[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61390-61394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24813]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-901]


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

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

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published in the Federal Register its preliminary 
results of the fifth administrative review of certain lined paper 
products from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ We invited 
parties to comment on the Preliminary Results, however, no party 
submitted a case brief to the Department. The current review covers two 
exporters: Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd./Denmax Plastic Stationery 
Factory (``Leo/Denmax'') and Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. 
(``Lian Li''). For Leo/Denmax, we continue to apply adverse facts 
available (``AFA''); for Lian Li, we are rescinding the review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic 
of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission, In Part, 77 FR 
32498 (June 1, 2012) (``Preliminary Results'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: October 9, 2012.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded 
this review with respect to Lian Li based on evidence on the record 
indicating that Lian Li had no shipments of subject merchandise which 
entered the United States during the period of review (``POR'') of 
September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011.\2\ As discussed in the 
Preliminary Results, on December 30, 2011, Lian Li submitted a letter, 
certifying that they did not export the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR; the Department confirmed this information 
with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP''). We invited 
interested parties to submit comments on our Preliminary Results, but 
we received no comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Department preliminarily applied AFA with respect 
to Leo/Denmax because Leo/Denmax did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. As stated above, on June 1, 2012, the Department 
published its Preliminary Results. On June 5, 2012, the Department 
received a letter dated May 29, 2012, from Leo/Denmax stating that they 
made no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR and requesting rescission of the review with respect to Leo/Denmax. 
However, because Leo/Denmax's letter claiming that it made no shipments 
was

[[Page 61391]]

improperly and untimely submitted, the Department rejected and returned 
Leo/Denmax's letter on June 11, 2012.\3\ Therefore, for purposes of 
these final results, we continue to apply AFA with respect to Leo/
Denmax. See the ``Application of AFA with Respect to Leo/Denmax'' 
section below for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the Department's June 11, 2012, letter to Tilly Shiang, 
General Manager, Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd. from James 
Terpstra, Program Manager, titled ``Certain Lined Paper Products 
from the People's Republic of China--Return of Improperly and 
Untimely Submission of Leos' May 29, 2012 No Shipment Letter, 
(Rejection Letter).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Review

    The POR is September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011.

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 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:
     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[supreg]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[supreg]AdvanceTM (products found to be bearing an 
invalidly licensed or used

[[Page 61392]]

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 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 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 
4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000 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.
    Since the issuance of the order, the Department has clarified the 
scope of the order in response to numerous scope inquiries. In 
addition, on September 23, 2011, the Department revoked, in part, the 
PRC AD order with respect to FiveStar[supreg] AdvanceTM 
notebooks and notebook organizers without PVC coatings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Certain Lined Paper Products From People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review and Revocation, in Part, 76 FR 60803 (September 30, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    We have received no comments on our Preliminary Results, with the 
exception of Leo/Denmax's May 29, 2012, letter which the Department 
rejected on June 11, 2012, as noted above.

Final Rescission of Review With Respect to Lian Li

    Because there is no information on the record which indicates that 
Lian Li made shipments of subject merchandise which entered the United 
States during the POR, and because we did not receive any comments on 
our Preliminary Results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and 
consistent with our practice, we are rescinding this review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products from the PRC for 
the period of September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011, with respect 
to Lian Li. The cash deposit rate for Lian Li will continue to be the 
rate established in the most recently completed segment of this 
proceeding.

Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) With Respect to Leo/Denmax

    In this case, the Department issued a questionnaire to Leo/Denmax 
on November 8, 2011, by email. Receiving no acknowledgement of receipt 
of the emailed questionnaire from Leo/Denmax, the Department sent a 
hard copy of the questionnaire to Leo/Denmax through United Parcel 
Service (``UPS'') by registered mail on November 17, 2011.\5\ After the 
Department announced its Preliminary Results, Leo/Denmax submitted a 
letter stating that Leo/Denmax did not have any exports, sales or 
entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and 
requested that the Department rescind the administrative review with 
respect to Leo/Denmax. The deadline for submitting a letter certifying 
``no shipments'' was December 31, 2011, but the Department did not 
receive Leo/Denmax's no-shipment letter until June 5, 2012 (dated May 
29, 2011), 158 days after the filing deadline for a no shipment 
letter.\6\ Moreover, Leo/Denmax's letter was not filed electronically 
on the Department's filing system (IA ACCESS), as required and stated 
in the initial questionnaire issued to Leo/Denmax. Instead, Leo/Denmax 
filed its letter manually in regular mail without submitting the proper 
certifications. Therefore, on June 11, 2012, the Department rejected 
Leo's/Denmax's no-shipment submission dated May 29, 2012, because the 
letter was improperly and untimely submitted. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.302(d)(iii), the Department also withdrew all known copies of Leo/
Denmax's May 29, 2012, letter from the record and returned them to Leo/
Denmax. The Department informed Leo/Denmax that this information shall 
not be considered by the Department in making its final results of 
review.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Proof of Delivery of Antidumping Questionnaire to 
Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd,'' memorandum to file from Joy 
Zhang, analyst, through James Terpstra, Program Manager, Office 3, 
AD/CVD Operations, dated January 4, 2012.
    \6\ The Department's Rejection Letter inadvertently stated that 
the deadline for filing a notice of no sale letter is October 31, 
2011.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``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

[[Page 61393]]

administrative review, or other information placed on the record.\8\ 
Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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'').
    \9\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Leo/Denmax did not provide the requested information timely 
and properly, they significantly impeded the proceeding and 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 Leo/Denmax failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's 
requests for information.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving nonmarket economy (``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.\10\ 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.\11\ As 
discussed in the Preliminary Results, Leo/Denmax did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire regarding separate rate eligibility, or 
submit a separate rate certification. Furthermore, Leo/Denmax has not 
demonstrated that it operates free from government control. Therefore, 
the Department continues to find that Leo/Denmax is part of the PRC-
wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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).
    \11\ 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), Peer Bearing Co. Changshan v. United 
States, 587 F.Supp. 2d 1319, 1324-25 (CIT 2008) (affirming the 
Department's determination in that review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRC-Wide Entity

    Because we determined that Leo/Denmax 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 Leo/
Denmax) 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, 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Nippon, 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.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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.\14\ The Court 
of International Trade (``CIT'') and the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') have affirmed the Department's prior 
decisions to select the highest margin from any prior segment of the 
proceeding as the AFA rate on numerous occasions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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).
    \15\ 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 a rate of 258.21 
percent, from the investigation of certain lined paper products from 
the PRC, which is the highest rate on the record of all segments of 
this proceeding.\16\ As explained below, this rate has been 
corroborated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\17\ Corroborate means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value.\18\ To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information to be used.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See SAA at 870.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AFA rate selected in this instance is from the original 
investigation. This

[[Page 61394]]

rate was calculated based on information contained in the petition, 
which was corroborated for the final determination.\20\ This rate was 
also applied in the 2007-2008 period of review of lined paper products 
from the PRC and the CIT found this PRC-wide rate to be 
corroborated.\21\ No additional information has been presented in the 
current review which calls into question the reliability of the 
information.\22\ Therefore, the Department finds that the information 
continues to be reliable and has probative value. In addition, the AFA 
rate we are applying is the rate currently in effect for the PRC-wide 
entity.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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).
    \21\ See Watanabe Group v. United States, Court No. 09-520, Slip 
Op. 2010-139 (CIT Dec. 22, 2010), affirming Final Results in Certain 
Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
63387 (December 3, 2009).
    \22\ See Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic 
of China: Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 23288 (April 26, 2011).
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following margin exists for the period 
September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                        Exporter                              margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-wide Entity (including Leo/Denmax)..................          258.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), 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. We will 
instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at the PRC-wide rate 
of 258.21 percent.

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 lined 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) 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; (2) 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 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 Importers

    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.

Notification Regarding APOs

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. 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 terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, as amended, and 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: October 1, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-24813 Filed 10-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P