[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58548-58555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23704]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-843]
Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Preliminary Results of
the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined
paper products from India with respect to 20 companies. The respondents
which the Department selected for individual examination are Kejriwal
Paper Limited (``Kejriwal'') and Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. (``Ria'').\1\ The
respondents which were not selected for individual examination are
listed in the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice.
This is the first administrative review of this order. The period of
review (POR) is April 17, 2006, through August 31, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Director, Office 3, AD/
CVD Operations, through James Terpstra, Program Manager, from George
McMahon, Case Analyst, Regarding Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from India--Selection of
Respondents for Individual Review, dated November 13, 2007
(``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We preliminarily determine that sales made by Kejriwal have not
been made at below normal value (``NV''). Because Ria is a selected
mandatory respondent and was not responsive to the Department's
requests for information, we have preliminarily assigned to Ria a
margin based on adverse facts available (``AFA''). In addition, based
on the preliminary results for the respondents selected for individual
examination, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin
for those companies that are subject to review but not selected for
individual examination. See the ``Non-Selected Rate'' section below for
details. If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results.
DATES: Effective Date: October 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lai Robinson or George McMahon,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration-Room 1117,
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:
Background
On September 28, 2006, the Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products from
India. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of
China; Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products
from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of China; and Notice of
Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India and
[[Page 58549]]
Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006) (``Lined Paper Order''). On
September 4, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register a
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order of certain lined paper products from India for
the period April 17, 2006, through August 31, 2007. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 50657 (September 4,
2007). On September 21 and 26, 2007, the Department received timely
requests for an administrative review from two respondents, Navneet and
Kejriwal, respectively. On September 28, 2007, the Department received
a timely request for an administrative review from the Association of
American School Paper Suppliers (``AASPS''), the Petitioner,\2\ for the
following 20 companies: Blue Bird India Ltd.; Creative Divya; Exel
India Pvt. Ltd.; FFI International; Global Art India Inc.; Kejriwal
Exports; Kejriwal Paper Limited; M/S Super ImpEx.; Magic International;
Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd.; Marisa International; Navneet Publications
(India) Ltd.; Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd.; Rajvansh International; Ria
ImpEx Pvt. Ltd.; Riddhi Enterprises; SAB International; TKS Overseas;
Unlimited Accessories Worldwide; and V. Joshi Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Petitioner made the review request pursuant to section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 31, 2007, the Department published a notice of
initiation of administrative review for those 20 companies.\3\ On
November 13, 2007, the Department issued a memorandum \4\ to interested
parties regarding its intention to limit the number of companies
examined by using the CBP entry data. In the CBP Memorandum, the
Department solicited comments from interested parties regarding the use
of CBP data for respondent selection in this review. On November 9 and
20, 2007, the Department received comments regarding respondent
selection from Petitioner. On November 19, 2007, the Department
received comments regarding respondent selection from Navneet
Publications (India) Limited (Navneet). On November 21, 2007, Kejriwal
submitted rebuttal comments to Petitioner's comments dated November 9,
2007. See the ``Respondent Selection Memo'' for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 61621 (October 31, 2007).
\4\ See Memorandum to File entitled ``Customs and Border Patrol
Data for Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated
November 13, 2007 (``CBP Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 3, 2007, Petitioner submitted comments with respect to
an amendment of model match methodology. See below for further details.
On January 17, 2008, Petitioner requested an extension for withdrawing
its review request. The Department declined Petitioner's request on
January 29, 2008.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum to File, through James Terpstra, Program
Manager, Office 3, Office of AD/CVD Operations, from Cindy Robinson,
Case Analyst, RE: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Subject:
Meeting with Petitioner, dated January 29, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon our consideration of the resource constraints and other
factors including our current and anticipated workload and deadlines
coinciding with the segment in question, we determined that it was not
practicable to examine all exporters/producers of subject merchandise
for which a review was requested. As a result, on December 17, 2007, we
selected the two largest producers/exporters of certain lined paper
products from India during the POR (i.e., Kejriwal and Ria) for
individual examination, based on the volume information in the CBP data
placed on record of this proceeding. See the ``Respondent Selection
Memo.'' On this same date, we issued the antidumping questionnaire to
Kejriwal and Ria.
On December 3, 2007, we received Petitioner's comments regarding
amendment of model match methodology by narrowing the paper volume
categories from 24 to 7 categories. On December 18, 2007, the
Department invited interested parties to this proceeding to comment on
the methodology that Petitioner proposed.\6\ The Department did not
receive comments on this matter from any other interested parties. On
February 7, 2008, Petitioner requested that the Department adopt the
criteria as outlined in its December 3, 2007 comments and revise the
model match criteria for this review. In light of the fact that there
were no viable comparison market sales of the subject merchandise
reported by the mandatory respondents in this proceeding, the
Department does not have a sufficient basis to examine the model match
issues raised by Petitioner in the context of this review. Therefore,
we did not revise the model match criteria for purposes of this review.
See the ``Normal Value'' section below for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Memorandum to all Interested Parties from George
McMahon, Case Analyst, re: Request for Comments Regarding Proposed
Modifications to the Model Match Criteria, dated December 18, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 23, 2008, we received an e-mail from Ria requesting a
five-week extension of the deadline to file its response to the
Department's questionnaire issued on December 17, 2007. Because this
request for extension was not properly filed, in accordance with the
Department's filing and service regulations, with the Central Records
Unit, the Department issued a letter to Ria on January 23, 2008,
instructing Ria to properly file its request and properly serve it on
the interested parties. In addition, the Department granted a partial
extension until February 6, 2008 for Ria to respond to the Department's
questionnaire. However, Ria did not correct its filing, nor did it
submit any questionnaire responses to the Department.
On February 6, 2008, Kejriwal filed its sections A, C, and D
response to the Department's questionnaire. Petitioner provided its
comments on Kejriwal's questionnaire response on February 28, 2008.
On February 7, 2008, Navneet informed the Department that it was
unable to submit a voluntary response but indicated that should one of
the mandatory respondents not respond, it would request additional time
to file its response. On February 13, 2008, Petitioner requested that
the Department deny Navneet's extension request for filing its
questionnaire response because Navneet is not a mandatory respondent.
On February 20, 2008, the Department denied Navneet's extension request
because the deadline to file a voluntary questionnaire response had
passed.
On March 14, 2008, we issued the first sections A-D supplemental
questionnaire to Kejriwal. On April 21, 2008, Kejriwal submitted its
response to the Department's first sections A-D supplemental
questionnaire, to which Petitioner submitted its comments on May 5,
2008. On May 13 and 28, and July 24, 2008, the Department issued
additional section D supplemental questionnaires to Kejriwal, and
Kejriwal submitted its responses on May 28, June 17, and August 18,
2008, respectively. On July 11 and August 4, 2008, the Department
issued additional sections A and C supplemental questionnaires to
Kejriwal, which submitted its responses on July 25 and August 21, 2008,
respectively. Petitioner provided further comments and Kejriwal
provided its rebuttal comments on sections A, C, and D supplemental
questionnaire responses between May 5 and June 9, 2008.
On March 20, 2008, Kejriwal requested an extension for submitting
factual information. The Department
[[Page 58550]]
granted Kejriwal's extension request.\7\ On April 3, 2008, Kejriwal
submitted factual information, which includes a public financial
statement of Blue Bird India, Ltd. (``Blue Bird''). On April 10, 2008,
Petitioner submitted a letter containing certain factual information
\8\ which, Petitioners claimed, rebuts and clarifies information
submitted by Kejriwal on April 3, 2008. On April 11, 2008, Kejriwal
filed a letter requesting that the Department remove Petitioner's April
10, 2008, submission from the record of this administrative review on
the grounds that Petitioner's submission did not meet the regulatory
requirements of 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) as it did not rebut, clarify or
correct information previously on the record. On April 17, 2008,
Petitioner rebutted Kejriwal's April 11, 2008, comments, asserting that
the prior case decisions referenced by Kejriwal are not applicable
because they refer to non-market economy cases. On April 28, 2008, the
Department rejected Petitioner's April 10, 2008, submission because
this submission contained new factual information which was untimely
submitted and the information presented by Petitioner did not rebut,
clarify, or correct the information reported in Blue Bird's financial
statement.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See the Department's letter to Kejriwal, dated March 20,
2008, extending the due date for interested parties to submit new
factual information on the record of this proceeding from March 20,
2008 to April 3, 2008. In its April 3, 2008 submission, Kejriwal
states that Petitioner requested a review of Blue Bird and asserts
that Blue Bird is an Indian producer of subject merchandise.
\8\ Petitioner's submitted information contains the publicly
available 2006-2007 financial statement of Navneet, an Indian
producer of subject merchandise.
\9\ The Department found that Petitioner's submission was filed
after the Department's April 3, 2008 deadline for filing factual
information. Moreover, it did not meet the regulatory requirements
of 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) because the Navneet financial statement
submitted by Petitioner did not rebut, clarify or correct
information previously on the record, i.e., the Blue Bird financial
statement. Specifically, on page 2 of its April 10, 2008, letter,
Petitioner simply states ``{c{time} oncerning the calculation of
Kejriwal's selling expense and profit ratios, we hereby submit
rebuttal information in the form of publicly available, and fully
audited 2006-2007 financial statement of Navneet Publications
(India) Ltd.--an Indian producer of subject merchandise.''
Petitioner has made no statements or arguments as to why Navneet's
rather than Blue Bird's selling and profit data should be used by
the Department in this review, or why it is relevant to the
information placed on the record by Kejriwal on April 13, 2008.
Accordingly, the Department rejected Petitioner's April 10, 2008,
submission. See the Department's April 28, 2008, letter from Melissa
G. Skinner, Director, Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, to AASPS; RE:
2006--2007 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of
Certain Lined Paper from India; SUBJECT: Removal of untimely filed
factual information from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2008, the Department postponed the preliminary results in
this review until no later than September 29, 2008. See Certain Lined
Paper Products from India: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 24219 (May 2,
2008).
On September 12, 2008, Petitioner filed pre-preliminary comments,
to which Kejriwal submitted its rebuttal comments on September 17,
2008.
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes certain lined paper products,
typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the
actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-
school supplies is not a defining characteristic) composed of or
including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical
lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page
requirement for loose leaf filler paper) including but not limited to
such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition
books, wireless notebooks, loose leaf or glued filler paper, graph
paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the
paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger
dimension of the paper measuring 8\3/4\ inches to 15 inches
(inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated,
or ``tear-out'' size), and are measured as they appear in the product
(i.e., stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size
of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the
unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered
or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points.
Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any
binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders
board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may
not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or
backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or
graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within
the scope of this order whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are
hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject
merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but
not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards,
stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as
mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or
miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated,
included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing
thereto.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:
Unlined copy machine paper;
Writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to
products commonly known as ``tablets,'' ``note pads,'' ``legal pads,''
and ``quadrille pads''), provided that they do not have a front cover
(whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such
writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper;
Three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook
organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not
include subject paper;
Index cards;
Printed books and other books that are case bound through
the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;
Newspapers;
Pictures and photographs;
Desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not
limited to such products generally known as ``office planners,'' ``time
books,'' and ``appointment books'');
Telephone logs;
Address books;
Columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily
suited for the recording of written numerical business data;
Lined business or office forms, including but not limited
to: pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing
and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;
Lined continuous computer paper;
Boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not
limited to products commonly known as ``fine business paper,''
``parchment paper,'' and ``letterhead''), whether or not containing a
lined header or decorative lines;
Stenographic pads (``steno pads''), Gregg ruled (``Gregg
ruling'' consists of a single-or double-margin vertical ruling line
down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic
pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the
left of the book), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches;
Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following
trademarked products:
Fly\TM\ lined paper products: A notebook, notebook
organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with
infrared reflective inks and readable only by a Fly\TM\ pen-top
[[Page 58551]]
computer. The product must bear the valid trademark Fly\TM\ (products
found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not
excluded from the scope).
Zwipes\TM\: A notebook or notebook organizer made with a
blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of
the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-developed
permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes\TM\ pen). This
system allows the marker portion to mark the writing surface with a
permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker dispenses a solvent
capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing the ink to be
removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes\TM\ (products
found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not
excluded from the scope).
FiveStar[supreg]Advance\TM\: A notebook or notebook
organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with
plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic
material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with
PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of
the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of
specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches
the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1'' wide
elastic fabric band. This band is located 2\3/8\'' from the top of the
front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of
the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the
previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the
polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn
to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that
when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside.
Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched
with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms
a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable
grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks
FiveStar[reg] Advance\TM\ (products found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
FiveStar Flex\TM\: A notebook, a notebook organizer, or
binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers joined by 300
denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length of the spine
and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers
are of a specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the polyester covering
is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to outside) so that
when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside.
During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to the back cover with
the outside of the polyester spine cover to the inside back cover. Both
free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a
turned edge construction. Each ring within the fixture is comprised of
a flexible strap portion that snaps into a stationary post which forms
a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted with six metal
rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is specifically
positioned on the outside back cover. The product must bear the valid
trademark FiveStar Flex\TM\ (products found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
Merchandise subject to this order is typically imported under
headings 4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010,
4820.10.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). The HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
Application of Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply
``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is
not available on the record or an interested party: (1) Withholds
information that has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to
provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the
form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (3) significantly impedes a
proceeding; or (4) provides such information, but the information
cannot be verified.
As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, on December 17,
2007, the Department selected Kejriwal and Ria as the mandatory
respondents for this review, and on the same date, the Department
issued the antidumping questionnaire to Kejriwal and Ria. See the
``Respondent Selection Memo.'' The deadline to respond to the
Department's questionnaire was January 23, 2008. On January 23, 2008,
the Department received an e-mail from Ria requesting a five-week
extension of the deadline to file its response to the Department's
questionnaire issued on December 18, 2007. Because this request for
extension was not properly filed and served on the interested parties
in accordance with the Department's filing and service regulations, the
Department on January 23, 2008, issued a letter to Ria and instructed
Ria to properly file its extension request and properly serve it on the
interested parties. Despite Ria's improper filing of its extension
request, the Department granted a two-week extension until February 6,
2008 for Ria to respond to the Department's questionnaire. However,
despite the extension, Ria never submitted any questionnaire responses
to the Department, nor did it request any further extension. By failing
to respond to the Department's requests, Ria withheld requested
information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore,
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the Department
preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available for Ria is
appropriate.
According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See also Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar
from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (SAA),
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. Furthermore,
``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296,
27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337
F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). In this case, despite an
improperly filed extension request, the Department granted Ria an
opportunity
[[Page 58552]]
to refile the extension request and a two-week extension to respond to
the Department's questionnaire. Ria never responded, refiled, or made
additional request for a further extension. We preliminarily find that
Ria did not act to the best of its ability in this proceeding, within
the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because it could have
responded to the Department's requests for information, but failed to
do so. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from
the facts otherwise available with respect to Ria. See Nippon, 337 F.3d
at 1382-83.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as
AFA information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final
determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any
other information placed on the record.
The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among
the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.''
See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final
Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in
Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 (Nov. 7, 2006).
In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to
induce cooperation, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 23.17
percent, which is the highest rate on the record of the proceeding
which can be corroborated. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances:
Certain Lined Paper Products from India (``India Lined Paper
Investigation Final''), 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006). As stated in the
India Lined Paper Investigation Final, this rate was assigned as AFA to
two companies, which failed to cooperate to the best of their ability,
and is based on Kejriwal's data submitted in the investigation. Id. The
Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate
the purpose of the facts available rule (i.e., we find that this rate
is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this
proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act).
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts
available. Secondary information is defined as ``information derived
from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the
final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous
review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See 19
CFR 351.308(c) and (d); see also the SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has probative value. See the SAA at
870. The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate
such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official
import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular investigation. Id. To
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information
used.
To corroborate secondary information, to the extent practicable,
the Department normally examines the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. Unlike other types of information such as input
costs or selling expenses, however, there are no independent sources
for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is
administrative determinations. Thus, with respect to an administrative
review, if the Department chooses as facts available a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time
period. See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52012 (September 8,
2008) (``Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India''). See also
Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial
Rescission of Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent to Rescind
Administrative Reviews, and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part,
69 FR 5949, 5953 (February 9, 2004), unchanged in Antifriction Bearings
and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in
Part, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574, 55576-77
(September 15, 2004).
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812,
6814 (Feb. 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been
discredited or judicially invalidated. See D & L Supply Co. v. United
States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (CAFC 1997).
None of these unusual circumstances is present here. The Department
considers the dumping margin of 23.17 percent relevant for use as AFA
for this review because this margin is based on information from the
investigation and is within the range of transaction-specific margins
calculated for a mandatory respondent in this review.\10\ Moreover,
there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates
that 23.17 percent is not an appropriate AFA rate for Ria. The
Department finds that use of the rate of 23.17 percent as an AFA rate
is sufficiently high to ensure that Ria does not benefit from failing
to cooperate in our review by refusing to respond to our questionnaire.
See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from the
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, 73 FR 15132,
15133 (March 21, 2008). See also Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from
India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The dumping margin of 23.17 percent is the AFA rate for
Navneet in the original investigation, which was based on a
calculated rate for Kejriwal. See the Memorandum to File through
James Terpstra, Program Manager, from Cindy Lai Robinson, Case
Analyst, entitled ``Analysis Memorandum for Kejriwal Paper, Re:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Lined Paper Products from India,'' dated September 29, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As this rate is both reliable and relevant, the Department
determines that it has probative value. Accordingly, the Department has
determined that the selected rate of 23.17 percent, the highest rate
from any segment of this proceeding that can be corroborated, is in
accordance with section 776(c)'s requirement that secondary information
be corroborated (i.e., that it have probative value).
[[Page 58553]]
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of certain lined paper products by
Kejriwal to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared
export price (``EP'') to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price''
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign
like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of
trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section
below.
Export Price
For all U.S. sales made by Kejriwal, we used EP methodology, in
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject
merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States prior to importation and constructed export price
methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record.
We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act,
we made deductions for movement expenses, where appropriate, foreign
inland freight from plant/warehouse to the port of exportation, foreign
brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage and handling, international
freight, U.S. marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from port to
warehouse, U.S. inland freight from warehouse to customers, U.S. duty
and certain bank charges. In addition, we deducted billing adjustments
from EP, where appropriate.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability and Comparison Market Selection
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e.,
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of
U.S. sales), we compared Kejriwal's volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Section 773(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act applies to the Department's
determination of NV if the foreign like product is not sold (or offered
for sale) for consumption in the exporting country. When sales in the
home market are not viable, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act
provides that sales to a particular third country market may be
utilized if: (1) The prices in such market are representative; (2) the
aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by the producer or
exporter in the third country market is five percent or more of the
aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United
States; and (3) the Department does not determine that a particular
market situation in the third country market prevents a proper
comparison with the U.S. price.
Kejriwal reported that it made no sales to the home market and no
sales to a third country. See Kejriwal's Section A Response, dated
February 6, 2008, at A-2 and A-3; see also Kejriwal's supplemental
questionnaire response at 15, dated April 21, 2008. Therefore, for
Kejriwal, we used constructed value (``CV'') as the basis for
calculating NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
B. Level of Trade
Kejriwal reported sales only to unaffiliated distributors in the
U.S. market, and no sales to either the home or third country markets.
In the U.S. market, it reported only one level of trade. The selling
functions, customer category, and the level of selling expenses for
each type of sale was consistent for all distributors in the United
States. A level-of-trade adjustment is not practicable in this review,
as we do not have the information necessary with respect to the level
of trade at which CV selling expenses and profit were determined.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based
Kejriwal's NV on CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we
calculated CV based on the sum of Kejriwal's cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling,
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), profit, and U.S.
packing costs. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication
based on the CV information provided by Kejriwal in its section D
response. We recalculated Kejriwal's financial expense ratio to include
newsprint SG&A reclassified as cost of newsprint revenue in the cost of
goods sold denominator. Because Kejriwal does not have Indian sales of
the foreign like product or third country sales, the Department does
not have comparison market selling expenses or profit to use in its
calculations, as directed by section 773(e) of the Act. As an
alternative, the Department has used as selling expenses and profit for
Kejriwal, data from the March 31, 2007 financial statements of Blue
Bird. Blue Bird sells merchandise within the same general category of
products as the foreign like product in the Indian market. See
Memorandum from Robert Greger to Neal Halper, Director, Office of
Accounting, Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Kejriwal Paper Limited, dated
September 29, 2008 (``COP/CV Memo'').
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the
dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Non-Selected Rate
The statute and the Department's regulations do not directly
address the establishment of rates to be applied to companies not
selected for examination where the Department limited its examination
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act.
However, the Department normally determines the rates for non-selected
companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section
735(c)(5) of the Act. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs that
the Department is not to calculate an all-others rate using any zero or
de minimis margins or any margins based on total facts available.
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides that, where all margins
are zero, de minimis, or based on total facts available, the Department
may use ``any reasonable method'' for assigning the rate to non-
selected respondents. One method that section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act
contemplates as a possible method is ``averaging the estimated weighted
average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers
individually investigated.''
In this review, the margin calculated for Kejriwal is de minimis
and the margin applied to Ria is based on AFA. Thus, in this segment of
the proceeding, we have assigned only de minimis and rates based
entirely on AFA. Based on the facts of this case, the Department
determines that a reasonable method for determining the margin for the
non-selected companies in this review is the average of the margins,
other than those which are zero, de minimis, or based on total facts
available, that we found for the most recent period in which there were
such margins. In this case, the most recently completed segment is the
original investigation. In the investigation, only one rate that we
calculated was not zero, de minimis, or
[[Page 58554]]
based on total facts available: the margin we calculated for Kejriwal
was 3.91 percent (see India Lined Paper Investigation Final). This
margin was also assigned as the all-others rate. While the statute
contemplates that the Department may use an average of the zero, de
minimis, or facts-available rates determined in an investigation where
such rates are the only rates determined, in this review, the
Department has additional information that would not be available in an
investigation involving only de minimis/zero and AFA rates.
Specifically, in addition to the option of using an average of the
rates in this review, the Department can use the above de minimis rate
calculated in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding.
Consistent with the Department's decision in AFBs,\11\ we have
determined that it is appropriate in this review to use the calculated
above de minimis rate from the investigation, as there is no reason to
find that it is not reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins
for the non-selected companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR
52823 (September 11, 2008), and the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6 (``AFBs''). See also Certain Frozen Fish
Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review and Fourth Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of the Fourth
Administrative Review, 73 FR 52017 (September 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that in the investigation, Navneet, a non-selected company
in this review, was assigned a company-specific rate of 23.17 percent
based on AFA for its failure to cooperate to the best of its ability.
In this review, however, there is no basis for finding Navneet
uncooperative. As stated above, Navneet and the other 17 companies are
non-selected companies under this review. The Department determines to
use, as the non-selected rate, a calculated rate which does not rely on
zero, de minimis, or facts-available margins from the investigation.
Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, the 18 remaining
non-selected companies subject to this review will receive the rate of
3.91 percent calculated during the investigation.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins
exist for the respondents for the period April 17, 2006, through August
31, 2007, as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kejriwal Paper Limited................... 0.44 (de minimis)
Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd....................... 23.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Non-Selected
Companies Subject to This Review: \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins
calculated during the investigation (which is also the rate
calculated for Kejriwal in the investigation). See the ``Non-
Selected Rate'' section above.
Blue Bird India Ltd............................................. 3.91
Creative Divya.................................................. 3.91
Exel India Pvt. Ltd............................................. 3.91
FFI International............................................... 3.91
Global Art India Inc............................................ 3.91
Kejriwal Exports................................................ 3.91
M/S Super ImpEx................................................. 3.91
Magic International............................................. 3.91
Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd.......................................... 3.91
Marisa International............................................ 3.91
Navneet Publications (India) Ltd................................ 3.91
Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd..................................... 3.91
Rajvansh International.......................................... 3.91
Riddhi Enterprises.............................................. 3.91
SAB International............................................... 3.91
TKS Overseas.................................................... 3.91
Unlimited Accessories Worldwide................................. 3.91
V. Joshi Co..................................................... 3.91
Disclosure and Public Hearing
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not
later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding
are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the
issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of
authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
Room 1117, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be
discussed. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those
raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the
final results of this administrative review, including the results of
its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than
120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue
appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this
review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the
final results of this review.
For Kejriwal, because it reported the entered value for some of its
U.S. sales, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of
the sales for which entered value was reported. For Kejriwal's U.S.
sales reported without entered values, we will calculate importer-
specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount
of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing
this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether
the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the
requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate
importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered
value.
For all other companies \13\ subject to this review which were not
selected for individual examination, we will calculate an assessment
rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated
for the companies as described in the ``Non-Selected Rate'' section
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ As stated above, Ria will receive an AFA rate of 23.17
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
de minimis. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to
liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for
[[Page 58555]]
which the assessment rate is de minimis. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 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 this review and for future deposits of estimated duties,
where applicable.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller,
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved
in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion
of this clarification.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific
company listed above will be that established in the final results of
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and,
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, or the original investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be 3.91 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the
investigation. See Lined Paper Order, 70 FR at 5148. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
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 this review period. 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.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 29, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-23704 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P