[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 66 (Friday, April 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18497-18503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7102]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-894
Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently
conducting the 2006 2007 administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on certain tissue paper products from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC''). The period of review (``POR'') for this review is
March 1, 2006, through February 28, 2007.
Ten respondents reported that they had no exports or sales of the
subject merchandise during the POR. After checking U.S. Customs and
Border Protection data, we are preliminarily rescinding our review of
these companies. Additionally, in conducting the review, the Department
found that both Max Fortune Industrial Limited & Max Fortune (FETDE)
Paper Products Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Max Fortune'') and Guilin
Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd. (``Guilin Qifeng'') reported subject sales to
the United States during the POR, which the Department found to have
entered as not subject to antidumping duties, and thus were liquidated
without the assess of such duties. With respect to Max Fortune, the
Department will continue to collect additional information from Max
Fortune and CBP, and consider this issue for the final results. With
respect to Guilin Qifeng, because we found that Guilin Qifeng made no
dutiable entries of subject tissue paper during the POR, the Department
is preliminarily rescinding its review with respect to Guilin Qifeng.
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this
review, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice, unless extended.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 2008
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobby Wong or Michael Quigley, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0409 or (202) 482-4047, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 3, 2007, the Department published a notice of Antidumping
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 9505 (March 2,
2007). On March 26, 2007, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the
Department received a timely request from Guilin Qifeng for an
administrative review. On March 30, 2007, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), the Department received a timely request from Max Fortune,
and from Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc. (``petitioner'')
for a review of five companies.\1\ On April 2, 2007, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department received a timely review request from
Foshan Sansico Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Max Fortune Industiral Limited, & Max Fortune (FETDE) Paper
Products Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Max Fortune''); Samsam Production
Limited, Guangzhou Baxi Printing Products Limited, Guilin Samsam
Paper Products Ltd. (collectively ``Samsam''); Guilin Qifeng Paper
Co., Ltd. (``Guilin Qifeng''); Vietnam Quijiang Paper Co., Ltd.
(``Vietnam Quijiang''); and Foshan Sansico Co., Ltd., Sansico Asia
Pacific Limited, PT Grafitecindo Ciptaprima, PT Printec Perkasa, PT
Printec Perkasa II, & PT Sansico Utama (collectively ``Sansico
Group'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2007, the Department published the notice of
initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain tissue paper products from the PRC covering the period March 1,
2007, through February 28, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 20986 (April 27,
2007). On May 1, 2007, the Department requested quantity and value
(``Q&V'') information from all parties named in the initiation notice.
On May 15, 2007, the Department received the following documents: 1) a
separate rate certification and Q&V response from Guilin Qifeng; 2) a
letter from Vietnam Quijiang certifying that it made no entries of the
subject merchandise during the POR; and 3) a certification it made no
entries of subject merchandise during the POR, and a request from
Samsam to rescind the Department's review with respect to Samsam. On
May 16, 2007, the Department received a Q&V response from the Sansico
Group, certifying that none of its affiliates made entries of subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR. On May 17, 2007, the
Department received Max Fortune's Q&V response and its separate rate
certification. On May 22, 2007, the Sansico Group again publicly
certified that none of its affiliates made entries of subject
merchandise during the POR.
On May 29, 2007, the Department selected Max Fortune and Guilin
Qifeng as mandatory respondents in the administrative review, as they
were responsible for 100 percent of the reported imports of certain
tissue paper from the PRC under review. See May 29, 2007, memorandum to
James C. Doyle, Director; from Scot T. Fullerton, Senior International
Trade Analyst through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager regarding
Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China:
Selection of Respondents.
On June 1, 2007, the Department received comments from petitioner
regarding Samsam's Q&V response. In
[[Page 18498]]
response, on June 7, 2007, the Department received rebuttal comments
from Samsam. On June 14, 2007, the Department received additional
comments from petitioner in response to Samsam's June 7, 2007, rebuttal
comments.
On August 24, 2007, in response to Max Fortune's request, the
Department extended the deadline to submit new factual information on
the record of this review.\2\ On August 28, 2007, the Department
invited interested parties to comment on the Department's surrogate
country selection and/or significant production in the other potential
surrogate countries and to submit publicly available information to
value the factors of production. See August 28, 2007, letter to All
Interested Parties; from Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager regarding
the Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper Products from the
People's Republic of China. On October 2, 2007, the Department received
comments from petitioner regarding the Department's selection of India
as the surrogate country. On October 30, 2007, in response to
petitioner's October 25, 2007, request, the Department extended the
deadline to submit new factual information regarding surrogate value
data. See Memorandum to the File; from Bobby Wong, International Trade
Compliance Analyst regarding the Second Administrative Review of
Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China. On
November 14, 2007, in response to petitioner's November 13, 2007,
request, the Department further extended the deadline to submit
surrogate value information. On November 14, 2007, Guilin Qifeng
submitted Indian surrogate value information on the record of the
administrative review. See November 14, 2007, letter to the Department;
from Guilin Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd. regarding: Certain Tissue Paper
Products from the People's Republic of China: Submission of Surrogate
Value Information. On November 16, 2007, petitioners submitted Indian
surrogate value information on the record of the administrative review.
See letter to the Department; regarding: Administrative Review of
Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China -
Surrogate Values, dated November 16, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See August 24, 2007, letter from Catherine Bertrand, Acting
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9; to All Interested
Parties; regarding the Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper
Products from the People's Republic of China for the period March 1,
2006 to February 28, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 20, 2007, the Department published an extension of the
time limit to complete the preliminary results. See Certain Tissue
Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Extension of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
65298 (November 20, 2007).
Questionnaires
On May 30, 2007, the Department issued the antidumping duty
questionnaire (``original questionnaire'') to Max Fortune and Guilin
Qifeng.
Max Fortune:
On June 20, 2007, the Department received Max Fortune's timely
submission of its section A questionnaire response. On July 16, 2007,
the Department received Max Fortune's timely submission of its section
C and D questionnaire response, and sales and cost reconciliation. On
September 5, 2007, the Department received from petitioner, comments
regarding Max Fortune's section A, C, and D questionnaire responses.
On December 19, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire (``first supplemental questionnaire'') to Max Fortune. On
January 17, 2008, the Department received Max Fortune's timely response
to the Department's first supplemental questionnaire. On February 1,
2008, the Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire
(``second supplemental questionnaire'') to Max Fortune. On February 22,
2008, and February 27, 2008, the Department received Max Fortune's
timely responses to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire.
Guilin Qifeng:
On June 27, 2007, the Department received Guilin Qifeng's timely
submission of its section A questionnaire response. On July 6, 2007, in
response to a request from Guilin Qifeng, the Department extended the
deadline for Guilin Qifeng to submit its response to the Department's
section C and D questionnaire. On July 13, 2007, the Department
received Guilin Qifeng's timely submission of its section C and D
questionnaire responses. On July 18, 2007, the Department received
Guilin Qifeng's timely submission of its sales and cost
reconciliation.\3\ On September 10, 2007, the Department received
comments from petitioner regarding Guilin Qifeng's section A, C, and D
questionnaire responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ However, the Department informed Guilin Qifeng that it had
incorrectly placed the document on the record of the tissue paper
anticircumvention inquiry, and therefore requested that Guilin
Qifeng re-file its submission on the proper segment of the review,
which the Department received and considered timely on October 25,
2007. See October 24, 2007, letter from Vietnam Quijiang Paper Co.,
Ltd. to the US Department of Commerce regarding Certain Tissue Paper
Products from China, Circumvention Inquiry: Withdrawal of Previously
Submitted Documents From the Administrative Review; on the record of
the concurrent Circumvention Inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 13, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Guilin Qifeng. On December 5, 2007, the Department
received Guilin Qifeng's timely response to the Department's
supplemental questionnaire.
On February 25, 2008, the Department issued a second supplemental
questionnaire to Guilin Qifeng. On February 29, 2008, the Department
received a timely response to the second supplemental questionnaire. On
March 6, 2008, the Department received comments from Petitioner,
regarding Guilin Qifeng's second supplemental questionnaire response.
Non-Market Economy Country
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. See,
e.g., Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 58642 (October 16, 2007). Pursuant to the
Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall
remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. See,
e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006); and Carbazole Violet Pigment 23
from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65073, 65074
(November 7, 2006) unchanged in Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 26589 (May 10, 2007). None of the parties
to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
Surrogate Country and Factors
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or
more market-
[[Page 18499]]
economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are significant
producers of comparable merchandise. Thus, on August 24, 2007, we
requested a list of possible surrogate countries that are at a level of
economic development that is comparable to the PRC from Import
Administration's Office of Policy (``the OP''). See Memorandum from
Kristina Horgan, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, to Ronald Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, Re:
Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper Products from the
People's Republic of China (August 24, 2007).
On August 27, 2007, the OP issued memorandums identifying five
countries as being at a level of economic development comparable to the
PRC for the POR for the administrative review. See Memorandum from Ron
Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Catherine Bertrand, Acting
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Re: Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper Products from the
People's Republic of China: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries
(August 27, 2007) (``Policy Memo''). The countries identified in the
Policy Memo were India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia and the
Philippines. However, the Department has found that of the five
countries identified as at a comparable level of economic development,
only Egypt and India were producers of identical merchandise.
Furthermore, World Trade Atlas\4\ (``WTA'') data show that of the five
countries identified in the Policy Memo, in calendar year 2006, India
was by far the largest exporter of identical merchandise. See March 31,
2008, Memo to the File; from Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager
regarding WTA Export Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ World Trade Atlas, published by Global Trade Information
Services, Inc., is a secondary electronic source that republishes
the import prices reported in the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign
Trade of India, Volume II: Imports (``MSFTI''), as published by the
Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 28, 2007, the Department issued a request for parties to
submit comments on surrogate country selection for consideration in
these preliminary results in the administrative review. See letter from
Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager to All Parties, dated May 21, 2007.
On October 2, 2007, Petitioner submitted comments regarding the
selection of the surrogate country and argued that India is the most
appropriate surrogate country. See October 2, 2007 Letter to the
Department; from petitioner regarding the Administrative Review of
Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China -
Comments on Surrogate Country Selection. No other party submitted
comments regarding selection of the surrogate country. Furthermore, no
interested party has submitted surrogate values from any country other
than India.
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that: 1)
India is at a comparable level of economic development to China; 2)
India has significant production of identical merchandise; and 3) India
provides the best opportunity to use quality, publicly available,
contemporaneous, data to value the factors of production. Accordingly,
given that India meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country
selection, we preliminarily determine that India is an appropriate
surrogate country for all inputs in this review.
Scope of Order
The tissue paper products subject to this order 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 order 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 order 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
order 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 order 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; 4804.31.1000; 4804.31.2000;
4804.31.4020; 4804.31.4040; 4804.31.6000; 4804.39; 4805.91.1090;
4805.91.5000; 4805.91.7000; 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 customs purposes;
however, the written description of the scope of this order is
dispositive.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ On January 30, 2007, at the direction of CBP, the Department
added the following HTSUS classifications to the AD/CVD module for
tissue paper: 4802.54.3100, 4802.54.6100, and 4823.90.6700. However,
we note that the six-digit classifications for these numbers were
already listed in the scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded from the scope of this order 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; and (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
(HTSUS 4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00).
Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2006/2007 Administrative Review
Foshan Sansico, Samsam, Guangzhou Baxi, Guilin Samsam, PT
Grafitecindo, PT Printec, PT Printec II, Utama, Sansico, and Vietnam
Quijiang, certified that they did not export subject tissue paper from
China to the United States during the POR. To corroborate these
certifications, the Department reviewed PRC tissue paper shipment data
maintained by CBP, and found no discrepancies with the statements made
by these companies. See March 31, 2008, Memorandum to the File; from
Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager regarding CBP Corroboration.
Therefore, for the reasons noted above, the Department is preliminarily
rescinding the administrative review with respect to Foshan Sansico,
Samsam, Guangzhou Baxi, Guilin Samsam, PT Grafitecindo, PT Printec, PT
Printec II, Utama, Sansico, and Vietnam Quijiang.
Guilin Qifeng:
In its response to the Department's quantity and value
questionnaire and in its response to the Department's original
questionnaire, Guilin Qifeng certified that it made export sales of
subject tissue paper to the United States during the POR. Furthermore,
in its response, Guilin Qifeng provided sales and shipping
documentation demonstrating that the shipments were in fact sales of
subject tissue paper during the POR. See June 27, 2007, letter from
Guilin Qifeng; to the Department regarding Tissue Paper Products from
the People's Republic of China: Section A Response of Guilin Qifeng
Paper Co., Ltd; and December 5, 2007, letter from Guilin Qifeng to the
Department regarding 2\nd\
[[Page 18500]]
Review Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Supplemental
Questionnaire Response of Guilin Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd. However, in
reviewing CBP data for PRC exports of tissue paper to the United
States, the Department found that Guilin Qifeng had no dutiable entries
of subject tissue paper during the POR. On February 28, 2008, the
Department released CBP import data, which identified each of Guilin
Qifeng's reported sales, to counsel for Guilin Qifeng. In its letter
accompanying the data, the Department noted that, according to the CBP
data, each of Guilin Qifeng's reported POR sales were liquidated and
not subject to antidumping duties. In response, counsel for Guilin
Qifeng stated that due to the proprietary nature of the data, it was
unable to share the data with its client for the purposes of comment.
Subsequently, the Department has notified CBP in regards to the
potentially misclassified entries\6\ and requested from CBP copies of
Guilin Qifeng's entry documentation of the alleged liquidated entries
to determine if the entries were, in fact, subject to the antidumping
duty order. We will continue to examine the issue for the final
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See March 31, 2008, letter from David M. Spooner, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, United States Department of
Commerce; to Thomas S. Winkowski, Assistant Commissioner, Office of
Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, the Department has examined all of the
information provided by Guilin Qifeng as well as the CBP import data,
and finds that Guilin Qifeng's entries of subject tissue paper were
classified upon entry as not subject to the antidumping duty order, and
therefore not subject to suspension of liquidation. We note that one of
the Department's primary functions in the course of an administrative
review is to determine the appropriate antidumping duty margin to apply
to subject merchandise, for the purpose of directing CBP to liquidate
suspended entries of subject merchandise at that rate. See section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act (stating that one of the purposes of an
administrative review is to assess the current amount of antidumping
duties on entries of subject merchandise). Because the record currently
shows that Guilin Qifeng's entries of subject merchandise were made as
not being subject to antidumping duties, and thus has no suspended
entries, consistent with the Act and with the Department's past
practice, the Department is preliminarily rescinding its review with
respect to Guilin Qifeng. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality
Steel Plate Products From Italy: Final Results and Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 39299 (July 12, 2006).
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single
antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate
an absence of government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de
facto), with respect to its export activities. See 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'').
In this review, in support of its claim for a company-specific rate,
Max Fortune has reported that it is a wholly foreign owned company
registered and located in Hong Kong. See letter to the Department; from
Max Fortune regarding Certain Tissue Paper from the People's Republic
of China (June 20, 2006). Consequently, no additional separate rates
analysis is necessary for Max Fortune. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the
People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996).
Normal Value Comparisons: Max Fortune
To determine whether Max Fortune's sales of the subject merchandise
were made at prices below normal value, we compared U.S. price to
normal values, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice, below.
U.S. Price - Export Price
We based U.S. price on export price (``EP'') in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated
purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed export price
(``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We
calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first
unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where applicable, we
deducted foreign inland freight, insurance, foreign brokerage and
handling expenses, ocean freight, and marine insurance from the
starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of
the Act.
Max Fortune also certified that it made export sales of subject
tissue paper to the United States during the POR. To corroborate these
certifications, the Department reviewed subject tissue paper shipment
data maintained by CBP. Based on the CBP data, the Department found
that several of Max Fortune's reported U.S. sales of subject
merchandise that entered during the POR may have been misclassified,
and appeared to have been liquidated by CBP. On February 22, 2008, in
response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire
requesting clarification regarding the liquidated entries, counsel for
Max Fortune stated that they were unable to confirm the Department's
findings with their client due to the proprietary nature of the CBP
data. Given that certain reported sales by Max Fortune appear to have
been liquidated, the Department will continue to request additional
information from Max Fortune and CBP, and consider this issue for
purposes of assessment for the final results. See Memorandum to the
File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, from Bobby Wong, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, regarding Second Antidumping Administrative
Review of Certain Tissue Paper from the People's Republic of China: Max
Fortune Industrial Limited and Max Fortune (FETDE) Paper Products Co.,
Ltd., Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review (March
31, 2008) (``Max Fortune Analysis Memo''). Furthermore, the Department
has notified CBP in regards to the potentially misclassified entries,
as well as requested Max Fortune's entry documentation covering the
alleged liquidated entries, and will continue to examine the issue for
the final results.
Use of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use facts
available if necessary information is not available on the record of an
antidumping proceeding. In the instant review, Max Fortune has
indicated that its records for dye and ink consumption in the
papermaking and paper printing stages of production do not permit it to
report the FOP data in a manner consistent with the Department's
requests for specific consumption of dyes on a color specific basis.
See January 17, 2008, letter to the Department from Max Fortune
regarding Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of
China. Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, Max Fortune has
therefore failed to provide information relevant to the Department's
analysis. Thus, consistent with section 782(d) of the Act, the
Department has determined it necessary to apply facts otherwise
available. Consistent with the
[[Page 18501]]
Department's application in the previous segment of the instant review,
the Department has preliminarily determined to apply the average Indian
import values for three dye types, which are commonly used in the
production of tissue paper, to value the aggregate amount of dye
consumed in the production of the subject tissue paper. Therefore, the
Department is also requesting comments from parties regarding 1) the
appropriateness of amending the Department's CONNUM requirement to
report the consumption of inks and dyes on a color-specific basis, and
2) the application of the methodology described above to value the
aggregate consumption of ink and dyes for the purposes of the final
results and subsequent reviews.
Factors of Production
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited
to: (A) hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials
employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D)
representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the
factors of production reported by the producer for materials, energy,
labor, and packing. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit
factor quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate values.
In the instant review, Max Fortune reported that it purchased an
input, which was consumed in the production of the merchandise under
review, from a market-economy (``ME'') supplier and paid for in a
market-economy currency. Section 773(c) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1) requires the Department to accept input prices to value
the factors of production when the input is purchased from a ME
supplier and paid for in a ME currency. Furthermore, consistent with
the Department's stated policy reflected in Antidumping Methodologies:
Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty
Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006)
(``2006 Statement of Policy''), when a sufficient proportion of an
input is purchased from a market economy, the Department will use the
reported market economy prices to value the appropriate inputs when the
item was paid for in a market economy currency. For purposes of the
preliminary results, we have determined that Max Fortune's reported
market economy purchases accounted for a significant portion of total
purchases of that input and, therefore, have used the reported purchase
prices to value the input in the Department's normal value calculation.
See Max Fortune Analysis Memo.
Normally, the Department prefers to use factors of production data
that accurately represent the quantity of inputs consumed on a control
number (``CONNUM'')-specific basis. In the present case, however, Max
Fortune has indicated that its records for dye and ink consumption in
the papermaking and paper printing stages of production do not permit
it to report the FOP data in a manner consistent with the Department's
requests. Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, however, because
Max Fortune failed to provide information relevant to the Department's
analysis, consistent with section 782(d) of the Act, the Department has
determined to apply facts otherwise available with regard to this
factor of production. We have used the average Indian import values for
three dye types, as discussed above, as facts available to value the
aggregate consumption of dyes used in the production of the subject
tissue paper.
In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our
normal practice. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR
72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of First New Shipper Review
and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11,
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
When we used publicly available import data from the Ministry of
Commerce of India (``Indian Import Statistics'') for March 2006 through
February 2007, as published by the WTA, to value inputs sourced
domestically by PRC suppliers, we added a surrogate cost for freight
using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier
to the factory or the distance from the closest seaport to the factory.
See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
When we used non-import surrogate values for factors sourced
domestically by PRC suppliers (e.g., market economy purchased inputs),
we based freight for this input on the actual distance from the input
supplier to the site at which the input was consumed.
Additionally, in instances where we relied on Indian import data to
value inputs, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded
imports from both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain
broadly available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit
all exporters to all export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and
Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. See, e.g., Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the
People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative
Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke
Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; See also Memorandum to the File,
through James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, and Scot T. Fullerton,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9; from Michael Quigley,
Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
regarding Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Tissue
Paper from the People's Republic of China: Factors of Valuation for the
Preliminary Results (March 31, 2008) (``Factor Valuation Memo''). This
memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), room 1117
of the Department building.
Where we could not obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous with the POR to value factors of production, we
inflated the surrogate value using the Indian Wholesale Price Index
(``WPI''), as published in the International Financial Statistics of
the International Monetary Fund, for those surrogate values in Indian
rupees to be contemporaneous with the POR. We also made currency
conversions, where necessary, pursuant to section 773A of the Act and
19 CFR 351.415, to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate
corresponding to the reported date of each sale. We relied on the daily
exchanges rates posted on the Import Administration website (http://www.trade.gov/ia/).
Specifically, the Department used Indian Import Statistics to value
the raw material and packing material inputs that Max Fortune used to
produce the merchandise under review during the POR, except where
listed below. For a detailed description of all surrogate values used
for Max Fortune, see Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 2.
Energy:
Max Fortune reported the consumption of water, electricity, and
coal as energy inputs consumed in the production of the subject tissue
paper. To value water, we calculated the average water rates from
various regions as reported by the Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation,
[[Page 18502]]
http://midcindia.org, dated June 1, 2003, and inflated the value for
water to be contemporaneous to the POR. See Factor Valuation Memo at
Exhibit 8. To value electricity, we used the latest rates provided by
the OECD's International Energy Agency's publication: Key World Energy
Statistics from 2003. Because the electricity prices are based on
annual year 2000 price, we inflated the value for electricity to be
contemporaneous to the POR-average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memo
at Exhibit 7. For coal, we applied the specified price for the
appropriate grade of coal, as published in the 2005 Indian Minerals
Yearbook and data published by the Coal India Limited for December
2007. See Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 7.
Financial Ratios:
Consistent with the determination in the LTFV investigation, to
value the surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead, selling,
general & administrative expenses, and profit, the Department relied on
the publicly available information in the financial statements for
Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. (``Pudumjee'') for fiscal year 2006-
2007, submitted by petitioner on November 16, 2007. The annual report
covers the period April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007, and also includes
data for the 2005-2006 fiscal year, covering the entire POR. We have
determined that Pudumjee's financial statements are appropriate for use
in these preliminary results because Pudumjee is a producer of
comparable merchandise and its financial data are contemporaneous with
the POR. See Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 11.
Wage Rate:
Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar
levels of per-capita gross national product, 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)
requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value
the labor input, we used the PRC's regression-based wage rate published
by Import Administration on its website, http://www.trade.gov/ia/. We
note that this wage rate is calculated in accordance with the
Department's revised methodology. See Expected Non Market Economy
Wages: Request for Comments on 2006 Calculation, 72 FR 949 (January 9,
2007) and Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected
Non Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback, and Request for Comments, 71
FR 6176 (October 19, 2006). See also Factor Valuation Memo.
Movement Expenses:
To value truck freight, we calculated a weighted-average freight
cost based on publicly available data from www.infreight.com, an Indian
inland freight logistics resource website. See Factor Valuation Memo at
Exhibit 10.
To value brokerage and handling, we used a simple average of the
publicly summarized version of the average value for brokerage and
handling expenses reported in the U.S. sales listings in Essar Steel
Ltd.'s (``Essar'') February 28, 2005, Section C submission in the
antidumping duty review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat
products from India, for which the POR was December 1, 2003, through
November 30, 2004; information from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd.'s (Agro
Dutch) May 25, 2005, Section C submission, taken from the
administrative review of preserved mushrooms from India, for which the
POR was February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005; and information
from Kejriwal Paper Ltd.'s (``Kejriwal'') January 9, 2006, Section C
submission, taken from the investigation of certain lined paper from
India, for which the POR was July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. See
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (January
12, 2006); Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006);
and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006). See also Factor
Valuation Memo at Exhibit 6.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final
determination in an antidumping administrative review, interested
parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors
of production within 20 days after the date of publication of the
preliminary determination.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
determination of this administrative review, interested parties may
submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record.
The Department generally cannot accept the submission of additional,
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty
margins exist:
Certain Tissue Paper from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individually Reviewed Exporters Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Fortune Ltd.............................................. 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin for each company, see the respective company's analysis
memorandum for the preliminary results of the first administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on tissue paper from the PRC,
dated March 31, 2008. Public versions of these memoranda are on file in
the CRU.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this
review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated
importer-specific assessment rates for tissue paper from the PRC via ad
valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of
the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total
entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if
any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is
above de minimis. The final results of this review shall be the basis
for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise
covered by the final results of these reviews and for future deposits
of estimated duties, where applicable.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for Max Fortune,
the cash deposit rate will be established in the final results of this
review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company); (2) for
all other previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-
[[Page 18503]]
PRC exporters that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
will be the PRC-wide rate of 112.64 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of
the final results of the next administrative review.
Schedule for Final Results of Review
The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the
date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing will normally be held 37 days after the publication of this
notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written
request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal
Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14\th\ Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should
contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an
identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing.
Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). As part of the case
brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not
to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases
cited in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(ii). Rebuttal briefs,
which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be
filed within five days after the case brief is filed in accordance with
19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department will issue the final results of this
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in the briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this notice are published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 31, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-7102 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S