[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 64 (Monday, April 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15449-15458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7688]


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

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 the 2007-2008 
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part

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


[[Page 15450]]


SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is currently 
conducting the 2007-2008 administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on certain tissue paper products from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC). We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below 
normal value (NV) with respect to Max Fortune Industrial Limited and 
Max Fortune (FETDE) Paper Products Co., Ltd. (collectively, Max 
Fortune). Accordingly, we preliminarily find that Max Fortune does not 
qualify for revocation under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).
    In addition, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with 
respect to six companies which reported they made no exports of subject 
merchandise during the period of review (POR), as confirmed by our 
review of import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
    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 made during the period of 
review (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.

DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Brandon Custard, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1766 or (202) 482-1823, respectively.

Case History

    On March 30, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper products from the 
PRC. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Tissue Paper Products 
from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 16223 (March 30, 2005) 
(Tissue Paper Order).
    On March 3, 2008, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain tissue paper products from the PRC. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 11389 (March 3, 
2008).
    On March 31, 2008, the Department received a timely request for an 
administrative review of this antidumping duty order in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213 from Max Fortune. On March 31, 2008, the Department also 
received a timely request from the petitioner \1\ for an administrative 
review of nine companies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner is the Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, 
Inc.
    \2\ These companies are as follows: (1) Max Fortune; (2) Guilin 
Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd. (Guilin Qifeng); (3) Vietnam Quijiang Paper 
Co., Ltd. (Qujiang); (4) Foshan Sansico Co., Ltd. (Foshan Sansico); 
(5) Sansico Asia Pacific Limited (Sansico Asia); (6) PT Grafitecindo 
Ciptaprima (Grafitecindo); (7) PT Printec Perkasa (Printec I); (8) 
PT Printec Perkasa II (Printec II); and (9) PT Sansico Utama 
(Sansico Utama).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 25, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain tissue paper products from the PRC for nine 
individually named firms covering the period March 1, 2007, through 
February 29, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, FR 
22337 (April 25, 2008) (Initiation Notice).
    On May 2, 2008, the Department placed on the record the CBP data 
for U.S. imports of subject merchandise from the PRC during the POR. In 
its May 2, 2009 letter to the interested parties in this review, the 
Department stated that it intended to select respondents for individual 
review based on the CBP import data and provided parties with an 
opportunity to comment on the CBP import data and respondent selection. 
On May 9 and 12, 2008, Max Fortune and the petitioner, respectively, 
submitted comments to the Department on the respondent selection 
process.
    On June 9, 2008, we requested that the Import Administration's 
Office of Policy (the Office of Policy) issue a surrogate-country 
memorandum for the selection of the appropriate surrogate country in 
this review.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Request for 
Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated June 9, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comments received from the parties regarding 
respondent selection, on June 10, 2008, the Department issued letters 
to each of the nine companies for which a review was initiated 
requesting that each: (1) Provide POR quantity and value data and 
complete a separate-rate certification or application; or (2) submit a 
no-shipment statement if applicable.
    On June 12, 2008, the Office of Policy provided us with a list of 
five countries at a level of economic development comparable to that of 
the PRC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate 
Countries,'' dated August 7, 2008 (Policy Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 24, 2008, the Department received submissions from eight 
companies. One of those companies (i.e., Max Fortune) provided its 
quantity and value data. Seven companies \5\ certified that they had no 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR and one of these seven 
companies, Quijiang, requested that the Department rescind the review 
with respect to it based on its POR no-shipment claim. Also on June 24, 
2008, seven of these eight companies submitted their separate-rate 
certifications in response to the Department's request.\6\ On June 27, 
2008, the remaining company for which a review was requested, Guilin 
Qifeng, informed the Department that it would not be participating in 
this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The seven companies claiming no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR are Quijiang, Foshan Sansico, Sansico 
Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec I, Printec II, and Sansico Utama.
    \6\ The seven companies submitting separate rate certifications 
are Max Fortune, Foshan Sansico, Sansico Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec 
I, Printec II, and Sansico Utama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 2, 2008, we issued Max Fortune the antidumping duty 
questionnaire. On July 9, 2008, we also issued Quijiang the antidumping 
duty questionnaire and informed it, with respect to its sales 
reporting, that the POR had been expanded back to September 5, 2006.\7\ 
See July 9, 2008 cover letter to questionnaire issued to Quijiang.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The normal POR in this case is March 1, 2007 through 
February 29, 2008. However, we expanded the POR with respect to 
Quijiang back to September 5, 2006, in order to include Quijiang's 
entries of tissue paper products covered by the Department's 
preliminary determination in an anti-circumvention inquiry which was 
ongoing at that time. See Certain Tissue Paper Products from the 
People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order and Extension of Final 
Determination, 73 FR 21580 (April 22, 2008). In that proceeding, the 
Department found that Quijiang had circumvented the order by 
exporting tissue paper products to the United States that were 
processed in Vietnam using PRC-origin jumbo rolls of tissue paper 
produced by its parent company (Guilin Qifeng). See Certain Tissue 
Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative 
Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 
73 FR 57591 (October 3, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 10, 2008, the Department invited interested parties 
participating in this review to submit comments on surrogate-country 
selection and to submit publicly available information as

[[Page 15451]]

surrogate values (SVs) for purposes of calculating NV.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See the Department's letter regarding, ``2007-2008 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China,'' requesting parties 
to provide comments on surrogate-country selection and provide 
surrogate factors of production values from the potential surrogate 
countries (i.e., India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia and 
Thailand).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 8, 2008, Quijiang informed the Department that it would 
not be responding to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, 
arguing that it was prematurely issued pending the Department's final 
determination in the anti-circumvention inquiry involving Quijiang.
    During August 2008, Max Fortune submitted its responses to the 
antidumping duty questionnaire.
    On August 14 and September 19, 2008, the petitioner submitted 
surrogate-country comments and publicly available surrogate value 
information (PAI), respectively, in this administrative review.
    Upon the completion of the Department's final circumvention 
determination involving Quijiang, on September 23, 2008, the Department 
provided Quijiang one final opportunity to respond to the antidumping 
questionnaire issued on July 9, 2008. On October 3, 2008, Quijiang 
submitted a letter stating that it had not issued any certifications 
pursuant to the certification procedures outlined in the Department's 
affirmative preliminary and final determinations of circumvention 
involving Quijiang. As Quijiang's letter lacked the necessary 
certifications, the Department informed Quijiang on October 8, 2008, 
that it needed to resubmit its October 3, 2009, letter with the 
required certifications. On October 9, 2008, Quijiang submitted another 
letter stating that it had closed its factory as of April 20, 2008, and 
would not be participating in this review.
    On October 24, 2009, the Department discontinued the certification 
program for Quijiang's U.S. entries of tissue paper products based on 
its non-participation in this administrative review.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See October 24, 2008, memorandum entitled ``Discontinuation 
of Certification Program for Quijiang.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 20, 2008, the Department postponed the preliminary 
results of this review until March 31, 2009. See Certain Tissue Paper 
Products From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit 
for Preliminary Results of 2007-2008 Administrative Review, 73 FR 70323 
(November 20, 2008).
    The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Max Fortune 
on December 17, 2008, and received Max Fortune's supplemental 
questionnaire response on January 5, 2009. Max Fortune submitted 
additional information related to its January 5, 2009, response on 
January 19, 2009.
    On January 29, 2009, the Department issued Max Fortune the 
verification outline. Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), the Department conducted verification of 
the questionnaire responses submitted by Max Fortune in February 2008. 
See Memorandum to The File from Case Analysts entitled ``Verification 
of the Questionnaire Responses of Max Fortune Industrial Limited and 
Max Fortune (FETDE) Paper Products Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper Products from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated March 31, 2009 (Verification 
Report). The verification report is on file and available in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the Department's main 
building.
    On March 13, 2009, the petitioner submitted additional PAI for 
consideration in the preliminary results.

Period of Review

    The POR is March 1, 2007, through February 29, 2008.

Scope of the Order

    The tissue paper products covered by 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, 4802.50.00, 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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; (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).

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (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 deposit 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 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 
6, 1991). In this review, in support of its claim for a separate rate, 
Max Fortune reported that it is a wholly foreign-owned company 
registered and located in Hong Kong. See August 1, 2008, Section A 
Response (Section A Response) at page 2. Our verification findings 
corroborated Max Fortune's separate-rate claim. See Verification Report 
at pages 2-11. Consequently, no additional separate-rate 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).

[[Page 15452]]

Application of Adverse Facts Available

    For the reasons outlined below, we have preliminarily applied 
adverse facts available (AFA) to the PRC-wide entity which includes 
Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides 
that, if an interested party: (A) Withholds information that has been 
requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a 
timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 
782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding 
under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the 
Department ``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information from the administering authority * * *, the administering 
authority * * *, in reaching the applicable determination under this 
title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that 
party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.'' See also 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994) (SAA). It is the 
Department's practice to make an adverse inference ``to ensure that the 
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate 
than if it had cooperated fully.'' Id. An adverse inference may include 
reliance on information derived from the petition, the final 
determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other 
information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act.
    In this administrative review, Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang failed to 
respond to the Department's questionnaires. Specifically, we issued a 
quantity and value questionnaire along with a separate-rates 
application and certification form to Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang for 
purposes of selecting the mandatory respondents in this review. See 
June 10, 2008, letters to Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang. However, Guilin 
Qifeng subsequently stated that it would not be participating in this 
review. See June 27, 2008, letter from Guilin Qifeng. Although Quijiang 
initially submitted a no-shipment response to the Department's quantity 
and value questionnaire on June 24, 2008, we subsequently issued an 
antidumping duty questionnaire to Quijiang for purposes of reporting 
its sales tissue paper products exported from Vietnam which were 
produced with PRC-origin jumbo rolls during the period September 5, 
2006, through February 29, 2008. See July 9, 2008, letter to Quijiang. 
We gave Quijiang a second and final opportunity to respond to this 
questionnaire on September 23, 2008. See September 23, 2008, letter to 
Quijiang. In response, Quijiang stated that it had closed its factory 
and would no longer be participating in this review. See October 9, 
2008, letter from Quijiang.
    Because Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang did not demonstrate that they 
qualify for separate-rate status, we consider both entities to be part 
of the PRC-wide entity for purposes of this review. In the Initiation 
Notice, the Department stated that if one of the companies on which we 
initiated a review does not qualify for a separate rate, all other 
exporters of tissue paper products from the PRC which have not 
qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be part of the single PRC-
wide entity of which the named exporter is a part. See Initiation 
Notice, 73 FR at 22338. Based upon the failure of Guilin Qifeng and 
Quijiang, as part of the PRC-wide entity, to submit responses to the 
Department's questionnaires, the Department finds that the PRC-wide 
entity withheld requested information, failed to provide the 
information in a timely manner and in the form requested, and 
significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act. Therefore, the Department must 
rely on the facts otherwise available in order to determine a margin 
for the PRC-wide entity, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) 
of the Act. See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 69546 (December 1, 2006), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    Because the PRC-wide entity, including Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang, 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in providing the 
requested information in this review, as discussed above, we find it 
necessary, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), as well as 
section 776(b), of the Act, to use total adverse facts available (AFA) 
as the basis for these preliminary results of review for the PRC-wide 
entity. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and 
New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 2007) (decision to 
apply total AFA to the NME-wide entity unchanged in Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results 
of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and First New 
Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12, 2007)).

Selection of Adverse Facts Available Rate

    As discussed above, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Department to use, as AFA, information derived from the petition, the 
final determination in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 
any previous administrative review, or any information placed on the 
record. In selecting an AFA rate in reviews, the Department's practice 
has been to assign the highest margin on the record of any segment of 
the proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003). The Court of 
International Trade (CIT) and the Federal Circuit have consistently 
upheld the Department's practice in this regard. See Rhone Poulenc, 
Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Rhone 
Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 
2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available 
dumping margin from a different respondent in a LTFV investigation); 
see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 689 
(July 31, 2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest 
available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative 
respondent); and Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. 
United States, 360 F. Supp 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a 
different respondent in a previous administrative review).
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 
The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870; see also Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen

[[Page 15453]]

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 
2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 22. 
In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with 
an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is 
reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, 
selecting the highest prior margin ``reflects a common sense inference 
that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current 
margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 
would have produced current information showing the margin to be 
less.'' Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190.
    Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and our normal 
practice, as AFA, we are assigning the PRC-wide entity, which includes 
Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang, the highest rate on the record of any 
segment of this proceeding, i.e., 112.64 percent. As discussed further 
below, this rate has been corroborated.

Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department selects 
from among the facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary 
information,'' the Department shall, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the 
Department's disposal. To corroborate the information, the Department 
seeks to determine that the information used has probative value. See 
SAA at 870. The Department has determined that to have probative value, 
information must be reliable and relevant. See 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), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6.
    To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both 
reliable and relevant. The AFA rate of 112.64 percent that we are 
applying in the current review represents the highest rate from the 
petition in the LTFV investigation segment of this proceeding. See 
Tissue Paper Order. The Department corroborated the information used to 
calculate the 112.64 percent rate in the LTFV investigation. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue 
Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 7475 
(February 14, 2005). Furthermore, the AFA rate we are applying for the 
current review was applied in a review subsequent to the LTFV 
investigation, and no information has been presented in the current 
review that calls into question the reliability of this information. 
See Certain Tissue Paper from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 17477, 17480-17481 (April 9, 2007) 
(unchanged in Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 72FR 58642, 58644-58645 (October 16, 
2007)). Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, 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. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 
1996) (where 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. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 
1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (finding that the Department cannot use a margin 
that has been judicially invalidated in its calculations). The AFA rate 
we are applying for the instant review was calculated based on export 
price information and production data from the petition, as well as the 
most appropriate surrogate value information available to the 
Department during the LTFV investigation. As there is no information on 
the record of this review that demonstrates this rate is not 
appropriate for use as AFA, we determine this rate has relevance.
    Because the AFA rate, 112.64 percent, is both reliable and 
relevant, we determine that it has probative value. As a result, we 
determine that the 112.64 percent rate is corroborated to the extent 
practicable for the purposes of this administrative review, in 
accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, and may reasonably be 
applied to the exports of the subject merchandise by the PRC-wide 
entity as AFA.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2007-2008 Administrative Review

    With respect to Foshan Sansico, Sansico Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec 
I, Printec II, and Sansico Utama, each of these companies informed the 
Department that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR.
    Based on the record of this review, including the CBP data provided 
to the parties on May 2, 2009, we conclude preliminarily that Foshan 
Sansico, Sansico Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec I, Printec II, and Sansico 
Utama did not export subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are 
preliminarily rescinding this administrative review for Foshan Sansico, 
Sansico Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec I, Printec II, and Sansico Utama.

Non-Market Economy Country

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an 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 Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 58672 (October 7, 2005) 
(unchanged in 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)). None of the parties in this 
administrative review has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we 
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which 
applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on 
the NME producer's factors of production (FOPs), valued in a surrogate 
market-economy (ME) country or countries considered to be appropriate 
by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in 
valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the 
prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1) 
At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME 
country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The 
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal 
Value'' section below. See also the

[[Page 15454]]

Department's memorandum entitled, ``Preliminary Results of the 2007-
2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Factor 
Valuation for the Preliminary Results,'' dated March 31, 2009 
(Surrogate Value Memorandum).
    The Department determined that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, 
Colombia and Thailand are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of 
economic development. See Policy Memorandum. Customarily, we select an 
appropriate surrogate country from the Policy Memorandum based on the 
availability and reliability of data from the countries that are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, we found 
that India is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC; 
is a significant producer of the subject merchandise (i.e., tissue 
paper); and has publicly-available and reliable data. See March 31, 
2009, Memorandum to the File entitled ``2007-2008 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Certain Tissue Paper Products from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country'' 
(Surrogate Country Memorandum).
    Accordingly, we selected India as the primary surrogate country for 
purposes of valuing the FOPs in the calculation of NV because it meets 
the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. See 
Surrogate Country Memorandum. We obtained and relied upon publicly-
available information wherever possible.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
in antidumping administrative reviews, interested parties may submit 
publicly-available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Max 
Fortune to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared 
Max Fortune's export prices (EPs) to NV, as described in the ``Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice below, pursuant to 
section 773 of the Act.

Export Price

    Because Max Fortune sold subject merchandise to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation into the United 
States and use of a constructed-export-price methodology was not 
otherwise indicated, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of 
the Act.
    We calculated EP based on the reported terms of delivery to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, 
we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for 
foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in 
the PRC pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.\11\ Because 
foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were 
provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based 
those charges on surrogate rates from India. See ``Factor Valuations'' 
section below for further discussion of surrogate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``2007-2008 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results Margin Calculation for Max Fortune Industrial 
Limited and Max Fortune (FETDE) Paper Products Co., Ltd. 
(collectively referred to as Max Fortune),'' dated March 31, 2009 
(Max Fortune Calculation Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining the most appropriate surrogate values (SVs) to use 
in a given case, the Department's practice is to use review period-wide 
price averages, prices specific to the input in question, prices that 
are net of taxes and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous 
with the POR, and publicly-available data. See, e.g. Certain Cased 
Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 
6, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    The data we used for brokerage and handling expenses fulfill all of 
the foregoing criteria except that they are not specific to the subject 
merchandise. There is no information of that type on the record of this 
review. Therefore, the Department used three sources to calculate an SV 
for domestic brokerage expenses: (1) Data from Kejriwal Paper Ltd. 
(Kejriwal) for the period of investigation July 1, 2004, to June 30, 
2005 (see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain 
Lined Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) 
(unchanged in 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)); (2) 
data from Essar Steel Limited (Essar) for the POR 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, 2021 (January 12, 2006) (unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006)); and (3) data 
from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. for the POR February 1, 2004, through 
January 31, 2005 (see Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 
10597 (March 4, 2005) (unchanged in Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 
India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 
37757 (June 30, 2005)). Because these values were not concurrent with 
the period of this administrative review, we adjusted them for 
inflation using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for India as published 
in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial 
Statistics, available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and then calculated a 
simple average of the three companies' brokerage expense data.
    The Department valued inland truck freight expenses using a per-
unit average rate calculated from data on the following Web site: 
http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section 
of this Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large 
Indian cities. Because this rate is not contemporaneous with the POR, 
we deflated it using WPI data. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, 
the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department 
will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on 
various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation 
of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. Therefore, 
we calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) 
and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC FOPs in 
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. The FOPs include: (1) 
Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) 
amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative 
capital costs, including

[[Page 15455]]

depreciation. We used the FOPs reported by Max Fortune for materials, 
energy, labor, and packing. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act.
    In examining SVs, we selected, where possible, the publicly-
available value, which was an average non-export value, representative 
of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the 
POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004) 
(unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 
70 FR 24502 (May 10, 2005)). For a detailed explanation of the 
methodology used to calculate SVs, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the FOPs reported by Max Fortune for the POR. We relied on the 
factor-specific data submitted by Max Fortune for the production inputs 
in its questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses, where 
applicable, for purposes of selecting SVs. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported per-unit factor consumption rates by publicly-
available Indian SVs for all but two inputs.
    Max Fortune reported that it purchased two inputs (i.e., pulpboard 
and cartons), which it consumed in the production of the subject 
merchandise under review from a 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 FOPs 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 ME, the 
Department will use the reported ME price to value the input if it was 
paid for in a ME currency. For purposes of the preliminary results, we 
have determined that Max Fortune's reported ME purchases of the two 
inputs identified above accounted for a significant portion of its 
total purchases of these two inputs and, therefore, have used the 
reported purchase prices to value these two inputs in our NV 
calculation. See Max Fortune Calculation Memo for further discussion on 
the valuation of cartons.
    Normally, the Department prefers to use FOP data that accurately 
represent the quantity of inputs consumed on a control number (CONNUM)-
specific basis. In this review, Max Fortune has indicated that it 
started maintaining records for dye and ink consumption in the paper-
making and printing stages of production on a product-specific and 
color-specific basis in November 2007 for purposes of reporting its FOP 
data in a manner consistent with the Department's instructions in the 
prior review segment. See January 5, 2009, supplemental response at 
pages 11-14. Accordingly, for the last four months of the POR (November 
2007 through February 2008), Max Fortune reported its paper-making dye 
consumption amounts and printing ink consumption amounts on a product-
code-specific and color-specific basis. However, for the portion of the 
POR prior to the Department's instruction (March 2007 through February 
2008), Max Fortune did not report these consumption amounts on a 
product-specific and color-specific basis. In addition, Max Fortune did 
not provide product-specific and color-specific printing dye 
consumption amounts for any portion of the POR.
    At verification, we examined Max Fortune's ink and dye consumption 
records and confirmed that it started maintaining consumption records 
for dyes used for paper-making and inks used for printing on both a 
color-specific and product-specific basis as of November 2007. However, 
Max Fortune did not maintain these records before that date. See 
Verification Report at pages 22-24. The Department finds such 
information necessary in order to accurately value the FOPs utilized in 
tissue paper production. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of 
the Act, because necessary information relevant to the Department's 
analysis is not on the record, the Department has determined it 
necessary to apply facts otherwise available to value Max Fortune's dye 
and ink consumption factors which were not reported on a color-specific 
and product-specific basis. Consistent with the Department's decisions 
in prior segments of this review, as facts available, the Department 
has preliminarily determined it appropriate to rely on the aggregate, 
non-color-specific paper-making dye consumption factors reported by Max 
Fortune prior to November 2007. The Department valued such dye 
consumption using an average of Indian import values for different dye 
types commonly used in tissue-paper production. For dyes used in 
printing, as facts available, for the entire POR, the Department has 
preliminarily determined it appropriate to accept Max Fortune's 
aggregate, non-color specific print dye consumption factors. The 
Department valued print dye consumption using an average Indian import 
value for non-black printing dyes. For inks used for printing, while 
Max Fortune reported product-specific and color-specific ink 
consumption factors as of November 2007, the Department has been unable 
to obtain color-specific ink values. Thus, we have valued all ink 
consumption using a non-color-specific average Indian import value.
    In selecting the SVs, consistent with our past practice, we 
considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. 
See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic 
of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 
FR 71509 (December 11, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 9. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 
including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we 
added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter 
of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or 
the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where 
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). 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., ME-purchased inputs), we based 
freight for these inputs on the actual distance from the input supplier 
to the site at which the input was consumed. Where necessary, we 
adjusted the SVs for inflation/deflation using the WPI as published in 
the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics, 
available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf.
    We valued the raw material and packing material inputs, and the by-
product (i.e., paper scrap) using weighted-average unit import values 
derived from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India 
(MSFTI), as published by the Directorate General of Commercial 
Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 
Government of India, and compiled by the World Trade Atlas (WTA), 
available at http:www.gtis.com/

[[Page 15456]]

wta.htm. The Indian WTA import data are reported in rupees and are 
contemporaneous with the POR.\12\ Indian SVs denominated in Indian 
rupees were converted to U.S. dollars using the applicable daily 
exchange rate for India for the POR. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. Where appropriate, we converted the units of 
measure to kilograms. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, with regard to the WTA Indian import-based SVs, we 
disregarded prices from NME countries \13\ and those we have reason to 
believe or suspect may be subsidized, because we have found in other 
proceedings that these exporting countries maintain broadly available, 
non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, there is reason 
to believe or suspect that all exports to all markets from such 
countries may be subsidized.\14\ We are also guided by the statute's 
legislative history that explains that it is not necessary to conduct a 
formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See 
H.R. Rep. No. 576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 590-91 (1988). Rather, the 
Department was instructed by Congress to base its decision on 
information that is available to it at the time it is making its 
determination. Therefore, we excluded export prices from Indonesia, 
South Korea, Thailand, and India when calculating the Indian import-
based SVs. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. Finally, we excluded imports 
that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country from 
the average Indian import values, because we could not be certain that 
they were not from either an NME or a country with general export 
subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, 
Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, PRC, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, 
Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
    \14\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
the 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, 
and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 
10, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1; 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; 
and China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 
F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal 
Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Department valued surrogate truck freight 
cost by using a deflated per-unit average rate calculated from data on 
the following web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. 
See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
73 FR 52282, 52286 (September 9, 2008) (and unchanged in Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 (February 11, 
2009); and Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 8.
    We valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial 
Development Corporation because it includes a wide range of industrial 
water tariffs. This source provides 378 industrial water rates within 
the Maharashtra province from July 2007; 189 for the ``inside 
industrial areas'' usage category; and 189 for the ``outside industrial 
areas'' usage category.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Web site available at http://www.midcindia.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department calculated a simple average price for domestic coal 
using data obtained from Coal India Limited. Because these data were 
not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the average value for 
inflation using WPI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 6.
    To value electricity, the Department used July 2006 electricity 
price rates from Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of 
Electricity Supply in India, published by the Central Electricity 
Authority of the Government of India. Because these data were not 
contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the average value for 
inflation using WPI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 5.
    For direct labor, indirect labor and packing labor, consistent with 
19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rates 
reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national 
income in ME countries as reported on Import Administration's Web site. 
See ``Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries'' (revised January 2007) 
(available at http://www.trade.gov/ia/). For further details on the 
labor calculation, see Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 8. 
Because the regression-based wage rates do not separate the labor rates 
into different skill levels or types of labor, we applied the same wage 
rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by Max Fortune.
    Max Fortune reported that during the manufacturing process, its 
subject merchandise was transported from its paper-making facility to 
its tissue paper-processing facility. Using Max Fortune's reported 
distance and the reported weight of its tissue paper products, we 
valued the other PRC distance (i.e., domestic inland freight cost of 
transporting paper from Max Fortune's Putian facility to Max Fortune's 
Mawei processing facility) with the surrogate truck rate discussed 
above. This additional freight value was added to the cost of 
manufacture (COM). See Max Fortune Calculation Memorandum.
    For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses 
(SG&A), and profit values, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), we 
used the public information from the 2007-2008 annual report of 
Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. (Pudumjee).\16\ From this information, 
we were able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total 
raw materials, labor, and energy (ML&E) costs; SG&A as a percentage of 
ML&E plus overhead (i.e., COM); and the profit rate as a percentage of 
the COM plus SG&A. Where appropriate, we did not include in the 
surrogate overhead and SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed 
in the financial report. For a full discussion of the calculation of 
these ratios, see Surrogate Value Memorandum and its accompanying 
calculation worksheets at Attachment 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 18497, 18502 (April 4, 
2008) (unchanged in Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 58113 (October 6, 
2008) (Tissue Paper AR2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by Max Fortune for use in our preliminary 
results. We used standard verification procedures including an 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original 
source documents provided by Max Fortune. See Verification Report.

Intent Not To Revoke Order In Part

    On March 31, 2008, Max Fortune requested, that pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2), the Department revoke it from the antidumping duty order 
on certain tissue paper products from the PRC at the conclusion of this 
administrative review. Max Fortune submitted along with its revocation 
request a certification stating that: (1) The company sold subject 
merchandise at not less than NV during the POR, and that in the future 
it would not sell such merchandise at less than NV (see 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1)(i)); (2) the company has sold the subject merchandise to 
the

[[Page 15457]]

United States in commercial quantities during each of the past three 
years (see 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii)); and (3) the company agrees to 
immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, if the 
Department concludes that the company, subsequent to revocation, sold 
the subject merchandise at less than NV (see CFR 351.222(e)(1)(iii)).
    In determining whether or not to revoke an antidumping duty order 
with respect to a particular producer/exporter under 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2), the Department considers whether: (1) The producer/
exporter has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV for a 
period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the producer/exporter 
has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department 
finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; and (3) the 
continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset 
dumping. In this case, our preliminary margin calculation shows that 
Max Fortune sold the subject merchandise at less than NV during the 
current review period. See ``Preliminary Results of the Review'' 
section below. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Max Fortune does 
not qualify for revocation from the order, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2).

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 
See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period March 1, 2007, through February 
29, 2008:

               Certain Tissue Paper Products from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
   Individually reviewed exporter 2007-2008 administrative      percent
                           review                               margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Fortune.................................................        4.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        PRC-Wide Rate                              Margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate (including Guilin Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd. and        112.64
 Vietnam Quijiang Paper Co., Ltd.)..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). 
Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue, 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are requested to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Additionally, parties are 
requested to provide their case brief and rebuttal briefs in electronic 
format (e.g., Microsoft Word, pdf, etc.). 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 
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. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be 
limited to those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. The Department 
will issue the final results of this review, including the results of 
its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the 
hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for 
Max Fortune, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment 
rates for the merchandise subject to this review. Because we do not 
have entered values on the record for Max Fortune's sales, we 
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping 
duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or 
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 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 calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where 
an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
    With respect to the PRC-wide entity (including Guilin Qifeng and 
Quijiang), we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries at the 
PRC-wide rate of 112.64 percent.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ All entries of certain tissue paper products from Quijiang 
will be presumed to be of PRC origin regardless of whether they are 
declared to be of Vietnamese or Chinese origin. See October 24, 
2008, memorandum entitled ``Discontinuation of Certification Program 
for Quijiang.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the notice of final results of the administrative review 
for all shipments of certain tissue paper products from the PRC 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 
(1) A cash deposit rate of 4.13 percent will be required for certain 
tissue paper products from the PRC exported by Max Fortune; (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that 
have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the 
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all 
other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, which have not been found 
to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be PRC-
wide rate of 112.64 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable 
to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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.

[[Page 15458]]

    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: March 31, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E9-7688 Filed 4-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P