[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 213 (Monday, November 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62430-62435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21710]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-840, A-580-860, A-570-920]


Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: 
Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the 
People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 5, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov at (202) 482-0665 
(Republic of Korea), Blanche Ziv at (202) 482-4207 or Hallie Zink at 
(202) 482-6907 (People's Republic of China), Victoria Cho at (202) 482-
5075 or Christopher Hargett at (202) 482-4161 (Germany), Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230.

INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION

The Petition

    On September 19, 2007, the Department of Commerce (Department) 
received an antidumping petition concerning lightweight thermal paper 
from Germany, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and the People's Republic 
of China (PRC), filed by Appleton Papers, Inc. (the petitioner) on 
behalf of the domestic industry producing

[[Page 62431]]

lightweight thermal paper. See Antidumping Duty Petition on Lightweight 
Thermal Paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the People's 
Republic of China and Countervailing Duty Petition on Lightweight 
Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China (September 19, 2007) 
(Petition).
The petitioner is a domestic producer of lightweight thermal paper 
(LWTP). On September 24, 2007, the Department issued a request for 
additional information and clarification of certain areas of the 
Petition. On September 28, 2007, in response to the Department's 
request, the petitioner filed a supplement to the Petition. See 
Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the 
People's Republic of China; Petitioner's Response to the Department's 
September 24, 2007 Request for Clarification of Certain Items Contained 
in the Petition (September 28, 2007) (Supplement to the Petition).
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of LWTP from 
Germany, Korea, and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 
of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or 
threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. The 
petitioner also alleges that sales of LWTP from Germany and Korea have 
been made at prices below the cost of production (COP).
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the initiation of the antidumping duty 
investigations that the petitioner is requesting. See the 
``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' section below.

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on September 19, 2007, the 
anticipated period of investigation (POI) for Germany and Korea is July 
1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. The anticipated POI for the PRC is 
January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007. See 19 CFR 351.204(b).

Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by each of these investigations includes 
certain lightweight thermal paper, which is thermal paper with a basis 
weight of 70 grams per square meter (g/m\2\) (with a tolerance of 
 4.0 g/m\2\) or less; irrespective of dimensions;\1\ with 
or without a base coat\2\ on one or both sides; with thermal active 
coating(s)\3\ on one or both sides that is a mixture of the dye and the 
developer that react and form an image when heat is applied; with or 
without a top coat;\4\ and without an adhesive backing. Certain 
lightweight thermal paper is typically (but not exclusively) used in 
point-of-sale applications such as ATM receipts, credit card receipts, 
gas pump receipts, and retail store receipts. The merchandise subject 
to these investigations may be classified in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 4811.90.8040 
and 4811.90.9090.\5\ Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of these investigations are dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ LWTP is typically produced in jumbo rolls that are slit to 
the specifications of the converting equipment and then converted 
into finished slit rolls. Both jumbo rolls and converted rolls (as 
well as LWTP in any other forms, presentations, or dimensions) are 
covered by the scope of these investigations.
    \2\ A base coat, when applied, is typically made of clay and/or 
latex and like materials and is intended to cover the rough surface 
of the paper substrate and to provide insulating value.
    \3\ A thermal active coating is typically made of sensitizer, 
dye, and co-reactant.
    \4\ A top coat, when applied, is typically made of polyvinyl 
acetone, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or like materials and is intended to 
provide environmental protection, an improved surface for press 
printing, and/or wear protection for the thermal print head.
    \5\ HTSUS subheading 4811.90.8000 was a classification used for 
LWTP until January 1, 2007. Effective that date, subheading 
4811.90.8000 was replaced with 4811.90.8020 (for gift wrap, a non-
subject product) and 4811.90.8040 (for ``other,'' including LWTP). 
HTSUS subheading 4811.90.9000 was a classification for LWTP until 
July 1, 2005. Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.9000 was 
replaced with 4811.90.9010 (for tissue paper, a non-subject product) 
and 4811.90.9090 (for ``other,'' including LWTP). Petitioner 
indicated that, from time to time, LWTP also may have been entered 
under HTSUS subheading 3703.90, HTSUS heading 4805, and perhaps 
other subheadings of the HTSUS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Scope of Investigations

    We are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise 
issues regarding product coverage. See, e.g., Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 
The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such 
comments within 20 calendar days of signature of this notice. Comments 
should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit 
(CRU), Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope 
consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample 
opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior 
to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed by 
or on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In 
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of 
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions 
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. 
Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United 
States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 
1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like,

[[Page 62432]]

most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to 
an investigation under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from 
which the domestic like product analysis begins is ``the article 
subject to an investigation,'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise 
to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not 
offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that lightweight thermal paper, both 
jumbo rolls and converted slit rolls, constitute a single domestic like 
product, which is defined further in the ``Scope of the 
Investigations'' section above, and we have analyzed industry support 
in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the 
domestic like product analysis in this case, see the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Lightweight Thermal Paper from 
Germany (Germany Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II, Antidumping 
Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Lightweight Thermal Paper from 
Korea (Korea Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II, and the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Lightweight 
Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China (PRC Initiation 
Checklist) at Attachment II, on file in the CRU, Room B-099 of the main 
Department of Commerce building.
    On October 9, 2007, the Department extended the initiation deadline 
by 20 days to poll the domestic industry in accordance with section 
702(c)(4)D) of the Act, because it was ``not clear from the petitions 
whether the industry support criteria have been met...'' See Notice of 
Extension of the Deadline for Determining the Adequacy of the 
Antidumping Duty Petitions: Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, the 
Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic of China; and the 
Countervailing Duty Petition: Lightweight Thermal Paper from the 
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 58639 (October 16, 2007).
    On October 12 and 15, 2007, we issued polling questionnaires to all 
known producers of jumbo rolls and converted slit rolls of lightweight 
thermal paper identified in the petitions, submissions from other 
interested parties, and by the ITC. The questionnaires are on file in 
the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. We 
requested that each company complete the polling questionnaire and 
certify their responses by faxing their responses to the Department by 
the due date. For a detailed discussion of the responses received see 
the Germany Initiation Checklist, Korea Initiation Checklist, and PRC 
Initiation Checklist (collectively, ``Initiation Checklists'') at 
Attachment II.
    Our analysis of the data indicates that the domestic producers of 
lightweight thermal paper who support the petitions account for at 
least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product 
and more than 50 percent of the production (by quantity and U.S. dollar 
sales value) of the domestic like product produced by that portion of 
the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petitions. 
See Initiation Checklists at Attachment II. Accordingly, the Department 
determines that the industry support requirements of section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act have been met. Therefore, the Department 
determines that the petitioner filed these petitions on behalf of the 
domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in 
section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the antidumping investigations that it 
is requesting the Department initiate. See Initiation Checklists at 
Attachment II.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports 
of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). The 
petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share, increased inventories, lost sales, 
reduced production, reduced capacity and capacity utilization rate, 
reduced shipments, underselling and price depression or suppression, 
lost revenue, and a decline in financial performance. We have assessed 
the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and 
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly 
supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation. See Initiation Checklists at Attachment III (Injury).

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate these investigations on imports of LWTP from Germany, Korea, 
and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments 
relating to the U.S. price as well as NV for Germany and Korea are 
discussed in greater detail in the Initiation Checklists. We corrected 
certain information in the petitioner's margin calculations for the 
PRC. The corrections are provided in detail in the PRC Initiation 
Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this information as 
facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or 
final determinations, we will re-examine the information and revise the 
margin calculations, if appropriate.

Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: Germany

    The petitioner calculated export price (EP) using information from 
Koehler and Mitsubishi Hi-Tec, two manufacturers of LWTP in Germany. 
The price data are based on the same products used as the basis for the 
cost model, as well as the basis for NV. The petitioner's calculation 
of EP starts with the gross price. The petitioner then calculated net 
price by deducting the amount for U.S. inland freight, ocean freight 
and insurance to arrive at an ex-factory price. See Petition Volume III 
at 9 and Exhibits 12, 13, 14, and 15. The petitioner did not deduct 
foreign inland freight because the manufacturer's plants are located 
near waterways in Germany. However, the petitioner estimated U.S. 
inland freight charges by using freight charges from the most likely 
port of entry to the respective delivery points. See Petition, Volume 
III at Exhibit 15.

Normal Value: Germany

    The petitioner was able to determine domestic German prices for 
LWTP by obtaining pricing data for Mitsubishi Hitec, through a market 
researcher. See memorandum entitled, ``Telephone Call to Market 
Research Firm Regarding the Antidumping Petition on Lightweight Thermal 
Paper (LWTP) from Germany,'' dated October 5, 2007. The petitioner 
deducted freight and other appropriate items from the gross price to 
obtain the NV. See Germany Petition, Volume III at page 2 and Exhibits 
2-4. The petitioner then converted the Euro per metric ton (MT) amount 
to U.S. dollar per MT amount by applying the POI exchange rate.

Cost of Production: Germany

    The petitioner has provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of thermal paper in the home 
market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the 
meaning of

[[Page 62433]]

section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a 
sales-below-cost investigation. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); selling, general 
and administrative (SG&A) expenses; financial expenses; and packing 
expenses. The petitioner calculated COM and packing expenses using 
input quantities based on the production experience of a U.S. LWTP 
manufacturer during the POI, multiplied by the costs incurred to 
manufacture LWTP in Germany using publicly available data. To calculate 
average factory overhead, SG&A and financial expense rates, petitioner 
relied on the 2006 financial statements of Koehler Holding GmbH & Co., 
KG.
    Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign-like product 
in the home market to the calculated COP of the product, we find 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a 
country-wide cost investigation. If we determine during the course of 
the investigation that the home market (i.e., Germany) is not viable, 
our initiation of a country-wide cost investigation with respect to 
sales in Germany will be rendered moot. See Germany Initiation 
Checklist.

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value: Germany

    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioner calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). The 
petitioner calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial 
and packing figures used to compute the COP. The petitioner then added 
profit based on the profit rate calculated based on the 2006 financial 
statements of Koehler Holding GmbH & Co., KG. See Germany Initiation 
Checklist.

Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: Korea

    The petitioner calculated export price using pricing data in the 
United States provided by a Korean manufacturer of the subject 
merchandise. The petitioner adjusted U.S. prices for international 
freight and insurance and U.S. inland freight. See Petition, Volume IV 
at pages 8-9.

Normal Value: Korea

    The petitioner was able to determine domestic Korean prices for 
lightweight thermal paper by obtaining pricing data, through an 
economic consultant, from a Korean manufacturer of lightweight thermal 
paper. See Memorandum entitled, ``Telephone Call to Market Research 
Firm Regarding the Antidumping Petition on Lightweight Thermal Paper 
from Korea,'' dated October 1, 2007. The pricing data did not identify 
specific sales and payment terms associated with it. The petitioner 
claims that a Korean manufacturer made it known to an economic 
consultant that, with one exception, all pricing data are on a 
delivered basis. The petitioner did not make an adjustment to home-
market price for foreign inland freight because it did not make a 
similar adjustment to U.S. price. See Petition, Volume IV at pages 2-3.

Cost of Production: Korea

    The petitioner has provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of thermal paper in the home 
market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department 
conduct a sales-below-cost investigation. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) 
of the Act, COP consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, financial expenses, 
and packing expenses. The petitioner calculated COM and packing 
expenses using input quantities based on the production experience of a 
U.S. LWTP producer during the POI, multiplied by the costs incurred to 
manufacture LWTP in Korea using publicly available data. To calculate 
average factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates, the 
petitioner relied on the most current financial statements of Hansol, a 
thermal paper producer in Korea.
    Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign-like product 
in the home market to the calculated COP of the product, we find 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(I) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a 
country-wide cost investigation. See Korea Initiation Checklist.

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value: Korea

    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioner calculated NV based on CV. The petitioner calculated CV 
using the same average COM, SG&A, financial and packing figures used to 
compute the COP. The petitioner did not include profit because Hansol 
incurred a loss during 2006. See Korea Initiation Checklist.

Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: The People's Republic of China

    The petitioner calculated EP based upon an affidavit describing an 
actual offer for sale to the U.S. market of converted jumbo rolls from 
Shanghai Hanhong Paper Co., Ltd. (Hanhong), a non-integrated converter 
of jumbo rolls in the PRC. The petitioner then demonstrated, using Port 
Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) data, that the overwhelming 
percentage of the imports of subject LWTP into the United States from 
the PRC were made by Hanhong. The petitioner notes that while 
approximately half of all shipments reported in the PIERS data set do 
not identify the producer or exporter of the merchandise, of the data 
set observations that do identify the exporters, almost 97 percent of 
such shipments were made by Hanhong. See Petition, Volume II at pages 4 
and 8 and Exhibits 3, 10 and 11. See also Supplement to the Petition at 
page 3 and Exhibit 3. The petitioner adjusted the U.S. price to account 
for foreign brokerage and handling charges on a free on board (FOB) 
basis. The Department valued brokerage and handling charges using two 
sources: (1) data from the January 9, 2006, public version of the 
Section C questionnaire response from Kejriwal Paper Ltd. 
(Kejriwal);\6\ and (2) data from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. for the 
period of review February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005 (see 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005). The Department 
used a simple average of the data adjusted for inflation. See PRC 
Initiation Checklist. The petitioner did not adjust export price for 
foreign inland freight charges because it could not determine the 
distance between Hanhong's mill and the port of exit delivery location. 
See PRC AD Petition at page 8 and Exhibits II-11 and 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Kejriwal was a respondent in the certain lined paper 
products from India investigation for which the period of 
investigation was July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper 
Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) (unchanged in 
final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy 
(NME) country, the petitioner constructed NV based on the factors-of-
production methodology pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act. Recently, 
the Department examined the PRC's market status and determined that NME 
status should continue for the PRC. See

[[Page 62434]]

Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Regarding the People's Republic of 
China Status as a Non-Market Economy, dated August 30, 2006. This 
document is available on-line at: <http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-lined-paper-memo-08302006.pdf>. In addition, in two 
recent investigations, the Department also determined that the PRC is 
an NME country. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 
FR 9508 (March 2, 2007), and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the NME status remains in effect 
until revoked by the Department. The presumption of the NME status of 
the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains 
in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. 
Accordingly, the NV of the product is based appropriately on factors of 
production valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance 
with section 773(c) of the Act. During the course of this 
investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide 
relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and 
the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.
    The petitioner asserts that India is the most appropriate surrogate 
country for the PRC because India is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise and at a level of economic development 
comparable to the PRC. See Petition, Volume II at page 2. Based on the 
information provided by the petitioner, we believe that the 
petitioner's use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for 
purposes of initiating this investigation. After the initiation of the 
investigation, we will solicit comments regarding surrogate-country 
selection. Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested 
parties will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available 
information to value the factors of production within 40 calendar days 
after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.
    The petitioner provided dumping margin calculations using the 
Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) 
and 19 CFR 351.408. The petitioner bases its estimates of antidumping 
margins from the PRC on the CV and offers for sale to the U.S. market 
by Hanghong, a non-integrated converter of jumbo rolls. Therefore, the 
petitioner calculated NV based on a cost model specific to a non-
integrated converter of subject LWTP. Specifically, the petitioner 
relied upon the consumption rates, for the period covering July 1, 
through December 31, 2006, of one of the largest non-integrated U.S. 
converters of subject LWTP, which the petitioner stated should be 
similar to the consumption rates of Hanhong. See Petition, Volume II at 
pages 4-5 and Exhibits II-3 and II-7. See also, Petitioner's Response 
to the Department's September 24, 2007 Request for Clarification of 
Certain Items Contained in the Petition: PRC (September 28, 2007) 
(Supplement to the Petition: PRC) at page 4. The petitioner stated that 
it did not make any adjustments to NV because no known material 
differences exist between the non-integrated U.S. converter's 
production experience and Hanhong's production experience. See 
Supplement to the Petition: PRC at pages 5-6. Thus, the petitioner has 
assumed, for purposes of the Petition, that Hanhong, a non-integrated 
converter of subject LWTP in the PRC, uses the same inputs in the same 
quantities as those used by one of the largest non-integrated 
converters of subject LWTP in the United States.
    With respect to the calculation of NV, pursuant to section 
773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner valued all direct materials using 
Indian import data obtained from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 
Trade of India (MSFTI), as published by the Directorate General of 
Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and 
Industry, Government of India and used in the World Trade Atlas (WTA), 
available at: <http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm>, for August 1, 2006, 
through January 31, 2007. Because the Department was able to obtain 
more contemporaneous information from the WTA for the same inputs 
provided by the petitioner, i.e., September 1, 2006, through February 
28, 2007, we used this data where applicable in the NV calculations. 
The petitioner converted the inputs valued in Indian rupees to U.S. 
dollars based on the average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the 
POI, as reported on the Department's website at <http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html>. See PRC AD Petition at page 6 and Exhibit II-6. 
The petitioner relied upon the non-integrated U.S. converter's labor 
usage rates for production and packing and used the Department's latest 
NME Wage Rate for the PRC, as reported on the Department's website at 
<http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html>. Id. The petitioner did not 
include energy and other utility cost inputs in its calculated NV 
because the non-integrated U.S. converter did not allocate any energy 
costs to the specific product level. Id. at pages 5-6 and Exhibits II-6 
and 7.
    In regard to the NV calculations, the petitioner derived the 
figures for factory overhead (FOH), SG&A, and profit for the fiscal 
year ending March 31, 2006, from the financial statements of Parag 
Copigraph Pvt. Ltd. (Parag), a non-integrated Indian converter of 
subject LWTP. See PRC AD Petition at page 7 and Exhibits II-6 and PRC 
AD Supplemental Response at pages 6-7 and Exhibit 2. We did not make 
any other adjustment to the NV, as calculated by the petitioner. See 
PRC Initiation Checklist for further details on these calculations and 
the adjustments the Department made to these calculations.

Fair-Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of LWTP from Germany, Korea, and the PRC are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value. Based on comparisons of export price to NV that we revised with 
respect to the PRC, as discussed above, and calculated in accordance 
with section 773(c) of the Act, these are the estimated dumping margins 
for LWTP: 1) the estimated dumping margin for Germany based on a price-
to-price comparison is 29.79 percent; the estimated dumping margins for 
Germany based on a price-to-CV comparison range from 59.80 percent to 
75.36 percent; 2) the estimated dumping margin for Korea based on a 
price-to-price comparison is 40.30 percent; the estimated dumping 
margin for Korea based on a price-to-CV comparison is 65.63 percent; 
and 3) the estimated dumping margin for the PRC is 108.25 percent.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the Petition on LWTP from Germany, 
Korea, and the PRC, we find that the Petition meet the requirements of 
section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty 
investigations to determine whether imports of LWTP from Germany, 
Korea, and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United 
States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205((b)(1),

[[Page 62435]]

unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later 
than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

Separate Rates

    The Department modified the process by which exporters and 
producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. See 
Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of 
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate Rates and Combination Rates 
Bulletin), available on the Department's website at <http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf>. The process requires the 
submission of a separate-rate status application. Based on our 
experience in processing the separate-rate applications in the 
following antidumping duty investigations, we have modified the 
application for this investigation to make it more administrable and 
easier for applicants to complete. See, e.g., Initiation of Antidumping 
Duty Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the 
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 43591, 43594-95 (August 6, 2007) 
(Tires from the PRC). The specific requirements for submitting the 
separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail 
in the application itself, which will be available on the Department's 
website at <http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia highlights and news.html> on the 
date of publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. 
The separate-rate application is due no later than December 10, 2007.

Respondent Selection

    For this investigation, the Department intends to select 
respondents based on CBP data for U.S. imports during the POI. We 
intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 
days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department 
invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within 
seven calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice.

Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this 
investigation. The ``Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin'' at 
page 6 explains that, while continuing the practice of assigning 
separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the 
Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific 
to those producers that supplied the exporter during the POI. Note, 
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the 
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the POI. This 
practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an 
individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-
investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually 
calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of 
``combination rates'' because such rates apply to specific combinations 
of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned 
to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm 
in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during 
the POI.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the Petition has been provided to representatives of 
the governments of Germany, Korea, and the PRC. We will attempt to 
provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to all exporters 
named in the Petition, as provided for in 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than November 23, 
2007, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of LWTP 
from Germany, Korea, and the PRC are materially injuring or threatening 
material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for 
any country will result in the investigation being terminated with 
respect to that country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed 
according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: October 29, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-21710 Filed 11-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S