[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