[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 132 (Monday, July 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33406-33409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16511]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-827]


Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

SUMMARY: On January 7, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils from the 
People's Republic of China, covering the period December 1, 2006, 
through November 30, 2007. See Certain Cased Pencils from the People's 
Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 673 (January 7, 2009) 
(``Preliminary Results''). We gave the interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. After reviewing the 
interested parties' comments, we made changes to our calculations for 
the final results of the review. The final dumping margin for this 
review is listed in the ``Final Results of the Review'' section below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton or Alexander Montoro, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0371 or (202) 482-0238, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 33407]]

Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Results on January 7, 
2009. On January 12, 2009, the Department sent supplemental 
questionnaires to mandatory respondents China First Pencil Co., Ltd. 
(``China First''), Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Corp. 
(``Three Star''), and Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. 
(``Rongxin'') (collectively, ``the respondents''), and received 
responses from China First and Three Star on February 2, 2009, a 
response from Rongxin on January 29, 2009, and an addendum to Rongxin's 
response on February 18, 2009. The Department sent a supplemental 
questionnaire to Three Star on February 20, 2009, and received a 
response on February 23, 2009. China First, Three Star, and the 
petitioners, Sanford L.P., Musgrave Pencil Company, RoseMoon Inc., and 
General Pencil Company (collectively, ``the petitioners''), submitted 
comments on Three Star's February 23, 2009, supplemental response on 
February 25, 2009. Additional supplemental questionnaires were sent to 
Rongxin, China First, and Three Star on March 25, and April 21, 2009, 
respectively, and responses were received from Rongxin on April 3, 
2009, and from China First and Three Star on April 28, 2009.
    China First, Three Star, and the petitioners, submitted surrogate 
value comments on February 10, 2009. On February 9 and 10, 2009, the 
petitioners submitted factual information, and China First and Three 
Star issued a rebuttal to that factual information on February 12, 
2009.
    From February 16 through February 28, 2009, we conducted 
verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by China First 
and Three Star. The Department released its verification reports for 
China First and Three Star to interested parties on May 22, 2009.
    As noted in the Preliminary Results, five respondents subject to 
this review were not selected as mandatory respondents.\1\ We issued 
separate rate applications and certifications to all five of these 
companies. We are rescinding one of these respondents, Dixon, as 
requested, on the basis that it had no shipments in the POR, as 
discussed below. SFTC filed its separate rate certification on July 24, 
2008. In our analysis of the information on the record regarding SFTC, 
we found no information indicating the existence of government control 
of SFTC's export activities. See SFTC's submission of July 24, 2008. 
Consequently, we determine that SFTC has met the criteria for the 
application of a separate rate. The remaining three non-mandatory 
respondents did not submit either a separate rates certification or 
application. One of these three companies, Tianjin, qualified for a 
separate rate in an earlier administrative review. See Certain Cased 
Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 43082, 
43084 (July 21, 2003). However, because Tianjin did not submit a 
separate rate certification in the instant review, it will now be 
treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. Consequently, Anhui, Guangdong, 
and Tianjin have not satisfied the criteria for separate rates for the 
POR and are considered as being part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Beijing Dixon Stationery Company Ltd. (``Dixon''), Oriental 
International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (``SFTC''), 
Guangdong Provincial Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & Export 
Corporation (``Guangdong''), Tianjin Custom Wood Processing Co., 
Ltd. (``Tianjin''), and Anhui Import & Export Co., Ltd. (``Anhui'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners and the respondents submitted case briefs on June 
2, 2009 and rebuttal briefs on June 8, 2009. None of the parties 
requested a hearing.

Final Partial Rescission

    On July 3, 2008, Beijing Dixon Stationery Company Ltd. (``Dixon'') 
requested that the Department rescind the administrative review with 
respect to Dixon and certified that it had no exports, sales or entries 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the Period of Review 
(``POR''). We reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 
import data and found no evidence that Dixon had any shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR. In addition, on July 17, 2008, we 
made a ``No Shipments Inquiry'' to CBP to confirm that there were no 
exports of subject merchandise by Dixon during the POR. We asked CBP to 
notify us within ten days if CBP ``has contrary information and is 
suspending liquidation'' of subject merchandise exported by Dixon. CBP 
did not reply with contrary information. See Memorandum from Alexander 
Montoro to the File, entitled ``Intent to Rescind in Part the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Cased Pencils from 
the People's Republic of China,'' August 7, 2008 (``Intent to Rescind 
Memo''). The Department provided interested parties in this review 
until August 14, 2008, to submit comments on the Intent to Rescind 
Memo. No interested party submitted any comments. Accordingly, we are 
rescinding this review with respect to Dixon.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain cased pencils 
of any shape or dimension (except as described below) which are writing 
and/or drawing instruments that feature cores of graphite or other 
materials, encased in wood and/or man-made materials, whether or not 
decorated and whether or not tipped (e.g., with erasers, etc.) in any 
fashion, and either sharpened or unsharpened. The pencils subject to 
the order are currently classifiable under subheading 9609.10.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). 
Specifically excluded from the scope of the order are mechanical 
pencils, cosmetic pencils, pens, non-cased crayons (wax), pastels, 
charcoals, chalks, and pencils produced under U.S. patent number 
6,217,242, from paper infused with scents by the means covered in the 
above-referenced patent, thereby having odors distinct from those that 
may emanate from pencils lacking the scent infusion. Also excluded from 
the scope of the order are pencils with all of the following physical 
characteristics: (1) length: 13.5 or more inches; (2) sheath diameter: 
not less than one-and-one quarter inches at any point (before 
sharpening); and (3) core length: not more than 15 percent of the 
length of the pencil.
    In addition, pencils with all of the following physical 
characteristics are excluded from the scope of the order: novelty jumbo 
pencils that are octagonal in shape, approximately ten inches long, one 
inch in diameter before sharpening, and three-and-one eighth inches in 
circumference, composed of turned wood encasing one-and-one half inches 
of sharpened lead on one end and a rubber eraser on the other end.
    Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs are addressed in the ``Issues 
and Decision Memorandum for the 2006-2007 Administrative Review of 
Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China'' (``Issues 
and Decision Memorandum''), which is dated concurrently with and hereby 
adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and 
to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached 
to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a 
public document which is on file in the Central Records Unit in room 
1117 in the main

[[Page 33408]]

Department building, and is accessible on the web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made the 
following changes in calculating dumping margins: (1) we adjusted the 
surrogate value for slats to reflect wood loss in producing slats from 
lumber; (2) we corrected the World Trade Atlas (``WTA'') data, which we 
used as surrogate values, for certain exclusions and errors made in the 
Preliminary Results; (3) we made corrections to certain clerical 
errors. In addition, we have calculated separate antidumping margins 
for China First and Three Star. See Comment 1 of the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum. For further details, see ``Analysis for the Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cased 
Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Shanghai Three Star 
Stationery Industry Co., Ltd.,'' ``Analysis for the Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cased Pencils from 
the People's Republic of China: China First Pencil Co., Ltd.,'' 
``Analysis for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: 
Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co.'' and ``2006-2007 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Cased Pencils from the People's 
Republic of China: Factor Valuation for the Final Results'' memoranda, 
all dated July 6, 2009.

Final Results of the Review

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average dumping 
margin exists for the period December 1, 2006, through November 30, 
2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China First Pencil Company, Ltd. (which includes its               26.32
 affiliates China First Pencil Fang Zheng Co.,
 Shanghai First Writing Instrument Co., Ltd., and
 Shanghai Great Wall Pencil Co., Ltd.)..............
Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Corp........               60.91
Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd...........               11.48
Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade                32.90
 Co., Ltd...........................................
PRC-wide Entity\2\..................................              114.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The PRC-wide entity includes Anhui Import Export Co., Ltd.
  (``Anhui''), Guangdong Provincial Stationery and Sporting Goods Import
  Export Corporation (``Guangdong''), and Tianjin Custom Wood Processing
  Co., Ltd. (``Tianjin``). A review was requested for these three
  companies.

    As stated above in the ``Background'' section of this notice, SFTC 
qualifies for a separate rate in this review. Moreover as stated above 
in the ``Background'' section of this notice, we did not select SFTC as 
a mandatory respondent in this review. Therefore, SFTC is being 
assigned a dumping margin based on the calculated margins of mandatory 
respondents which are not de minimis or based on adverse facts 
available, in accordance with Department practice. Accordingly, we have 
assigned SFTC the simple-average of the dumping margins assigned to the 
China First, Three Star, and Rongxin.

Assessment Rates

    The Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of review.
    For China First, Three Star, and Rongxin, we calculated customer-
specific antidumping duty assessment amounts for subject merchandise 
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the total quantity of 
subject merchandise sold in these transactions. We calculated these per 
unit assessment amounts in this fashion, as opposed to calculating 
import-specific ad valorem rates in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212 
(b)(1), because the entered values and importers of record for China 
First's, Three Star's, and Rongxin's reported U.S. sales are not on the 
record. Where the customer-specific assessment rate is above de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess the customer-specific rate 
uniformly on the entered customs value of all POR entries of subject 
merchandise sold to the customer. To determine whether the per-unit 
duty assessment rates were de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent ad 
valorem), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106 (c) (2), we calculated customer-specific ad valorem ratios 
based on the export prices.
    For SFTC, the company which was not selected for individual review 
and met the separate application status, we calculated an assessment 
rate based on the weighted-average margin calculated for the mandatory 
respondents, which are not de minimis or based on adverse facts 
available, in accordance with Department practice. We will instruct CBP 
to assess antidumping duties on this company's entries equal to the 
margin this company has received in the final results, regardless of 
the importer of, or customer who purchased its subject merchandise.
    The other three companies for whom a review was requested, Anhui, 
Guangdong, and Tianjin, did not provide separate rate information. 
Therefore, the Department finds that they are not entitled to a 
separate rate. As a result, these three companies will be considered 
part of the PRC-wide entity. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries 
for all companies in the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate of 114.90 
percent.
    For entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from 
companies not subject to this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
them at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. The final 
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final 
results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, 
where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will apply to all shipments 
of certain cased pencils from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''): (1) the 
cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies named above will be the 
rates for those firms established in the final results of this 
administrative review; (2) for any previously reviewed or investigated 
PRC or non-PRC exporter, not covered in this review, with a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate 
established in the most recent segment of this proceeding; (3) for all 
other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate 
established in the final results of this review which is 114.90 
percent; and (4) the cash-deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter of 
subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
exporter that

[[Page 33409]]

supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a final 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.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to 
the administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 
written notification of the return or 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.
    This notice of final results is issued and published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 6, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.

Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Collapsing Analysis
Comment 2: Three Star's Responses and Application of Adverse Facts 
Available
    a. Market Economy Purchase Claims
    b. Alleged Failure to Report Certain Information Warrants 
Application of AFA
Comment 3: Appropriate Labor Rate
Comment 4: Surrogate Values
    a. Slats
    b. Cores and Lacquer
    c. Castor Oil, Kaolin Clay, and Packing
    d. Steam Coal
Comment 5: Adjustment of the Pencil Slat Surrogate Value to Account for 
Wood Loss
Comment 6: Whether Certain WTA Data Are Aberrational
Comment 7: Correction of Clerical Errors
Comment 8: Use of Wrong Surrogate Value for ``Shell Card''

[FR Doc. E9-16511 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S