[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23288-23294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10073]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-901]


Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Partial Rescission

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 18, 2010, the U.S. Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published the preliminary results of the third 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined 
paper products (``CLPP'') from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''). See Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic 
of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 63814 (October 18, 2010) (``Preliminary 
Results''). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. 
This review covers the following exporters and/or producer/exporters: 
Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co. Ltd. (``Lian Li''); Hwa Fuh 
Plastics Co., Ltd./Li Teng Plastics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (``Hwa Fuh/Li 
Teng''); Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd./Denmax Plastic Stationery 
Factory (``Leo/Denmax''); and the Watanabe Group (consisting of 
Watanabe Paper Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (``Watanabe Shanghai''); 
Watanabe Paper Products (Linqing) Co., Ltd. (``Watanabe Linqing''); and 
Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (``Hotrock Shenzhen'') 
(hereafter referred to as ``Watanabe'' or the ``Watanabe Group'' or 
``Respondent'')). Based on our analysis of the information and comments 
we received from Watanabe and petitioner \1\ after the Preliminary 
Results, we continue to apply adverse facts available (``AFA'') to 
Watanabe. Further, we are rescinding the review with respect to Lian 
Li, Hwa Fuh/Li Teng, and Leo/Denmax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner is the Association of American School Paper 
Suppliers (``AASPS'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: April 26, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lai Robinson or Stephanie Moore, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,

[[Page 23289]]

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department 
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797, or (202) 482-3692, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the Preliminary Results the Department found that there was 
credible evidence on the record that documents submitted by Watanabe at 
verification were either inaccurate, internally inconsistent, or were 
otherwise unreliable and therefore, applied an AFA rate of 258.21 
percent to the PRC-wide entity, including Watanabe. Since the 
publication of Preliminary Results, the following events have occurred:
    On October 22, 2010, Watanabe submitted a letter requesting 
clarification of how the Department plans to proceed in the final 
results following the Department's AFA decision with respect to 
Watanabe in the Preliminary Results. On October 28, 2010, petitioner 
provided comments on Watanabe's letter. On November 16, 2010, the 
Department issued a letter to Watanabe requesting further information 
in order to more fully evaluate the issues addressed in the Preliminary 
Results. Watanabe submitted its response on December 8, 2010.
    On December 22, 2010, the Department informed interested parties of 
the due dates for filing case and rebuttal briefs.\2\ On January 6, 
2011, Watanabe and petitioner filed their case briefs. On January 13, 
2011, Watanabe and petitioner submitted their rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum to the File, through James Terpstra, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, from Cindy Robinson, Case 
Analyst, titled ``Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China,'' dated December 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its January 13, 2011, rebuttal brief, Watanabe alleged that 
AASPS's January 6, 2011, case brief included business proprietary 
information (``BPI'') for which AASPS failed to properly identify the 
person that originally submitted the BPI data, as required by 19 CFR 
351.306(c). On January 21, 2011, in agreement with Watanabe's 
allegation, the Department rejected and removed from the record, 
AASPS's case brief dated January 6, 2011. The Department also granted a 
five-day extension to allow petitioner to revise and resubmit its case 
brief. On January 26, 2011, petitioner submitted its revised case 
brief. Watanabe resubmitted its rebuttal brief on February 2, 2011.
    On February 4, 2011, the Department extended the time limits for 
the final results of this review until no later than April 18, 2011. 
See Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China, 76 FR 6397 (February 4, 2011).

Scope of the Antidumping Duty 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 looseleaf filler paper) including but not limited to 
such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition 
books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph 
paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the 
paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger 
dimension of the paper measuring 8\3/4\ inches to 15 inches 
(inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, 
or ''tear-out'' size), and are measured as they appear in the product 
(i.e., stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size 
of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the 
unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered 
or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points. 
Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any 
binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders 
board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may 
not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or 
backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or 
graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within 
the scope of this order whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are 
hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject 
merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but 
not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards, 
stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as 
mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or 
miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated, 
included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing 
thereto.
    Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:
     Unlined copy machine paper;
     Writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to 
products commonly known as ``tablets,'' ``note pads,'' ``legal pads,'' 
and ``quadrille pads''), provided that they do not have a front cover 
(whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such 
writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper;
     Three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook 
organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not 
include subject paper;
     Index cards;
     Printed books and other books that are case bound through 
the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;
     Newspapers;
     Pictures and photographs;
     Desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not 
limited to such products generally known as ``office planners,'' ``time 
books,'' and ``appointment books'');
     Telephone logs;
     Address books;
     Columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily 
suited for the recording of written numerical business data;
     Lined business or office forms, including but not limited 
to: pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing 
and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;
     Lined continuous computer paper;
     Boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not 
limited to products commonly known as ``fine business paper,'' 
``parchment paper'', and ``letterhead''), whether or not containing a 
lined header or decorative lines;
     Stenographic pads (``steno pads''), Gregg ruled (``Gregg 
ruling'' consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line 
down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic 
pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the 
left of the book), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches.
    Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following 
trademarked products:
     Fly TM lined paper products: A notebook, 
notebook organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are 
printed with infrared reflective inks and readable only by a Fly 
TM pen-top computer. The product must bear the valid 
trademark Fly TM (products found

[[Page 23290]]

to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded 
from the scope).
     Zwipes TM: A notebook or notebook organizer 
made with a blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket 
surfaces of the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-
developed permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes 
TM pen). This system allows the marker portion to mark the 
writing surface with a permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker 
dispenses a solvent capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing 
the ink to be removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes 
TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or 
used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
     FiveStar[supreg]Advance TM: A notebook or 
notebook organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and 
with plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic 
material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with 
PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of 
the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of 
specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal 
manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal 
manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches 
the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1'' wide 
elastic fabric band. This band is located 2\3/8\'' from the top of the 
front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of 
the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the 
previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the 
polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn 
to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that 
when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. 
Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched 
with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms 
a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable 
grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks 
FiveStar[supreg]Advance TM (products found to be bearing an 
invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
     FiveStar Flex TM: A notebook, a notebook 
organizer, or binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers 
joined by 300 denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length 
of the spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin 
plastic covers are of a specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches 
(within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches 
(within normal manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the 
polyester covering is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to 
outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed 
from the outside. During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to 
the back cover with the outside of the polyester spine cover to the 
inside back cover. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and 
back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. Each ring within 
the fixture is comprised of a flexible strap portion that snaps into a 
stationary post which forms a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is 
riveted with six metal rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is 
specifically positioned on the outside back cover. The product must 
bear the valid trademark FiveStar Flex TM (products found to 
be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded 
from the scope).
    Merchandise subject to this order is typically imported under 
headings 4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 
4820.10.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). The HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of this 
order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, which is hereby 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. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Partial Rescission

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminary rescinded 
this review with respect to HwaFu/Li Teng because the Department was 
unable to directly serve its original questionnaire to HwaFu/Li 
Teng.\3\ Consistent with the Department's decision in Silicon Metal 
from PRC,\4\ the Department is rescinding the review with respect to 
Hwa Fu/Li Teng. See also Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 
Turkey: Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65083 (November 7, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum to the File from Cindy Robinson, Senior 
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, regarding 
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China: Proof of Non-Delivery 
to Hwa Fu/Li Teng,'' dated October 7, 2010.
    \4\ See, e.g., Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 12378 (March 7, 2008) 
(Silicon Metal from PRC), unchanged in Final Results and Final 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 46587 
(August 11, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in the Preliminary Results, the Department applied the 
reseller policy with respect to the following two respondents: Lian Li 
and Leo/Denmax.\5\ Lian Li and Leo/Denmax reported that they had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period 
of review (``POR''). As we stated in the Preliminary Results, our 
examination of shipment data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') for these two companies confirmed that there were no entries 
of subject merchandise from them during the POR. Further, we also sent 
an inquiry to CBP to confirm the claims made by Lian Li and Leo/
Denmax.\6\ In the Preliminary Results, we determined not to rescind the 
review in part in these circumstances but, rather, to complete the 
review with respect to Lian Li and Leo/Denmax and issue appropriate 
instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.\7\
    See id. However, in practice, the Department to date has not 
applied the

[[Page 23291]]

reseller policy in non-market economy (``NME'') cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We applied the reseller policy stated in our May 6, 2003, 
``automatic assessment'' clarification. We explained that, where 
respondents in an administrative review demonstrate that they had no 
knowledge of sales through resellers to the United States, we would 
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate 
applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 
6, 2003) (``May 2003 automatic assessment clarification'').
    \6\ See Preliminary Results and CBP Message No. 0028302, dated 
January 28, 2010.
    \7\ In addition, we stated that because ``as entered'' 
liquidation instructions do not alleviate the concerns which the May 
2003 clarification was intended to address, we find it appropriate 
in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of 
merchandise produced by Lian Li and Leo/Denmax and exported by other 
parties at the PRC-wide entity rate should we continue to find at 
the time of our final results that Lian Li and Leo/Denmax had no 
shipments of subject merchandise from the PRC. In support of our 
decision, we cited our practice in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 77610, 77612 (December 19, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's practice concerning ``no-shipment'' respondents in 
NME cases has been to rescind the administrative review if the 
respondent certifies that it had no shipments and the Department has 
confirmed through its examination of data from CBP that there were no 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 8338 (February 14, 2011). See also Certain 
Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007), 
unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Partial Rescission, 73 FR 15479, 15480 (March 24, 2008).
    In this case, as stated above, both Lian Li and Leo/Denmax 
certified that they had no shipments and the Department has confirmed 
through its examination of data from CBP that there were no shipments 
of subject merchandise during the POR by Lian Li and/or Leo/Denmax. 
Therefore, consistent with the Department's current practice in NME 
cases, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to 
Lian Li and Leo/Denmax.

Application of Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, the Department shall apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if (1) necessary information is not on 
the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) 
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide 
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner 
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) 
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 
782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) 
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted
    by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but 
does not meet all applicable requirements established by the 
administering authority'' if the information is timely, can be 
verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the 
interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the 
information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute 
requires the Department to use the information supplied if it can do so 
without undue difficulties.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse 
inference may include reliance on information derived from the 
petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or 
other information placed on the record. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar 
from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); Statement of 
Administrative Action, reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103-216, at 870 
(1994) (``SAA''). 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 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon 
Steel'').
    In Nippon Steel, the Court set out two requirements for drawing an 
adverse inference under section 776(b) of the Act. First, the 
Department ``must make an objective showing that a reasonable and 
responsible importer would have known that the requested information 
was required to be kept and maintained under the applicable statutes, 
rules, and regulations.'' Next the Department must ``make a subjective 
showing that the respondent * * * has failed to promptly produce the 
requested information'' and that ``failure to fully respond is the 
result of the respondent's lack of cooperation in either: (a) Failing 
to keep and maintain all required records, or (b) failing to put forth 
its maximum efforts to investigate and obtain the requested information 
from its records.'' The Court clarifies further that ``{a{time} n 
adverse inference may not be drawn merely from a failure to respond, 
but only under circumstances in which it is reasonable for Commerce to 
expect that more forthcoming responses should have been made.'' See 
Nippon Steel, at 1382-83.

Watanabe

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, the Department determined 
that facts available with an adverse inference was warranted for 
Watanabe because there was credible evidence on the record that certain 
documents submitted by Watanabe at verification were either inaccurate, 
internally inconsistent, and/or were otherwise unreliable. Further, 
Watanabe was unable to explain the discrepancies between documents 
collected by the Department at verification and documents provided by 
petitioner that implicated the veracity of Watanabe's questionnaire 
response.
    Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, the Department requested 
that Watanabe provide an explanation for the numerous discrepancies 
identified as a result of information provided by petitioner prior to 
the Preliminary Results. As discussed more fully in the Issue and 
Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, among other things, 
Watanbe attempted to explain away the discrepancies by claiming any 
discrepancy was merely caused by the fact that, for each sale, there 
are actually two separate entries--revenue and payment. Because of the 
nature of the issue, see Memorandum to the File, through James 
Terpstra, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 
Administration, from Cindy Robinson, Financial Analyst, titled 
``Certain Lined Paper Products from People's Republic of China: Certain 
Business Proprietary Information (``BPI'') in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum with Respect to the Watanabe Group,'' dated concurrently 
with this notice (``Watanabe BPI Memo'') for a complete discussion.
    We continue to find that the factual record in this review supports 
the conclusion that Watanabe's official books and records do not 
accurately reflect its actual commercial practice. The existence of two 
sets of invoices (one for revenue and one for payment) undermines the 
credibility of the Department's verification as well as the reliability 
of Watanabe's books and records and questionnaire response. Watanabe 
owns and generates its own accounting records and was aware that its 
sales reconciliation was based on records that did not accurately 
reflect the amounts charged to or received from its customers, yet it 
chose to not

[[Page 23292]]

voluntarily explain this to the Department. Because Watanabe did not 
disclose this information to the Department prior to or at 
verification, the Department was prevented from conducting verification 
based on accurate documentation. Rather, the Department conducted 
verification on the basis of documents that did not reflect the true 
selling prices and total sales values charged and payments received 
with respect to third country sales, which renders the ``Completeness 
Test'' and ``Quantity and Value Reconciliation'' futile. Consequently, 
the accuracy and completeness of Watanabe's sales and factors of 
production records, and its accounting system is called into question.
    Furthermore, as noted above, Watanabe had participated in the 
original investigation and the second administrative review and 
received an AFA rate in the second review. Accordingly, it should have 
known that it is responsible for demonstrating the reliability of its 
own data.
    Because Watanabe withheld information, significantly impeded the 
proceeding and provided information that could not be verified, we find 
that application of facts available is appropriate under sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act. We further find that application 
of AFA is appropriate under section 776(b) because Watanabe failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's 
requests for information.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, there is a rebuttable 
presumption that all companies within that country are subject to 
government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping 
duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of 
subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate unless an 
exporter demonstrates that it is sufficiently independent so as to be 
entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this 
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as further 
developed in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 
(May 2, 1994). It is the Department's practice to require a party to 
submit evidence that it operates independently of the State-controlled 
entity in each segment of a proceeding in which it requests separate 
rate status. The process requires exporters to submit a separate-rate 
status application. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished or Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of 2005-2006 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 
Review, 72 FR 56724 (October 4, 2007), and Peer Bearing Co. Changshan 
v. United States, 587 F.Supp. 2d 1319, 1324-25 (CIT 2008) (affirming 
the Department's determination in that review). As discussed in the 
Preliminary Results, and the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
accompanying this notice, in light of the credible evidence placed on 
the record by petitioner and the lack of an adequate explanation for 
the discrepancies by Watanabe, we continue to conclude that the 
information in Watanabe's questionnaire response is not reliable for 
purposes of this review. Therefore, Watanabe has not demonstrated that 
it operates free from government control. As a result, the Department 
continues to find that Watanabe is part of the PRC-wide entity.

The PRC-Wide Entity

    Because we determined that Watanabe is part of the PRC-wide entity, 
the PRC-wide entity is under review. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the 
Act, we further find that because the PRC entity (including Watanabe) 
failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires, withheld or 
failed to provide information in a timely manner or in the form or 
manner requested by the Department, submitted information that cannot 
be verified, or otherwise impeded the proceeding, it is appropriate to 
apply a dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using the facts 
otherwise available on the record. Moreover, by failing to respond to 
the Department's requests for information, withholding or failing to 
provide information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested by the Department, submitting information that cannot be 
verified, or otherwise impeding the proceeding, we find that the PRC-
wide entity has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with the Department's requests for information in 
this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. 
Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the 
facts otherwise available. See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.

Selection of Adverse Facts Available Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on 
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in 
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, 
the Department selects a rate that 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 Circular Welded Austenitic 
Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 4913 (January 28, 
2009).
    Generally, the Department finds that selecting the highest rate 
from any segment of the proceeding as AFA is appropriate. See, e.g., 
Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December 28, 2005). The 
CIT and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have affirmed 
decisions to select the highest margin from any prior segment of the 
proceeding as the AFA rate on numerous occasions. 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 the application of an AFA rate which was the highest 
available dumping margin from a different respondent in an 
investigation).
    As AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity, including 
Watanabe, a rate of 258.21 percent, from the investigation of CLPP from 
the PRC, which is the highest rate on the record of all segments of 
this proceeding. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China; Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined 
Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of 
China; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper 
Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006). As 
explained below, this rate has been corroborated.

[[Page 23293]]

Corroboration of Secondary Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. 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 of the Act 
concerning the subject merchandise. See SAA at 870. Corroborate means 
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information 
to be used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary 
information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine 
the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. See 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews: Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, and Tapered 
Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged 
in the final determination), Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part: Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, and Tapered 
Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997). 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. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post 
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003) (unchanged in final 
determination), Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: High and Ultra High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators 
from Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003); and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 
70 FR 12181, 12183-84 (March 11, 2005).
    The AFA rate selected here is from the investigation and was 
applied to Watanabe in the second administrative review. This rate was 
calculated based on information contained in the petition, which was 
corroborated for the final determination. See Certain Lined Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results 
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 17160 (April 14, 
2009). No additional information has been presented in the current 
review which calls into question the reliability of the information. 
Therefore, the Department finds that the information continues to be 
reliable. In addition, the AFA rate we are applying is the rate 
currently in effect for the PRC-wide entity.
    Furthermore, in this case, the PRC-wide rate which was applied to 
Watanabe was corroborated and upheld by the CIT in its recent decision 
Watanabe v. United States (Slip Op. 10-139 Court No. 09-00520) (CIT 
December 22, 2010), where the CIT found that the Department need not 
corroborate the PRC wide rate with regards to that specific respondent. 
Specifically, the CIT states: ``{w{time} here Commerce has found the 
respondent part of the PRC-wide entity based on adverse inferences, 
Commerce need not corroborate the PRC-wide rate with respect to 
information specific to that respondent because there is ``no 
requirement that the PRC-wide entity rate based on AFA relate 
specifically to the individual company.'' See also Peer Bearing Co.-
Changshan v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1327 (CIT 2008); 
Shandong Mach. Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 09-64, 2009 
WL 2017042, (CIT June 24, 2009) (Commerce has no obligation to 
corroborate the PRC-wide rate as to an individual party where that 
party has failed to qualify for a separate rate). Commerce's 
permissible determination that Watanabe is part of the PRC-wide entity 
means that inquiring into Watanabe's separate sales behavior ceases to 
be meaningful.

Changes since the Preliminary Results

    We have made no changes from the Preliminary Results in the final 
results.

Final Results of Review

    The Department has determined that the following dumping margin 
exists for the period September 1, 2008, through August 31, 2009:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Producer/Manufacturer               Weighted-Average Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate (which includes the Watanabe  258.21%
 Group).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 
the Department will determine, 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 these 
final results of review. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously 
reviewed or investigated PRC exporters who received a separate rate in 
a prior segment of the proceeding, but were not reviewed in this 
review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the rate assigned in 
that segment of the proceeding; (2) for all other PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 258.21 
percent; and (3) 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 Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the

[[Page 23294]]

return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of 
proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an 
APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    This administrative review and this notice are published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 18, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

    List of Comments in the Accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum

Comment 1: Alleged Procedural Irregularities
Comment 2: Timeliness of Petitioner's New Factual Information 
Submission
Comment 3: Application of Adverse Inferences to Petitioner
Comment 4: Watanabe's Inability to Respond Based on Bracketing of 
Information
Comment 5: Petitioner's Case Brief Was Properly Rejected but Should 
Not Have Been Allowed To Be Resubmitted
Comment 6: Application of Adverse Inferences With Respect to 
Watanabe
Comment 7: Factors of Production and Surrogate Values

[FR Doc. 2011-10073 Filed 4-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P