[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 213 (Wednesday, November 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68293-68295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28112]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-471-807]


Certain Uncoated Paper From Portugal: Preliminary Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective date: November 4, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2593.

Background

    On August 26, 2015, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published its preliminary determination in the antidumping duty 
investigation of certain uncoated paper from Portugal.\1\ On September 
28, 2015, Petitioners \2\

[[Page 68294]]

filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.206, alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to 
imports of the merchandise under consideration.\3\ On September 29, 
2015, the Department issued a letter to Portucel S.A. (``Portucel''), 
the sole respondent in this investigation, requesting monthly shipment 
data from July 2014 through August 2015.\4\ On October 6, 2015, 
Portucel filed its response to the Department's request for monthly 
shipment data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Uncoated Paper From Portugal: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination, 80 FR 51777 (August 26, 2015) (``Preliminary 
Determination'').
    \2\ Petitioners are United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 
International Union; Domtar Corporation; Finch Paper LLC; P.H. 
Glatfelter Company; and Packaging Corporation of America 
(collectively ``Petitioners'').
    \3\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners 
``Petitioners' Critical Circumstances Allegation'' (September 28, 
2015) (``Petitioners' Critical Circumstances Allegation'').
    \4\ See Letter to Portucel from Catherine Bertrand, Program 
Manager, Office V ``Request for Monthly Quantity and Value Shipment 
Data'' (September 29, 2015).
    \5\ See Letter to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, 
from Portucel ``Portucel's Monthly Quantity and Value Shipment 
Data'' (October 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), when a critical 
circumstances allegation is filed 30 days or more before the scheduled 
date of the final determination, the Department will issue a 
preliminary finding whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that critical circumstances exist. Because the critical 
circumstances allegation in this case was submitted after the 
preliminary determination was published, the Department must issue its 
preliminary findings of critical circumstances no later than 30 days 
after the allegation was filed.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Framework

    Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), provides that the Department, upon receipt of a timely 
allegation of critical circumstances, will determine whether there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history 
of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the 
United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the 
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew 
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject 
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be 
material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period.
    Further, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1) provides that, in determining whether 
imports of the subject merchandise have been ``massive,'' the 
Department normally will examine: (i) The volume and value of the 
imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic 
consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 
351.206(h)(2) provides that, ``{i{time} n general, unless the imports 
during the `relatively short period' . . . have increased by at least 
15 percent over the imports during an immediately preceding period of 
comparable duration, the Secretary will not consider the imports 
massive.'' 19 CFR 351.206(i) defines ``relatively short period'' 
generally as the period starting on the date the proceeding begins 
(i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months 
later. This section of the regulations further provides that, if the 
Department ``finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had 
reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the 
proceeding, that a proceeding was likely,'' then the Department may 
consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time.

Critical Circumstances Allegation

    In their allegation, Petitioners contend that, based on the dumping 
margins assigned by the Department in the Preliminary Determination, 
importers knew or should have known that the merchandise under 
consideration was being sold at less than fair value (``LTFV'').\7\ 
Petitioners also contend that, based on the preliminary determination 
of injury by the U.S. International Trade Commission (``ITC''), there 
is a reasonable basis to impute importers' knowledge that material 
injury is likely by reason of such imports.\8\ Finally, as part of 
their allegation and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), Petitioners 
submitted import statistics for the HTS numbers included in the scope 
for the period between August 2014 and July 2015 as evidence of massive 
imports of uncoated paper from Portugal during a relatively short 
period.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Petitioners' Critical Circumstances Allegation, dated 
September 28, 2015, at 2-4.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id. at 4-6, Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis

    The Department's normal practice in determining whether critical 
circumstances exist pursuant to the statutory criteria has been to 
examine evidence available to the Department, such as: (1) The evidence 
presented in Petitioners' critical circumstances allegation; (2) import 
statistics released by the ITC; and (3) shipment information submitted 
to the Department by the respondents selected for individual 
examination.\10\ As further provided below, in determining whether the 
above statutory criteria have been satisfied in this case, we have 
examined: (1) The evidence presented in Petitioners' September 28, 
2015, allegation; (2) information obtained since the initiation of this 
investigation; and (3) the ITC's preliminary injury determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970, 31972-73 (June 5, 2008) 
(``Carbon Steel Pipe''); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of 
China, 74 FR 2049, 2052-53 (January 14, 2009) (``SDGE'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act: History of Dumping and Material 
Injury by Reason of Dumped Imports in the United States or Elsewhere of 
the Subject Merchandise

    In determining whether a history of dumping and material injury 
exists, the Department generally has considered current or previous 
antidumping duty orders on subject merchandise from the country in 
question in the United States and current orders in any other 
country.\11\ In this case, the current investigation of the subject 
merchandise marks the first instance that the Department has examined 
whether the goods are dumped into the United States. As a result, the 
Department previously has not imposed an antidumping duty order on the 
subject merchandise. Moreover, the Department is not aware of any 
antidumping duty order on subject merchandise from Portugal in another 
country. Therefore, the Department finds no history of injurious 
dumping of the subject merchandise pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Carbon Steel Pipe, 73 FR at 31972-73; see also SDGE, 74 
FR 2052-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii): The Importer Knew or Should Have Known That 
Exporter Was Selling at Less Than Fair Value and That There Was Likely 
To Be Material Injury

    In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that 
the exporter was selling subject merchandise at LTFV and that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, the Department 
must rely on the facts before it at the time the determination is made. 
The Department generally bases its decision with respect to knowledge 
on the margins calculated

[[Page 68295]]

in the preliminary determination and the ITC's preliminary injury 
determination.
    The Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for 
export price (``EP'') sales and 15 percent or more for constructed 
export price (``CEP'') sales sufficient to impute importer knowledge of 
sales at LTFV.\12\ Portucel had only CEP sales and the Department 
preliminarily determined a margin of 29.53 percent for Portucel, which 
was also assigned as the ``all others'' rate.\13\ Therefore, because 
the preliminary margins are greater than 15 percent for all producers 
and exporters, we preliminarily find, with respect to all producers and 
exporters, that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that 
importers knew, or should have known, that exporters were selling the 
merchandise under consideration at LTFV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, 
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 
11, 2002); Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China, 
70 FR 5606, 5607 (February 3, 2005).
    \13\ See Preliminary Determination, 80 FR at 51778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that 
there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such 
imports, the Department normally will look to the preliminary injury 
determination of the ITC.\14\ If the ITC finds a reasonable indication 
of present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the 
Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute 
importer knowledge that material injury is likely by reason of such 
imports.\15\ Here, the ITC found that ``there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured 
by reason of imports from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and 
Portugal of certain uncoated paper, provided for in subheadings 4802.56 
and 4802.57 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. . . 
.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 
24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010) (``Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim'').
    \15\ See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, 
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 
11, 2002); Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China, 
70 FR 5606, 5607 (February 3, 2005).
    \16\ See Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, China, 
Indonesia, and Portugal, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-528-529 and 731-
TA-1264-1268 (Preliminary), 80 FR 13890 (March 17, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 733(e)(1)(B): Whether There Have Been Massive Imports of the 
Subject Merchandise Over a Relatively Short Period

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), the Department will not consider 
imports to be massive unless imports in the comparison period have 
increased by at least 15 percent over imports in the base period. The 
Department normally considers a ``relatively short period'' as the 
period beginning on the date the proceeding begins and ending at least 
three months later.\17\ For this reason, the Department normally 
compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least 
three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., 
the ``base period'') to a comparable period of at least three months 
following the filing of the petition (i.e., the ``comparison 
period'').\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
    \18\ See Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim, 75 FR at 24574.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their September 28, 2015 allegation, Petitioners included U.S. 
import data collected from the ITC's Dataweb.\19\ Specifically, 
Petitioners provided data for a six-month base period (August 2014 
through January 2015) and a six-month comparison period (February 2015 
through July 2015), the most recent data available at the time of 
filing, in showing whether imports were massive.\20\ In response to a 
request by the Department, on October 6, 2015, Portucel submitted 
monthly shipment data for merchandise shipped from Portucel to the 
United States for a seven-month base period (July 2014 through January 
2015) and a seven-month comparison period (February 2015 through August 
2015).\21\ The quantity of Portucel's shipments of uncoated paper 
increased in the comparison period by 18.6 percent over the base 
period.\22\ Our practice with respect to companies subject to the ``all 
others'' rate is to base our critical circumstances analysis on the 
experience of the investigated companies.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Petitioners' Critical Circumstances Allegation at 4-5, 
Exhibit 1.
    \20\ Id. 5, Exhibit 1. At the time of filing, import data was 
available only through July 2015.
    \21\ See Portucel's Monthly Quantity and Value Shipment Data, 
filed on October 6, 2015.
    \22\ See Memoradum to the File from Ryan Mullen, International 
Trade Analyst, Office V, through Catherine Bertrand, Program 
Manager, Office V ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 
Uncoated Paper from Portugal: Import Statistics for Critical 
Circumstances Analysis'' at Exhibit 1.
    \23\ See, e.g. Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrate from the Federal Republic of 
Germany, 73 FR 21909, 21912 (April 23, 2008), unchanged in Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrate 
from the Federal Republic of Germany, 73 FR 38986, 38987 (July 8, 
2008), and accompany Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    Record evidence indicates that importers of uncoated paper knew, or 
should have known, that exporters were selling the merchandise at LTFV, 
and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such 
sales. In addition, we have found that Portucel had massive imports 
during a relatively short period. Therefore, in accordance with section 
733(e)(1) of the Act, we preliminarily find that there is reason to 
believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist for imports of the 
merchandise under consideration from Portucel and companies subject to 
the all others rate.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See section 733(f) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we are 
directing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation 
of any unliquidated entries of the merchandise under consideration from 
Portugal entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after May 27, 2015, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication 
of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative critical circumstances 
determination.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).

    Dated: October 28, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-28112 Filed 11-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P