[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17149-17153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8495]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-843]


Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Notice of Final Results 
of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 7, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty 
administrative review for certain lined paper products (CLPP) from the 
India.\1\ This review covers two mandatory respondents, Kejriwal 
Exports and Kejriwal Paper Limited (Kejriwal), and Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. 
(Ria), and 17 other manufacturers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise (collectively, respondents).\2\ The period of review (POR) 
is April 17, 2006, through August 31, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Preliminary 
Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
58548 (October 7, 2008) (Preliminary Results).
    \2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 61621 (October 31, 2007). The 
respondents include: Blue Bird India Ltd.; Creative Divya; Exel 
India Pvt. Ltd.; FFI International; Global Art India Inc.; Kejriwal 
Exports and Kejriwal Paper Limited; M/S Super ImpEx.; Magic 
International; Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd.; Marisa International; 
Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. (Navneet); Pioneer Stationery Pvt. 
Ltd.; Rajvansh International; Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. (Ria); Riddhi 
Enterprises; SAB International; TKS Overseas; Unlimited Accessories 
Worldwide; and V. Joshi Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes to Kejriwal's margin. For these final results, we find that 
Kejriwal sold subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) 
during the POR. Because it is above de minimis, we are applying the 
calculated weighted-average margin for Kejriwal from this review to 
those companies that were covered by this review but were not selected 
for individual examination (non-selected respondents). Therefore, the 
final results differ from the Preliminary Results with respect to 
Kejriwal and the non-selected respondents. However, we continue to 
apply an adverse facts available rate of 23.17 percent to Ria.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2009.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 7, 2008, the Department published the Preliminary 
Results. On February 2, 2009, the Department extended the time limits 
for the final results of this review until no later than April 6, 2009. 
See Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Extension of Time Limits 
for Final of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 5817 
(February 2, 2009).
    We invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. On 
November 14, 2008, the Association of American School Paper Suppliers 
and its individual members (the petitioner) and Kejriwal submitted 
their case briefs. On November 25, 2008, the petitioner, Kejriwal, and 
Navneet submitted their rebuttal briefs.

[[Page 17150]]

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:
     FlyTM 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 
FlyTM pen-top computer. The product must bear the valid 
trademark FlyTM (products found to be bearing an invalidly 
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
     ZwipesTM: 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 
ZwipesTM 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 ZwipesTM (products found to be bearing an 
invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
     FiveStar[reg]AdvanceTM: 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]AdvanceTM (products found to be bearing an 
invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
     FiveStar FlexTM: A notebook, a notebook 
organizer, or binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers 
joined by 300 denier

[[Page 17151]]

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 FlexTM (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.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 
this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' 
from John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated April 6, 
2009, (Issues and Decisions Memorandum) which is adopted by this 
notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we 
have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to 
this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
the issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations 
in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit 
(CRU), room 1117 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete 
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly 
on the world wide web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes to Kejriwal's margin. Specifically, we recalculated Kejriwal's 
general and administrative (G&A) expenses ratio. See Memorandum to Neal 
M. Halper from Robert B. Greger, Re: Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Final Results - Kejriwal Paper Limited, dated April 
6, 2009.
    Kejriwal Paper Limited (Kejriwal). As a result of this change, the 
calculated margin for Kejriwal is no longer a de minimis rate, and is 
assigned to the non-selected companies covered in this review.

Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 Preliminary Results, Ria is one of the 
mandatory respondents for this review, but Ria did not submit any 
questionnaire responses to the Department, nor did it request any 
further extension after it improperly filed an extension request. 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 
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 (September 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 (August 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 to refile the extension request and a two-week extension to 
respond to the Department's questionnaire. Ria never responded, 
refiled, or made an additional request for a further extension. The 
Department finds 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 (November 7, 2006).

[[Page 17152]]

    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce cooperation, the Department has assigned a rate of 23.17 
percent, which is the highest rate on the record of the proceeding 
which can be corroborated. See 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 prevent parties from benefitting from non-cooperation 
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 (February 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 the original investigation.\3\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final Results of Review:
    We determine that the following weighted-average margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted Average
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kejriwal Exports and Kejriwal Paper Limited........                1.22
Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd..................................               23.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Non-Selected 
Companies Subject to this Review:\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the reasons discussed above, this rate is based on the 
average of the margins, other than those which were zero, de 
minimis, or based on total facts available, calculated during the 
review.

Blue Bird India Ltd.................................                1.22
Creative Divya......................................                1.22
Exel India Pvt. Ltd.................................                1.22
FFI International...................................                1.22
Global Art India Inc................................                1.22
M/S Super ImpEx.....................................                1.22
Magic International.................................                1.22
Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd..............................                1.22
Marisa International................................                1.22
Navneet Publications (India) Ltd....................                1.22
Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd.........................                1.22
Rajvansh International..............................                1.22
Riddhi Enterprises..................................                1.22
SAB International...................................                1.22
TKS Overseas........................................                1.22
Unlimited Accessories Worldwide.....................                1.22
V. Joshi Co.........................................                1.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated 
importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of 
the total antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the 
total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. For all 
other

[[Page 17153]]

companies\5\ subject to this review which were not selected for 
individual examination, we calculated an assessment rate based on the 
cash deposit rate calculated for Kejriwal in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As stated above, Ria will receive an AFA rate of 23.17 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these final results of 
review. The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment''' 
regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification applies to 
POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies examined in 
this review (i.e., companies for which a dumping margin was calculated) 
where the companies did not know that their merchandise 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 intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a 
full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of certain lined paper products from India entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act: 
(1) for companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies other than those covered by this review, the cash deposit 
rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the 
producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the 
most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and 
(4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this 
review, a prior review, or the investigation, the cash deposit rate 
will be 3.91 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-
fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in 
effect until further notice.

Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to 
liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure 
to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and 
the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the amount of 
antidumping and/or countervailing duties reimbursed.

Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 
notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion 
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 
with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 6, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX I

List of Comments in the Accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Appropriate Rate for Non-Selected Respondents
Comment 2: Whether to Assign a Higher Adverse Facts Available (AFA) 
Rate to Ria
Comment 3: General and Administrative Expense Ratio
Comment 4: Financial Expense Ratio
Comment 5: Capitalized Expenses
[FR Doc. E9-8495 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S