[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57326-57329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23270]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

(A-428-840)


Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany: Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined 
that imports of lightweight thermal paper (LWTP) from Germany are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value (LFTV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act). The final estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 
listed below in the section entitled ``Final Determination Margins.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Robinson or George McMahon, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3797 
or (202) 482-1167, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    On May 13, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register 
its preliminary determination in the antidumping duty investigation of 
LWTP from Germany. See Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany: Notice 
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 27498

[[Page 57327]]

(May 13, 2008) (Preliminary Determination).
    In the Preliminary Determination, based on our examination of the 
petitioner's targeted dumping allegation filed on March 27, 2008, we 
conducted an analysis to determine whether targeted dumping occurred. 
We preliminarily determined that there is not a pattern of export 
prices (EPs) for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among 
customers, regions or by time period.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Preliminary Determination at 27500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department invited comments 
on the overall application of the targeted dumping test applied in this 
proceeding and on the Preliminary Determination as a whole.\2\ We 
received comments within the case briefs submitted by the petitioner\3\ 
and the respondent, Papierfabrik August Koehler AG and Koehler America, 
Inc. (collectively, Koehler) on July 31, 2008. Koehler and Mitsubishi 
HiTec Paper Flensburg GmbH and Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH 
(collectively, Mitsubishi HiTec Paper) and Mitsubishi International 
Corporation (MIC)\4\ submitted rebuttal comments on August 5, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id. at 27498, 27500, and 27503.
    \3\ The petitioner in this investigation is Appleton Papers, 
Inc.
    \4\ Mitsubishi HiTec Paper and MIC were also identified by the 
petitioner as potential respondents in the petition submitted in 
this investigation. However, the Department selected Koehler as the 
only mandatory respondent due to the Department's resource 
constraints. See ``Respondent Selection Memorandum'' dated December 
4, 2007, for further details. Therefore, Mitsubishi HiTec Paper and 
MIC are not mandatory respondents in this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We conducted sales and cost verifications of the questionnaire 
responses submitted by Koehler. See Memorandum to the File from George 
McMahon and Cindy Robinson, Case Analysts, through James Terpstra, 
Program Manager, Office 3, entitled ``Verification of the Sales 
Response of Papierfabrik August Koehler AG and Koehler America, Inc. 
(collectively, Koehler) in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Lightweight Thermal Paper (LWTP) from Germany,'' dated July 24, 2008 
(Koehler Sales Verification Report); see also Memorandum to the File 
through Neal M. Halper, from Robert B. Greger, entitled ``Verification 
of the Cost Response of Papierfabrik August Koehler AG in the 
Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany,'' 
dated June 18, 2008 (Koehler Cost Verification Report). All 
verification reports are on file and available in the Central Records 
Unit (CRU), Room 1117, of the main Department of Commerce building.
    Based on the Department's findings at verification, as well as the 
minor corrections presented by Koehler at the start of its 
verifications, we requested during verification that respondent submit 
revised sales databases. As requested, Koehler submitted its revised 
sales databases at verification on June 26, 2008.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007. This period corresponds 
to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the 
filing of the petition.

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain 
lightweight thermal paper, which is thermal paper with a basis weight 
of 70 grams per square meter (g/m[bdi2]) (with a tolerance of  4.0 g/m[bdi2]) or less; irrespective of dimensions;\5\ with or 
without a base coat\6\ on one or both sides; with thermal active 
coating(s)\7\ on one or both sides that is a mixture of the dye and the 
developer that react and form an image when heat is applied; with or 
without a top coat;\8\ and without an adhesive backing. Certain 
lightweight thermal paper is typically (but not exclusively) used in 
point-of-sale applications such as ATM receipts, credit card receipts, 
gas pump receipts, and retail store receipts. The merchandise subject 
to this investigation may be classified in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 4811.90.8040 
and 4811.90.9090.\9\ As discussed below, we added to the scope of the 
investigation the following HTSUS subheadings: 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 
4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of the investigation is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ LWTP is typically produced in jumbo rolls that are slit to 
the specifications of the converting equipment and then converted 
into finished slit rolls. Both jumbo rolls and converted rolls (as 
well as LWTP in any other forms, presentations, or dimensions) are 
covered by the scope of this investigation.
    \6\ A base coat, when applied, is typically made of clay and/or 
latex and like materials and is intended to cover the rough surface 
of the paper substrate and to provide insulating value.
    \7\ A thermal active coating is typically made of sensitizer, 
dye, and co-reactant.
    \8\ A top coat, when applied, is typically made of polyvinyl 
acetone, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or like materials and is intended to 
provide environmental protection, an improved surface for press 
printing, and/or wear protection for the thermal print head.
    \9\ HTSUS subheading 4811.90.8000 was a classification used for 
LWTP until January 1, 2007. Effective that date, subheading 
4811.90.8000 was replaced with 4811.90.8020 (for gift wrap, a non-
subject product) and 4811.90.8040 (for other, 
including LWTP). HTSUS subheading 4811.90.9000 was a classification 
for LWTP until July 1, 2005. Effective that date, subheading 
4811.90.9000 was replaced with 4811.90.9010 (for tissue paper, a 
non-subject product) and 4811.90.9090 (for 
other, including LWTP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope Comments

    On November 19, 2007, the petitioner submitted scope comments in 
which it requested that the Department add the following additional 
HTSUS subheadings to the scope of the investigation: HTSUS subheading 
3703.10.60, 4811.59, 4820.10, and 4823.40 based on the claim that 
subject merchandise may also enter under these HTSUS subheadings.
    On April 11, 2008, and April 16, 2008, the Department received 
letters from the National Import Specialists at U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) requesting that HTSUS subheadings 3703.10.60, 
4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00 be added to the scope of the 
antidumping duty investigation of LWTP from Germany and simultaneous 
antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations of LWTP from 
the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the basis that entries of 
subject merchandise could be classified therein. See Memorandum to the 
File from the Team to the File through James Terpstra, entitled 
``Request from Customs and Border Protection to update AD /CVD 
Module,'' dated April 17, 2008. Since the Preliminary Determination, no 
party to this proceeding has commented on this issue and we have found 
no additional information that would compel us to reverse our 
preliminary decision to add the aforementioned HTSUS subheadings to the 
scope of the investigation. Thus, for purposes of the final 
determination, we have added these additional subheadings to the scope 
of this investigation.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this antidumping investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany'' (Decision 
Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, dated September 25, 2008, which is hereby 
adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised 
and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision 
Memorandum, is attached to

[[Page 57328]]

this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding 
recommendations in the Decision Memorandum which is on file in the CRU. 
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be 
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. 
The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.

Targeted Dumping

    In the Preliminary Determination, with respect to targeted dumping, 
we followed the methodology outlined in the post-preliminary targeted 
dumping analysis in the investigations of steel nails from the People's 
Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates. See Memorandum to David 
M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen 
J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, RE: 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Subject: 
Post-Preliminary Determinations on Targeted Dumping, dated April 21, 
2008 (Nails Targeted Dumping Memorandum).\10\ Based on the targeted 
dumping test that we applied in the Preliminary Determination, we did 
not find a pattern of EPs for comparable merchandise that differ 
significantly among customers, regions or by time period.\1\ As a 
result, we applied the average-to-average methodology to the EPs of all 
of Koehler's sales to the United States during the POI and calculated a 
margin of 6.49 percent for Koehler.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Preliminary Determination at 27500.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id. at 27503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department applied the 
targeted dumping test based on the methodology outlined in the Nail 
Targeted Dumping Memorandum and found that all three allegations of 
targeted dumping (customer, region, and time period) failed the test. 
We have analyzed the case and rebuttal briefs\13\ with respect to 
targeted dumping issues submitted for the record in this investigation 
and considered the changes made to the targeted dumping test applied in 
the final determinations of Nails and PRC Tires.\14\ As a result of our 
analysis, we utilized the Nails targeted dumping test from the 
Preliminary Determination and applied certain modifications from Nails 
and PRC Tires for purposes of the final determination.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See the petitioner's case brief, dated July 31, 2008; see 
also Koehler and Mitsubishi HiTec Paper and MIC's rebuttal briefs, 
dated August 5, 2008.
    \14\ See Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 
73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (Steel Nails from the UAE) at Comment 5; see also Certain 
Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 
2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Steel Nails 
from the PRC) at Comments 3, 5, and 9 (collectively, Nails); see 
also Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, 73 FR 40480 (July 15, 2008), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum (PRC Tires) at Comments 23. B and 23.G.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the Preliminary Determination, we did not find a pattern of 
EPs for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among 
customers, regions or by time period. For further discussion, see 
Comments 2 through 4 of the Decision Memorandum. See also; ``Final 
Analysis Memorandum for Sales Koehler,'' dated September 25, 2008 
(Final Sales Memorandum) and Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, 
Office of Accounting, entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed 
Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Determination Koehler,'' 
dated September 25, 2008 (Final Cost Memorandum).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and 
cost information submitted by Koehler for use in our final 
determination. We used standard verification procedures including an 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original 
source documents provided by Koehler. See ``Koehler Sales Verification 
Report'' and ``Koehler Cost Verification Report.''

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at 
verification, we have made certain changes to the margin calculation 
for Koehler. For a discussion of these changes, see the Final Sales 
Memorandum and Final Cost Memorandum.

Final Determination Margins

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin 
exists for the period July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Papierfabrik August Koehler AG and Koehler America,                 6.50
 Inc................................................
All Others..........................................                6.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

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

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation 
of all entries of subject merchandise from Germany, entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 13, 2008, the 
date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. We will instruct 
CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
weighted-average dumping margins, as indicated in the chart above. 
These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect 
until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our 
final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section 
735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether 
the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or 
threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the 
likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the 
ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue 
an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on 
all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the 
suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations

[[Page 57329]]

and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: Septembe 25, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix -- Issues in Decision Memorandum

I. GENERAL ISSUES

Comment 1: Ministerial Error Correction

II. TARGETED DUMPING ISSUES

Comment 2: Whether the Department's Targeted Dumping Test is Flawed and 
Should be Replaced with the ``preponderance at two percent test'' (P/2 
Test)
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Apply any Margins Calculated 
for Koehler Pursuant to its Targeted Dumping Test to Mitsubishi HiTec 
Paper and the Non-Selected Respondents
Comment 4: Whether Margins Should be Calculated Without Applying 
Offsets for Non-Dumped Sales
[FR Doc. E8-23270 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S