplemental 
C and D Response, dated August 9, 2004, at page C-3 and Exhibit S-20. 
China National stated that there are changes up to the date of 
shipment. China National stated the quantity shipped is not confirmed 
until after loading of the shipment. China National stated that it will 
revise the invoiced quantity to reflect the actual amount of material 
shipped but not revise the date on the commercial invoice. After 
examining the sales documentation placed on the record by Fujian 
Naoshan and China National we preliminary determine that invoice date 
and date of shipment are the most appropriate date of sale for these 
respondents, respectively. We made this determination because, at this 
time, there is not enough evidence on the record to determine that the 
contracts used by the respondent establish the material terms of sale 
to the extent required by our regulations in order to rebut the 
presumption that invoice date is the proper date of sale. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin 
From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 79054 (December 27, 2002).

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of certain tissue paper products to the 
United States of the mandatory respondent were made at less than fair 
value, we compared export price (``EP'') or constructed export price 
(``CEP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for the 
mandatory tissue paper respondents, because the subject merchandise was 
first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the 
producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United 
States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, and 
because the use of CEP price was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated EP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered 
price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United 
States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses 
(e.g., foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
exportation, domestic brokerage, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
brokerage, and inland freight from warehouse to unaffiliated U.S. 
customer) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. For a 
detailed description of all adjustments, see the company-specific 
analysis memorandum dated September 14, 2004.
    We compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with section 
777A(d) of the Act. For a discussion of the surrogate values used for 
the movements deductions, see Memorandum to The File, From Kit Rudd, 
Case Analyst, Selection of Factor Values for Fujian Naoshan Paper 
Industry Group Co. Ltd. (``Factor Valuation Memo'') at Exhibit 5.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country and the information does 
not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. 
The Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government 
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price 
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its 
normal methodologies.
    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC FOPs in 
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. FOPs include, but are not 
limited to hours of labor required, quantities of raw materials 
employed, amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and 
representative capital costs, including depreciation. In examining 
surrogate values, we selected, where possible, the publicly available 
value which was an average non-export value, representative of a range 
of prices within the POI or most contemporaneous with the POI, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. We used the usage rates reported by 
respondents for materials, energy, labor, by-products, and packing. For 
a more detailed explanation of the methodology used in calculating 
various surrogate values, see Factor-Valuation Memo.

Mixed Packages

    During the POI, China National sold packages of merchandise that 
contained both tissue paper and non-subject merchandise to the Untied 
States. China National stated that the non-subject merchandise 
consisted of mulberry paper, mylar film, iridescent film, oriented poly 
propylene, and crepe paper. China National noted that the percentage of 
these sales of mixed packages constitutes less than five percent of its 
total sales to the United States and urged the Department to exclude 
these sales from the margin calculation. In Petitioners' August 9, 2004 
submission, Petitioners provided publicly available information to 
value the non-subject merchandise components of these mixed packages. 
For this preliminary determination, the Department has included these 
sales of mixed packages in the margin calculation because the products 
under investigation are cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper, and not 
packages of tissue paper. Packaging the subject merchandise with non-
subject merchandise does not transform the subject merchandise into 
merchandise outside the scope of the investigation. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from 
Ecuador, 60 FR 7019 (February 6, 1995). Additionally, CBP disaggregates 
cut-to-length tissue paper from non-subject merchandise, requiring 
separate reporting and collection of duties on individual cut-to-length 
sheets of tissue paper regardless of how they are imported. As a 
result, CBP, in this case, will collect duty deposits only on cut-to-
length sheets of tissue paper, not the entire package of tissue paper 
combined with non-subject merchandise.
    As part of the margin calculation we valued mulberry paper, mylar 
film, iridescent film, oriented polypropylene (``OPP''), and crepe 
paper using Indian import statistics and surrogate values provided by 
Petitioners. In the margin calculation, we added the value of this non-
subject merchandise to NV, analogous to the Department's practice of 
adding a respondent's packing costs (e.g., cartons, adhesive tape, 
labels) to NV. Interested parties are invited to provide additional 
surrogate values for mulberry paper, mylar film, iridescent film, OPP, 
and crepe paper for consideration in the final determination. In 
addition, interested parties are invited to comment on the 
appropriateness of including the non-subject merchandise component of 
these mixed packages in the dumping margin calculation.

[[Page 56416]]

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly 
available Indian surrogate values. In selecting the surrogate values, 
we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the 
data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight 
costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian 
import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of 
the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the 
distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. 
This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 
1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all surrogate 
values used for respondents, see Factor-Valuation Memo. For a detailed 
description of all actual values used for market-economy inputs, see 
Fujian Naoshan's analysis memorandum dated September 13, 2004.
    Except as discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using the 
weighted-average unit import values derived from the Indian Import 
Statistics. See Factor-Valuation Memorandum. The Indian Import 
Statistics we obtained from the World Trade Atlas were published by the 
DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India, which were reported in rupees 
and are contemporaneous with the POI. Where we could not obtain 
publicly available information contemporaneous with the POI with which 
to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using the Indian 
Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in the International 
Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.
    Furthermore, with regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate 
values and the market-economy input values, we have disregarded prices 
that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have 
reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, 
South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in 
other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to 
infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be 
subsidized. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002). We are also 
directed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal 
investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. 
Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, Congress directed the Department to 
base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it 
makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these 
countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate 
values or in calculating market-economy input values. In instances 
where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located 
in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to 
value the input. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's 
Republic of China (``CTVs from the PRC''), 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 
2004).
    Indian surrogate values denominated in foreign currencies were 
converted to USD using the applicable average exchange rate for India 
for the POI. The average exchange rate was based on exchange rate data 
from the Department's website. The POI exchange rate used is 45.76 
Rupees per USD.

Surrogate Values

Wood Pulp Surrogate Value
    The Department notes that the value of the main input, wood pulp, 
is an important factor of production in our dumping calculation as it 
accounts for a significant percentage of NV. As a general matter, the 
Department prefers to use publicly available data to value surrogate 
values from the surrogate country to determine factor prices that, 
among other things: represent a broad market average; are 
contemporaneous with the POI; and are specific to the input in 
question. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 
27530, (May 20, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
at Comment 1.
    The companies produce tissue paper with softwood pulp, hardwood 
pulp, bamboo pulp, kraft pulp, and waste paper. We valued softwood pulp 
for Fujian Naoshan and China National using the companies respective 
market economy purchases. We valued the remaining forms of pulp and 
paper, except for bamboo pulp, by selecting all Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (``HTS'') categories of Indian Import Statistics that contain 
the type of wood in the HTS description, analogous to Petitioners' 
proposed calculation of this value. However, China National recommended 
``mechanical wood pulp'' as a surrogate value for hardwood pulp. Since 
China National has not explained why mechanical wood pulp is an 
appropriate surrogate value for hardwood pulp, we have not included 
these HTS values in the surrogate value for hardwood pulp. We valued 
bamboo pulp using HTS values of softwood pulp since no HTS value for 
bamboo pulp was located. See Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 3.
    Both Petitioners and China National proposed specific HTS 
classifications for waste paper and imported waste paper. To encompass 
all forms of waste paper and imported waste paper, we selected an HTS 
category that covered waste from all forms of paper and paperboard in 
the HTS description. See Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 3.
    To value dyes, the Department used data obtained from Indian 
Chemical Weekly (``ICW'') for prices in effect on the Mumbai Dyes 
Market during the POI. The Department used the highest available dye 
value from the ICW price quotes to value all dyes. The Department used 
these price quotes because they were contemporaneous and more closely 
descriptive than the dye HTS classifications. To value inks, the 
Department selected HTS classification 3215.19 from Indian Import 
Statistics. See Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 3. To value chemicals 
used in the production of tissue paper (i.e., optical brightener, 
talcum powder, and whitener), the Department searched Indian Import 
Statistics for HTS classifications with the specific chemical name. See 
Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 3.
    We valued electricity using rates from Key World Energy Statistics 
2003, published by the International Energy Agency (``IEA''). The 
Department valued steam using a surrogate value calculated in the 
investigation of hot-rolled steel from China. See Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Steel Flat Products from the Peoples' Republic of China Factors of 
Production: Valuation for Preliminary Determination (May 3, 2001) and 
Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 7.
    To value scrap, the Department searched Indian Import Statistics 
for HTS 4707.00, ``waste and scrap of paper or paperboard.'' The 
Department valued water with the Asian Development Bank's Second Water 
Utilities Data Book (1997) and adjusted for inflation.
    To value packing materials (cartons, plastic bags, and adhesive 
tape), the Department used Indian Import

[[Page 56417]]

Statistics published by WTA. See Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibits 3 
and 4.
    To value Factory Overhead (``FOH''), Selling, General & 
Administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and Profit for all respondents, we 
used the 2002-2003 financial statement of Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills, 
Ltd. (``Pudumjee''), an integrated producer of tissue paper and other 
paper products. See Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 8. Consistent with 
Department practice, we have included ``consumption of stores, colors, 
chemicals, etc.'' in factory overhead. There is no evidence that they 
are related solely to production. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 
the People's Republic of China, 39 FR 34125 (June 18, 2004) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3 and Factor 
Valuation Memo at Exhibit 8.

Critical Circumstances

    On June 18, 2004, the Petitioners alleged that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist 
with respect to the antidumping investigations of certain tissue paper 
and certain crepe paper from the PRC. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.206(c)(2)(i), because the Petitioners submitted critical 
circumstances allegations more than 20 days before the scheduled date 
of the preliminary determination, the Department must issue preliminary 
critical circumstances determinations not later than the date of the 
preliminary determination.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history 
of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the 
United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (ii) the 
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew 
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject 
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be 
material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides 
that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have 
been ``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) The volume 
and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 
351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase 
in imports of 15 percent during the ``relatively short period''of time 
may be considered ``massive.'' Section 351.206(I) of the Department's 
regulations defines ``relatively short period'' as normally being the 
period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the 
petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. The 
regulations also provide, however, that if the Department finds that 
importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at some time 
prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, 
the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from 
that earlier time.
    In determining whether the relevant statutory criteria have been 
satisfied, we considered: (i) The evidence presented by Petitioners in 
their June 18, 2004, filing; (ii) new evidence obtained since the 
initiation of the LTFV investigation (i.e., additional import 
statistics released by the U.S. Census Bureau); and (iii) the 
International Trade Commission's (``ITC'') preliminary determination of 
material injury by reason of imports.
    To determine whether there is a history of injurious dumping of the 
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with section 
733(e)(1)(A)(I) of the Act, the Department normally considers evidence 
of an existing antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise in the 
United States or elsewhere to be sufficient. See Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Ukraine and Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000). With 
regard to imports of certain tissue paper products and certain crepe 
paper products from the PRC, Petitioners make no statement concerning a 
history of dumping for the PRC. We are not aware of any antidumping 
order in the United States or in any country on certain tissue paper 
products and certain crepe paper products from the PRC. For this 
reason, the Department does not find a history of injurious dumping of 
the subject merchandise from the PRC pursuant to section 
733(e)(1)(A)(I) of the Act.
    To determine whether the person by whom, or for whose account, the 
merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter 
was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and 
that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales in 
accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department 
normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export price sales 
transactions sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping. See Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 
31978 (October 19, 2001). Because the preliminary dumping margins of 
the mandatory respondents and the Section A Respondents for both tissue 
paper and crepe paper are greater than 15 percent for EP, we find there 
is a reasonable basis to impute to importers knowledge of dumping with 
respect to all imports of tissue paper and crepe paper from the PRC. 
See Critical Circumstance Memo at Attachment I.
    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the 
Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject 
merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing 
of the petition (i.e., the ``base period'') to a comparable period of 
at least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the 
``comparison period''). However, as stated in section 351.206(I) of the 
Department's regulations, if the Secretary finds importers, exporters, 
or producers had reason to believe at some time prior to the beginning 
of the proceeding that a proceeding was likely, then the Secretary may 
consider a time period of not less than three months from that earlier 
time. Imports normally will be considered massive when imports during 
the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to 
imports during the base period.
    For the reasons set forth in the Critical Circumstances Memo, we 
find sufficient bases exist for finding importers, or exporters, or 
producers knew or should have known an antidumping case was pending on 
certain tissue paper imports and certain crepe paper imports from the 
PRC by February 2004, at the latest. In addition, in accordance with 
section 351.206(I) of the Department's regulations, we determined 
December 2003 through February 2004 should serve as the ``base 
period,'' while March 2004 through May 2004 should serve as the 
``comparison period'' in determining whether or not imports have been 
massive in the comparison period as these periods represent the most 
recently available data for analysis.
    In this case, the volume of imports of certain tissue paper 
products and crepe paper products from the PRC, which are both 
classified within the same HTSUS U.S. subheadings, increased 51 percent 
from the critical circumstances base period (December 2003 through

[[Page 56418]]

February 2004) to the critical circumstances comparison period (March 
2004 through May 2004). See Critical Circumstances Memo at Attachment 
III.
    For the two tissue paper mandatory respondents, China National and 
Fujian Naoshan, that submitted critical circumstances data, we 
preliminarily determine, as noted above, that importers knew or should 
have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at 
less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material 
injury by reason of such sales in accordance with section 
733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. For China National in the tissue paper 
investigation, we also found massive imports over a relatively short 
period. See Critical Circumstance Memo at Attachment II. China National 
satisfies the imputed knowledge of injurious dumping criterion under 
section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act and the massive imports in 
accordance with section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for China 
National. Critical circumstances do not exist for Fujian Naoshan. See 
Critical Circumstance Memo at Attachment II.
    With regard to the PRC-wide entities in both cases and the crepe 
paper Section A respondents, as noted above, we preliminary find that 
importers knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the 
subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales in accordance with 
section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we also find massive 
imports over a relatively short period because the volume of imports of 
certain tissue paper products and crepe paper products from the PRC-
wide entity increased more than 15 percent. See Critical Circumstance 
Memo at Attachment II. Therefore, we preliminary find that critical 
circumstances exist for the PRC-wide entities in both cases and the 
crepe paper Section A respondents.
    Given the analysis summarized above, and described in more detail 
in the Critical Circumstances Memo, we preliminarily determine that 
critical circumstances exist for imports of certain tissue paper 
products and crepe paper products from China National (tissue paper) 
and the PRC-wide entity (tissue paper and crepe paper). However, for 
Fujian Naoshan and the tissue paper Section A respondents receiving a 
separate rate, we preliminarily determine that no critical 
circumstances exist because we do not find massive imports over a 
relatively short period.
    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances for all producers/exporters of subject merchandise from 
the PRC when we make our final dumping determinations in this 
investigation, which will be 135 days after publication of the 
preliminary dumping determination.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(I)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                  Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Certain Tissue Paper Products From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory Respondents:
  Fujian Naoshan........................................            9.55
  China National........................................          125.58
  PRC-Wide Rate.........................................          163.36
 
Section A Respondents:
  BA Marketing and Industrial Co., Ltd..................           91.32
  Everlasting Business and Industry Co., Ltd............           91.32
  Fujian Xinjifu Enterprises Co., Ltd...................           91.32
  Fujian Nanping Investment and Enterprise Co., Ltd.....           91.32
  Fuzhou Magicpro Gifts Co., Ltd........................           91.32
  Fuzhou Light Industry Import and Export Co., Ltd......           91.32
  Guiling Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd.........................           91.32
  Max Fortune Industrial Limited........................           91.32
  Ningbo Spring Stationary Co., Ltd.....................           91.32
  Qingdao Wenlong Co., Ltd..............................           91.32
  Samsam Production Limited and Guangzhou Baxi Products            91.32
   Co., Ltd.............................................
---------------------------------------------------------
                Certain Crepe Paper Products From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate...........................................          266.83
 
Section A Respondents:
  Everlasting Business and Industry Co. Ltd.............          266.83
  Fujian Nanping Investment and Enterprise Co., Ltd.....          266.83
  Fujian Xinjifu Enterprises Co., Ltd...................          266.83
  Ningbo Spring Stationary Co., Ltd.....................          266.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, with respect to 
Fujian Naoshan and the tissue paper Section A respondents receiving a 
separate rate, we will instruct the CBP to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register. With respect to China National, the crepe paper 
Section A Respondents receiving a separate rate and the PRC-wide 
entities for tissue paper and crepe paper, the Department will direct 
CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain tissue paper 
products and certain crepe paper products from the PRC that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 
days prior to the date of publication in the Federal Register of our 
preliminary determinations in these investigations. We will instruct 
CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as 
indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect 
until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determinations of sales 
at less than fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the 
ITC make a final determination before the later of 120 days after the 
date of the Department's preliminary determination or 45 days after the 
Department's final determinations whether the domestic industry in the 
United States is materially injured, or threatened with material 
injury, by reason of imports of certain tissue paper products and 
certain crepe paper products, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 
importation, of the subject merchandise.

Public Comment

    Case briefs may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration no later than seven days after the date of the final 
verification reports issued in these proceedings and rebuttal briefs 
limited to issues raised in case briefs, no later than five days after 
the deadline date for case briefs. A list of authorities used and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department.

[[Page 56419]]

This summary should be limited to five pages total, including 
footnotes.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we will intend to hold the hearing three days 
after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties 
should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing 
two days before the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, 
and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief.
    We will make our final determinations no later than 75 days after 
the date of publication of this preliminary determination for certain 
crepe paper products and 135 days after the date of publication of this 
preliminary determination for certain tissue paper products, pursuant 
to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
    These determinations are issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.

    September 14, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assitant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E4-2285 Filed 9-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-P