Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 19043 

1MFVN is a company located in Vietnam and is 

a wholly owned subsidiary of Max Fortune 

Industrial Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune HK) located in 

Hong Kong. 

Exporter/manufacturer 

Net 

subsidy 

rate 

Zhejiang Huayue Wooden Products Co., Ltd.27.01 

Zhejiang Yongji Wooden Co., 

Ltd.

27.01 

Zhejiang Yongyu Bamboo Development.27.01 

Zhongshan New Oasis Wood Industry Co., Ltd.27.01 

Zhongyi Bamboo Industrial Co., 

Ltd. Fujian.

27.01 

All Others .................................... 2.25 

* Non-cooperative company receiving the 

AFA rate. See ‘‘Non-Cooperative Companies’’ 

section, above. 

In accordance with sections 

703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are 

directing CBP to suspend liquidation of 

all entries of wood flooring from the 

PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register, and to require 

a cash deposit or bond for such entries 

of merchandise in the amounts 

indicated above. However, because the 

estimated CVD rate for Layo and Yuhua 

is de minimis, liquidation will not be 

suspended and no cash deposits or 

bonds are required for merchandise 

produced and exported by Layo or 

Yuhua. 

In accordance with sections 703(d) 

and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for 

companies not investigated, we apply 

an ‘‘all-others’’ rate, which is normally 

calculated by weighting the subsidy 

rates of the individual companies 

selected as respondents by those 

companies’’ exports of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. The 

‘‘all-others’’ rate does not include zero 

and de minimis rates or any rates based 

solely on the facts available. In this 

investigation, because we have only one 

rate that can be used to calculate the 

‘‘all-others’’ rate, Fine Furniture’s rate, 

we have assigned that rate to ‘‘allothers.’’ 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 703(f) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information relating to this 

investigation. We will allow the ITC 

access to all privileged and business 

proprietary information in our files, 

provided the ITC confirms that it will 

not disclose such information, either 

publicly or under an administrative 

protective order, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

In accordance with section 705(b)(2) 

of the Act, if our final determination is 

affirmative, the ITC will make its final 

determination within 45 days after the 

Department makes its final 

determination. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), we will disclose to the 

parties the calculations for this 

preliminary determination within five 

days of its announcement. Due to the 

anticipated timing of verification and 

issuance of verification reports, case 

briefs for this investigation must be 

submitted no later than one week after 

the issuance of the last verification 

report. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) (for a 

further discussion of case briefs). 

Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five 

days after the deadline for submission of 

case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities relied 

upon, a table of contents, and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. Executive summaries 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

Section 774 of the Act provides that 

the Department will hold a public 

hearing to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs, 

provided that such a hearing is 

requested by an interested party. If a 

request for a hearing is made in this 

investigation, the hearing will be held 

two days after the deadline for 

submission of the rebuttal briefs, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), at the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the time, date, and 

place of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, within 30 days 

of the publication of this notice, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain: (1) The party’s name, 

address, and telephone; (2) the number 

of participants; and (3) a list of the 

issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. Id. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: March 21, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8173 Filed 4–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–894] 

Certain Tissue Paper Products From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Determination 

of Circumvention of the Antidumping 

Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

Preliminary Determination 

We preliminarily determine that 

certain tissue paper products (tissue 

paper) produced and/or exported by 

Max Fortune (Vietnam) Paper Products 

Company, Limited (MFVN) 1 to the 

United States from Vietnam are made 

from jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets of 

tissue paper produced in the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC), and are 

circumventing the antidumping duty 

order on tissue paper from the PRC, as 

provided in section 781(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 16223 (March 

30, 2005) (PRC Tissue Paper Order). 

DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482– 

3773, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 19, 2010, the Seaman 

Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc. 

(the petitioner) requested that the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiate an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to 

section 781(b) of the Act, and 19 CFR 

351.225(h), to determine whether U.S. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19044 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 

2See Memorandum to The File from Brian Smith, 

Senior Analyst, entitled ‘‘Ex-Parte Meeting with 

Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated November 22, 2010. 

3See Memorandum to The File from Case 

Analysts entitled ‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire 

Response of Max Fortune (Vietnam) Paper Products 

Co., Ltd. and Its Affiliates in the Anticircumvention Inquiry and 2009–2010 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated March 31, 2011 (MFVN 

verification report). 

4See Letter to the Interested Parties from James 

Maeder, Office Director, entitled ‘‘AntiCircumvention Inquiry on Certain Tissue Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Final Determination,’’ dated January 

18, 2011. 

5On January 30, 2007, at the direction of U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the 

Department added the following HTSUS 

classifications to the AD/CVD module for tissue 

paper: 4802.54.3100, 4802.54.6100, and 

4823.90.6700. However, we note that the six-digit 

classifications for these numbers were already listed 

in the scope. 

imports of tissue paper exported from 

Vietnam by MFVN were made from 

jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets of tissue 

paper produced in the PRC, and thus 

circumventing PRC Tissue Paper Order. 

See the petitioner’s February 19, 2010, 

anti-circumvention inquiry request 

(February 19 Submission) at pages 13– 

14; and PRC Tissue Paper Order. 

Specifically, the petitioner alleged that 

Chinese-produced jumbo rolls and/or 

cut sheets of tissue paper sent to 

Vietnam for completion or assembly 

into merchandise of the same class or 

kind as that covered by the PRC Tissue 

Paper Order constituted circumvention 

pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act. 

The petitioner also alleged in its 

February 19 Submission that MFVN had 

been obtaining Chinese-produced tissue 

paper jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets and 

using that merchandise in its U.S. tissue 

paper sales since it commenced its 

operations in 2005. 

On March 29, 2010, the Department 

initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry 

on imports of tissue paper from Vietnam 

produced and/or exported by MFVN. 

See Certain Tissue Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Initiation of Anti-circumvention 

Inquiry, 75 FR 64 (April 5, 2010) 

(Initiation Notice). 

On April 23, 2010, the Department 

issued an anti-circumvention 

questionnaire to MFVN, asking for sales 

and production information with 

respect to the period January 1, 2005, to 

the present (April 23 Questionnaire). On 

May 13, 2010, MFVN entered a notice 

of appearance in this proceeding. Also, 

on May 13, 2010, MFVN requested 

additional time to file a response to the 

anti-circumvention questionnaire. 

Pursuant to this request, the Department 

extended the questionnaire response 

deadline until June 28, 2010, and MFVN 

submitted its response to the 

questionnaire on that date (June 28 

Response). In its June 28 Response, 

MFVN admitted that it was possible that 

it manufactured some tissue paper in 

Vietnam from PRC-origin jumbo rolls 

before and during 2007. MFVN also 

stated that its records before 2008 were 

incomplete and unreliable. However, 

MFVN asserted that it could 

conclusively demonstrate that as of 

January 1, 2008, it did not convert any 

PRC-origin jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets 

of tissue paper in Vietnam into its own 

tissue paper products. See pages 3 and 

12 of MFVN’s June 28 Response. 

In the April 23 Questionnaire, the 

Department requested factors of 

production (FOP) information for 

purposes of determining whether the 

value of the processing performed in 

Vietnam represented a small portion of 

the value of the merchandise imported 

into the United States. MFVN 

responded that it would not submit FOP 

data to the Department because it 

claimed that since January 1, 2008, it no 

longer included Chinese-origin tissue 

paper jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets in 

its U.S. sales. See pages 14–15 of 

MFVN’s June 28 Response. 

The Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to MFVN 

on July 23, 2010, and received MFVN’s 

supplemental questionnaire response on 

September 1, 2010. 

Also on September 1, 2010, MFVN 

filed a submission in which it rebutted 

the petitioner’s February 19, 2010, 

allegations and provided information 

with respect to certain transactions with 

an affiliated Chinese company, Fuzhou 

Tian Jun Trading Co., Ltd. (Tian Jun), 

during the 2008–2009 period, which 

were alleged by the petitioner in its 

February 19 Submission to have 

involved tissue paper. 

The Department issued an additional 

supplemental questionnaire to MFVN 

on October 12, 2010, and received 

MFVN’s supplemental questionnaire 

response on November 12, 2010. 

On November 16, 2010, the 

Department placed on the record certain 

data from the 2008–2009 administrative 

review of tissue paper from the PRC. See 

Memorandum from Brian Smith, Senior 

Analyst, to The File, dated November 

16, 2010. 

On November 18, 2010, the 

Department issued a verification outline 

to MFVN. 

On November 22, 2010, the 

Department met with the petitioner’s 

counsel to discuss agenda items in the 

verification outline issued to MFVN.2

The petitioner submitted preverification comments on November 24, 

2010. 

Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act, 

the Department conducted verification 

of the questionnaire responses 

submitted by MFVN and its affiliates 

Max Fortune HK, Tian Jun, and Max 

Fortune (FZ) Paper Products Co., Ltd., 

from November 30 to December 16, 

2010.3 This verification report is on file 

and available in the Central Records 

Unit (CRU) of the Department’s main 

building. 

On January 18, 2011, the Department 

notified the parties by letter that it was 

postponing the final determination of 

this inquiry until August 1, 2011.4

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order 

The tissue paper products subject to 

this order are cut-to-length sheets of 

tissue paper having a basis weight not 

exceeding 29 grams per square meter. 

Tissue paper products subject to this 

order may or may not be bleached, dyecolored, surface-colored, glazed, surface 

decorated or printed, sequined, 

crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The 

tissue paper subject to this order is in 

the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue 

paper with a width equal to or greater 

than one-half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue 

paper may be flat or folded, and may be 

packaged by banding or wrapping with 

paper or film, by placing in plastic or 

film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for 

distribution and use by the ultimate 

consumer. Packages of tissue paper 

subject to this order may consist solely 

of tissue paper of one color and/or style, 

or may contain multiple colors and/or 

styles. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

does not have specific classification 

numbers assigned to them under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Subject 

merchandise may be under one or more 

of several different subheadings, 

including: 4802.30; 4802.54; 4802.61; 

4802.62; 4802.69; 4804.31.1000; 

4804.31.2000; 4804.31.4020; 

4804.31.4040; 4804.31.6000; 4804.39; 

4805.91.1090; 4805.91.5000; 

4805.91.7000; 4806.40; 4808.30; 

4808.90; 4811.90; 4823.90; 4820.50.00; 

4802.90.00; 4805.91.90; 9505.90.40. The 

tariff classifications are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive.5

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are the following tissue paper products: 

(1) Tissue paper products that are 

coated in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of 

a kind used in floral and food service 

applications; (2) tissue paper products 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 19045 

that have been perforated, embossed, or 

die-cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., 

disposable sanitary covers for toilet 

seats; (3) toilet or facial tissue stock, 

towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind 

used for household or sanitary 

purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs 

of cellulose fibers (HTSUS 

4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00). 

Scope of the Circumvention Inquiry 

The products covered by this inquiry 

are tissue paper products, as described 

above in the ‘‘Scope of the Antidumping 

Duty Order’’ section, which are 

produced in Vietnam from Chineseorigin jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets of 

tissue paper, and exported from 

Vietnam to the United States by MFVN. 

Statutory Provisions Regarding 

Circumvention 

Section 781(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may find 

circumvention of an antidumping duty 

order when merchandise of the same 

class or kind subject to the order is 

completed or assembled in a foreign 

country other than the country to which 

the order applies. In conducting anticircumvention inquiries under section 

781(b)(1) of the Act, the Department 

relies upon the following criteria: (A) 

Merchandise imported into the United 

States is of the same class or kind as any 

merchandise produced in a foreign 

country that is subject to an 

antidumping duty order; (B) before 

importation into the United States, such 

imported merchandise is completed or 

assembled in another foreign country 

from merchandise which is subject to 

the order or produced in the foreign 

country that is subject to the order; (C) 

the process of assembly or completion 

in the foreign country referred to in (B) 

is minor or insignificant; (D) the value 

of the merchandise produced in the 

foreign country to which the 

antidumping duty order applies is a 

significant portion of the total value of 

the merchandise exported to the United 

States; and (E) the administering 

authority determines that action is 

appropriate to prevent evasion of such 

order. 

Section 781(b)(2) of the Act provides 

the criteria for determining whether the 

process of assembly or completion is 

minor or insignificant. These criteria 

are: (a) The level of investment in the 

foreign country; (b) the level of research 

and development (R&D) in the foreign 

country; (c) the nature of the production 

process in the foreign country; (d) the 

extent of the production facilities in the 

foreign country; and (e) whether the 

value of the processing performed in the 

foreign country represents a small 

proportion of the value of the 

merchandise imported into the United 

States. 

The Statement of Administrative 

Action (SAA) accompanying the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. 

Doc. No. 103–316, at 893 (1994), 

provides some guidance with respect to 

these criteria. It explains that no single 

factor listed in section 781(b)(2) of the 

Act will be controlling. Accordingly, it 

is the Department’s practice to evaluate 

each of the factors as they exist in the 

foreign country depending on the 

particular circumvention scenario. 

Therefore, the importance of any one of 

the factors listed under section 781(b)(2) 

of the Act can vary from case to case 

depending on the particular 

circumstances unique to each 

circumvention inquiry. 

Section 781(b)(3) of the Act further 

provides that, in determining whether to 

include merchandise assembled or 

completed in a foreign country in an 

antidumping duty order, the 

Department shall consider: (A) The 

pattern of trade, including sourcing 

patterns; (B) whether the manufacturer 

or exporter of the merchandise 

described in accordance with section 

781(b)(1)(B) of the Act is affiliated with 

the person who uses the merchandise 

described in accordance with section 

781(b)(1)(B) to assemble or complete in 

the foreign country the merchandise 

that is subsequently imported into the 

United States; and (C) whether imports 

into the foreign country of the 

merchandise described in accordance 

with section 781(b)(1)(B) have increased 

after the initiation of the investigation 

which resulted in the issuance of such 

order. 

In this case, the PRC Tissue Paper 

Order covers cut-to-length sheets of 

tissue paper equal to or greater than 0.5 

inches in width, with a basis weight not 

exceeding 29 grams per square meter 

and other specified characteristics of the 

scope. The merchandise subject to this 

inquiry is tissue paper products 

exported to the United States by MFVN 

produced from Chinese-origin jumbo 

rolls and/or cut sheets of tissue paper. 

The list of products MFVN provided in 

its questionnaire responses indicates 

that the tissue paper products it 

exported to the United States meet the 

written description of the products 

subject to the PRC Tissue Paper Order. 

See June 28 Response at Exhibit 6. 

Accordingly, we find that the 

merchandise subject to this inquiry is 

the same class or kind of merchandise 

as that subject to the PRC Tissue Paper 

Order, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(A) 

of the Act. With respect to the 

remaining statutory criteria for 

determining whether circumvention 

exists, the Department finds it necessary 

to rely on facts available, as the 

respondent failed to provide necessary, 

verifiable information upon which the 

Department could rely. Further, as 

discussed in detail below, we find it 

appropriate in this inquiry to apply facts 

available with an adverse inference, as 

the respondent failed to cooperate to the 

best of its ability in providing the 

necessary information. 

Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act, provides 

that, if (1) necessary information is not 

available on the record or (2) an 

interested party: (A) Withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department; (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested subject to 

sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the Department ‘‘finds that 

an interested party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information from the administering 

authority * * * , the administering 

authority * * * , in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title, may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’ See also SAA, 

H.Rep. No. 103–316 at 870 (1994). It is 

the Department’s practice to make an 

adverse inference ‘‘to ensure that the 

party does not obtain a more favorable 

result by failing to cooperate than if it 

had cooperated fully.’’ Id. An adverse 

inference may include reliance on 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination in the 

investigation, any previous review, or 

any other information placed on the 

record. See section 776(b) of the Act. 

In this case, MFVN informed the 

Department that it could not provide 

any information with respect to the 

production of the merchandise exported 

from Vietnam during the period January 

1, 2005, to December 31, 2007. In fact, 

MFVN admitted that ‘‘it is possible that 

MFVN might have made tissue paper in 

Vietnam from jumbo rolls from the PRC’’ 

during this time period. See MFVN’s 

June 28 Response at page 3. 

Furthermore, the data provided in the 

petitioner’s February 19 Submission 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19046 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 

6See Memorandum to the File dated March 31, 

2011 which contains the following document, 

‘‘Decree No. 129/2004/ND–CP of May 31, 2004 

Detailing and Guiding the Implementation of a 

Number of Articles of the Accounting Law, 

Applicable to Business Activities,’’ issued by the 

Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on 

May 31, 2004. 

show that MFVN obtained a significant 

amount of Chinese-origin jumbo rolls 

and/or cut sheets of tissue paper during 

this time period. See February 19 

Submission at pages 13–14. This is the 

extent of information on the record with 

regard to MFVN’s production during 

this time period. 

Absent any further information on the 

record, pursuant to section 776(a) of the 

Act, the Department has concluded that 

the application of facts available is 

warranted with respect to exports of 

tissue paper from MFVN to the United 

States from January 1, 2005, to 

December 31, 2007 (2005–2007 period). 

Production information for the 2005– 

2007 period is necessary for purposes of 

this anti-circumvention inquiry and 

without it on the administrative record, 

the Department cannot conduct its anticircumvention analysis for the 2005– 

2007 period. MFVN claims that it was 

unable to maintain such records during 

the above-referenced time period. 

However, we find this claim to be 

unreasonable. A company is expected to 

maintain its production records in the 

normal course of business. For 

companies doing business in Vietnam, 

the Vietnamese Government has even 

issued regulations which require 

companies like MFVN to retain such 

records for up to 10 years.6 This is 

especially true in this case where MFVN 

demonstrated at verification that it 

maintained such records in both 2009 

and 2010. Therefore, because MFVN did 

not provide the Department with 

necessary information with respect to 

MFVN’s exports of tissue paper during 

the 2005–2007 period, the application of 

facts available pursuant to sections 

776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act is warranted. 

Furthermore, MFVN’s admission that 

it ‘‘possibly’’ made tissue paper in 

Vietnam from Chinese-origin jumbo 

rolls, coupled with the fact that the 

petitioner’s data show that MFVN 

obtained PRC-origin jumbo rolls and/or 

cut sheets from January 1, 2005, to 

December 31, 2007, leads us to conclude 

that MFVN failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with the Department’s request for 

information with respect to its 

commercial activities during this 

period. Therefore, pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act, an adverse inference 

is warranted. Accordingly, as adverse 

facts available (AFA), the Department 

preliminarily finds that all tissue paper 

produced and/or exported by MFVN to 

the United States from January 1, 2005, 

to December 31, 2007, was made with 

Chinese-origin jumbo rolls and/or cut 

sheets of tissue paper. 

With respect to MFVN’s exports of 

tissue paper to the United States during 

the calendar year 2008, the Department 

also concludes that the application of 

AFA is warranted. Although MFVN 

stated in its June 28 Response that it 

could conclusively demonstrate through 

its accounting and production records 

that it did not use Chinese-origin tissue 

paper jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets in 

its U.S. sales during 2008, the 

Department was unable to verify this 

claim. In fact, at verification, MFVN 

provided inadequate and incomplete 

accounting records for calendar year 

2008. Specifically, MFVN did not 

support its claim that it had ceased 

using Chinese-origin jumbo rolls and/or 

cut sheets of tissue paper in its U.S. 

sales during 2008, nor did it provide the 

necessary accounting records at 

verification to show the type and origin 

of the materials it used in its tissue 

paper exports to the United States from 

January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2008. 

See MFVN verification report at pages 2, 

35–36, and 39–40. 

For example, at verification, MFVN 

provided a worksheet which reconciled 

the cost-of-sales figure in its 2008 

audited financial statements to its 

purchases, beginning and ending 

inventory values and conversion costs, 

as reflected in its annual summary trial 

balance for 2008. We subsequently 

requested that MFVN reconcile its 

monthly trial balances or other monthly 

general ledger-type reports to the annual 

summary trial balance for 2008. MFVN, 

however, claimed at verification that it 

could not locate its monthly trial 

balances or any other detailed 

accounting records for 2008 to support 

its annual summary trial balance 

amounts. See MFVN verification report 

at pages 35–36. 

In addition, we requested that MFVN 

provide the company’s 2008 monthly 

inventory movement ledgers for raw 

materials, work in process (WIP), and 

finished goods. While MFVN provided 

its detailed inventory ledger as of 

December 31, 2008, the company 

informed Department officials at 

verification that it could not provide 

any of the other requested 2008 monthly 

detailed inventory movement ledgers. 

Without the detailed trial balances or 

inventory movement ledgers, 

Department officials were unable to rely 

on the company’s monthly production 

cost and inventory movement activity 

(for raw materials, WIP and finished 

goods) noted in its warehouse records 

for purposes of testing at verification the 

production quantity data contained in 

MFVN’s submissions for calendar year 

2008. See MFVN verification report at 

pages 35–36. 

Also, MFVN did not provide at 

verification, upon request, details of its 

raw material and WIP inventory as of 

January 1, 2008. Thus, Department 

officials were unable to obtain details of 

the amounts reflected in MFVN’s 

beginning inventory value noted in its 

2008 audited financial statements (e.g., 

quantity of pulp versus Chinese-sourced 

jumbo rolls in the beginning raw 

material inventory amount reflected in 

the 2008 audited financial statements). 

See MFVN verification report at pages 

35–37. 

All of the above examples 

demonstrate that MFVN did not provide 

to the Department verifiable production 

data for calendar year 2008, was unable 

to tie its export sales data to its 

production data for calendar year 2008, 

and did not respond fully to the 

Department’s questionnaires with regard 

to its production during that period. The 

absence of verifiable production data on 

the record for 2008 impeded the 

conduct of this anti-circumvention 

inquiry. Therefore, pursuant to section 

776(a)(2) of the Act, the Department 

concludes that the use of facts available 

is warranted with regard to MFVN’s 

U.S. tissue paper sales transactions from 

January 1 to December 31, 2008. 

Furthermore, because MFVN did not 

provide verifiable data showing that it 

used only non-Chinese-origin jumbo 

rolls and/or sheets in its production of 

all of the tissue paper it exported to the 

United States from its facility during 

2008, the Department concludes that 

MFVN did not act to the best of its 

ability in this inquiry. As noted above, 

a company is expected to maintain its 

production records in the normal course 

of business. MFVN was aware that these 

records were necessary for the 

Department’s anti-circumvention 

analysis, but did not provide them at 

verification, as requested. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, an 

adverse inference is warranted because 

MFVN did not provide all of the 

necessary information on the record and 

failed to provide at verification the 

accounting records the Department 

needed to analyze the relevant 

production data for the calendar year 

2008. Accordingly, as AFA, the 

Department preliminarily concludes 

that all of MFVN’s exports of tissue 

paper to the United States during 2008 

were produced with Chinese-origin 

jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets of tissue 

paper. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 19047 

In addition, MFVN’s books and 

records, as verified, reflect that on 

January 1, 2009, the company had 

significant amounts of tissue paper in 

finished goods and WIP inventory. This 

entire inventory was produced and/or 

purchased during 2008 or earlier. At 

verification, MFVN stated that it did not 

have records to show the source of the 

material it used in the production of 

that inventory. Furthermore, 

Department officials discovered in the 

records MFVN provided at verification 

that there were jumbo rolls of Chineseorigin in inventory at the end of 

December 2008, which remained in 

inventory throughout 2009, and were 

later withdrawn from inventory in 

March 2010. See MFVN verification 

report at pages 40–41. Therefore, the 

Department finds that adverse facts 

available is also warranted with respect 

to the beginning inventory amount in 

2009. Accordingly, as AFA, the 

Department determines that any tissue 

paper exported by MFVN to the United 

States on or after January 1, 2009, which 

was withdrawn from, or produced from 

merchandise in, finished goods or WIP 

inventory as of January 1, 2009, was 

produced from Chinese jumbo rolls and/ 

or cut sheets. 

Based on the foregoing analysis, as 

AFA, the Department preliminarily 

finds that MFVN used Chinese-origin 

jumbo rolls and/or cut-sheets of tissue 

paper in its production of tissue paper 

that it exported to the United States 

from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 

2008, and that MFVN continued to use 

such merchandise from inventory 

during that period to produce and/or 

sell tissue paper on or after January 1, 

2009. Accordingly, the Department 

preliminarily concludes that MFVN’s 

tissue paper exports to the United States 

during 2009 and 2010 included tissue 

paper produced from Chinese jumbo 

rolls and/or cut sheets. 

However, the Department was able to 

verify based on its examination of 

Vietnamese Customs data from January 

1, 2008, to December 10, 2010, MFVN 

had not imported any additional 

Chinese-origin jumbo rolls and/or cut 

sheets of tissue paper. See MFVN 

verification report at page 3. In light of 

these verified data and the Department’s 

observation of MFVN’s tissue-paper 

production operations at verification, 

we find that MFVN now has the 

capacity and ability to produce tissue 

paper for export. 

In determining whether 

circumvention of an order is occurring, 

section 781(b)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department to address, among other 

things, whether before importation into 

the United States, the imported 

merchandise is completed or assembled 

in another country from merchandise 

which is subject to the order or 

produced in the foreign country that is 

subject to the order. See section 

781(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Based on the 

preceding analysis, there is little dispute 

that during the period of analysis of this 

inquiry, MFVN completed some tissue 

paper in Vietnam using jumbo rolls and/ 

or cut sheets produced in the PRC. 

Section 781(b)(1) of the Act also 

directs the Department to examine 

whether (1) the process of assembly or 

completion in the foreign country (i.e., 

Vietnam) is minor or insignificant and 

(2) the value of the merchandise 

produced in the country subject to the 

order (i.e., the PRC) is a significant 

portion of the total value of the 

merchandise exported to the United 

States. See sections 781(b)(1)(C) and (D) 

of the Act. Because the PRC and 

Vietnam are non-market economies, in 

any review of merchandise produced in 

those countries, section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act provides that the Department shall 

value the FOP utilizing prices or costs 

in one or more market-economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

Pursuant to this provision, in its 

questionnaire to MFVN, the Department 

requested the FOP data for both the 

Chinese-origin jumbo rolls and/or sheets 

imported by MFVN, and the processing 

and packaging operations performed by 

MFVN in Vietnam. See the 

Department’s April 23 Questionnaire at 

pages 9–10. See also Certain Tissue 

Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China: Affirmative Final 

Determination of Circumvention of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 57591 

(October 3, 2008); and Circumvention 

and Scope Inquiries on the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Partial Affirmative 

Final Determination of Circumvention 

of the Antidumping Duty Order, Partial 

Final Termination of Circumvention 

Inquiry and Final Rescission of Scope 

Inquiry, 71 FR 38608 (July 7, 2006). 

In determining whether the process of 

assembly or completion of tissue paper 

from jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets is 

‘‘minor or insignificant’’ as required by 

section 781(b)(1), section 781(b)(2) of 

the Act directs the Department to 

consider various factors including (a) 

MFVN’s level of investment in Vietnam; 

(b) MFVN’s level of R&D in Vietnam; (c) 

the nature of MFVN’s production 

process in Vietnam; (d) the extent of 

MFVN’s production facilities in 

Vietnam; and (e) whether the value of 

the processing performed in Vietnam 

represents a small proportion of the 

value of the merchandise MFVN 

exported to the United States. With 

respect to the first criterion, the 

Department verified that the level of 

investment by MVFN for equipment 

used in converting the PRC-origin 

jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets into 

finished tissue paper is minor or 

insignificant. See MFVN verification 

report at page 6. Moreover, the record 

evidence for this circumvention inquiry 

demonstrates that MFVN has not 

undertaken a significant level of R&D in 

order to process tissue paper products. 

See June 28 Response at pages 12–13. 

Furthermore, the production process 

conducted by MFVN in converting the 

PRC-origin jumbo rolls or sheets to cutto-length tissue paper is limited and 

minor when compared to the 

production process of the jumbo rolls or 

sheets. See June 28 Response at pages 

13–14. In addition, the Department did 

verify that MFVN has production 

facilities in Vietnam in terms of the 

capital equipment and the types of 

employees used in the production 

process. See MFVN verification report at 

pages 6 and 19–20. However, as noted 

above, MFVN was unable to provide 

evidence that, before January 1, 2009, it 

used its full capacity of production to 

manufacture tissue paper. 

With respect to the criterion of section 

781(b)(2)(e) of the Act, however, MFVN 

did not provide the Department with 

sufficient information to determine 

whether the value of the processing 

MFVN performed in Vietnam represents 

a small proportion of the value of the 

merchandise MFVN exported to the 

United States. In response to our 

questionnaire, MFVN refused to submit 

FOP information, because it stated that 

it could definitively demonstrate 

through its books and records that as of 

January 1, 2008, it did not use Chineseorigin jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets of 

tissue paper in its U.S. tissue paper 

sales. See June 28 Response at pages 3 

and 12. However, as explained above, 

MFVN was unable to substantiate this 

claim at verification. Accordingly, for 

this factor, the application of facts 

available is also warranted pursuant to 

section 776(a) of the Act. 

In its February 19 Submission, the 

petitioner provided evidence based on 

foreign market research that the 

conversion by MFVN of jumbo rolls 

and/or sheets of tissue paper produced 

in the PRC into finished tissue paper 

products in Vietnam is a minor or 

insignificant process as defined under 

sections 781(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2) of the 

Act, and that the value of the processing 

performed by MFVN is a minor portion 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19048 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 

7The Department came to this conclusion based 

on its analysis of both the qualitative and 

quantitative data submitted by the respondent. See 

Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People’s 

Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination 

of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 

73 FR 57591 (October 3, 2008). 

of the value of the completed 

merchandise. Accordingly, the 

petitioner reasoned that the value of the 

PRC-origin jumbo rolls and/or sheets 

used by MFVN is a significant portion 

of the total value of the merchandise 

exported to the United States, pursuant 

to section 781(b)(1)(D) of the Act. See 

Initiation Notice, 75 FR 17128–17131. 

Further, in a prior anti-circumvention 

segment of this proceeding, the 

Department determined that the process 

of converting Chinese-origin jumbo rolls 

in Vietnam was minor or insignificant, 

and that the value of the Chinese-origin 

jumbo rolls was a significant portion of 

the total value of the finished tissue 

paper products the respondent exported 

to the United States.7

Therefore, based on data contained in 

the petitioner’s February 19 Submission, 

as well as our findings in a prior anticircumvention segment of the PRC 

tissue paper proceeding, the Department 

determines in this case, as facts 

available, that the value of the 

processing MFVN performed in Vietnam 

represents a small proportion of the 

value of the merchandise MFVN 

exported to the United States. 

Taking into consideration all of the 

factors under section 781(b)(2) of the 

Act, the Department concludes that the 

process of converting the jumbo rolls 

and/or cut sheets of tissue paper into 

the finished tissue paper products in 

Vietnam is minor or insignificant, 

pursuant to sections 781(b)(1)(C) of the 

Act. Accordingly, the Department 

concludes, based on the facts available, 

that the value of the jumbo rolls and/or 

cut sheets produced in the PRC is a 

significant portion of the total value of 

the finished tissue paper products 

MFVN exported to the United States, 

pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(D) of the 

Act. 

Furthermore, in accordance with 

section 781(b)(1)(E) of the Act, we find 

that action is appropriate to prevent 

evasion of the PRC Tissue Paper Order. 

In conclusion, the Department 

preliminarily determines under section 

781(b) of the Act, that exports to the 

United States of tissue paper products 

produced from PRC-origin jumbo rolls 

and/or cut sheets and further processed 

in Vietnam by MFVN constitute 

circumvention of the PRC Tissue Paper 

Order. 

The Department notes that this 

represents the third instance in which 

the Department has found an exporting 

company to have circumvented the PRC 

Tissue Paper Order. See also Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China: Affirmative Final 

Determination of Circumvention of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 29172 

(June 19, 2009); and Certain Tissue 

Paper Products From the People’s 

Republic of China: Affirmative Final 

Determination of Circumvention of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 57591 

(October 3, 2008). The Department has 

an obligation to administer the law in a 

manner that prevents evasion of the 

order. See Tung Mung Development v. 

United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 

1343 (CIT 2002), affirmed 354 F.3d 1371 

(January 15, 2004) (finding that the 

Department has a responsibility to 

prevent the evasion of payment of 

antidumping duties). Further, section 

781(b)(1)(E) of the Act directs the 

Department to take necessary action to 

‘‘prevent evasion’’ of antidumping or 

countervailing duty orders when it 

concludes that ‘‘merchandise has been 

completed or assembled in other foreign 

countries’’ and is circumventing an 

order. Accordingly, to prevent future 

evasion of the PRC Tissue Paper Order, 

in light of our preliminary 

determination, the Department will 

instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of 

all entries of tissue paper produced and/ 

or exported by MFVN that were entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

initiation of the circumvention inquiry. 

As noted above, the Department did 

determine that MFVN now has the 

capacity and ability to produce tissue 

paper for export from domesticallysourced input materials. Should the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review in the future, and determine in 

the context of that review that MFVN 

has not produced for export tissue paper 

using Chinese-origin jumbo rolls and/or 

cut sheets, the Department will consider 

initiating a changed circumstances 

review pursuant to section 751(b) of the 

Act to determine if the continued 

suspension of merchandise produced 

and/or exported by MFVN from 

Vietnam is warranted. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, the Department will direct CBP 

to suspend liquidation and to require a 

cash deposit of estimated duties, at the 

PRC-wide rate of 112.64 percent, on all 

unliquidated entries of tissue paper 

produced and/or exported by MFVN 

that were entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

March 29, 2010, the date of initiation of 

the circumvention inquiry. 

Notification to the International Trade 

Commission 

The Department, consistent with 

section 781(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.225(f)(7)(i)(B), has notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

this preliminary determination to 

include the merchandise subject to this 

inquiry within the PRC Tissue Paper 

Order. Pursuant to section 781(e) of the 

Act, the ITC may request consultations 

concerning the Department’s proposed 

inclusion of the subject merchandise. If, 

after consultations, the ITC believes that 

a significant injury issue is presented by 

the proposed exclusion, it will have 15 

days to provide written advice to the 

Department. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs from interested parties 

may be submitted no later than 30 days 

from the date of publication of this 

notice. A list of authorities used and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

This summary should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. 

Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs may be filed no later 

than 35 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). 

Interested parties, who wish to 

request a hearing, or to participate if one 

is requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310. Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. We intend to hold a 

hearing, if requested, no later than 40 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. 

Final Determination 

The final determination with respect 

to this circumvention inquiry, including 

the results of the Department’s analysis 

of any written comments, will be issued 

no later than August 1, 2011. 

This preliminary affirmative 

circumvention determination is 

published in accordance with section 

781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 19049 

1The petitioner is Seaman Paper Company of 

Massachusetts, Inc. 2Also on this date, the Department initiated a 

review of Max Fortune Industrial Limited, Max 

Fortune (FZ) Paper Products Co., Ltd. (formerly 

known as Max Fortune (FETDE) Paper Products Co., 

Ltd.), Max Fortune HK, and Fujian Provincial 

Shaowu City Huaguang Special Craft Co., Ltd. based 

on the petitioner’s timely request for review of these 

companies, but subsequently rescinded the review 

with respect to these companies pursuant to the 

petitioner’s timely withdrawal of its request for 

review. See Certain Tissue Paper Products From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Partial 

Rescission and Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of 2009–2010 Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 73040 (November 29, 2010) (PRC 

Tissue Paper from China Partial Rescission Notice). 

3On March 29, 2010, the Department initiated an 

anti-circumvention inquiry on certain imports of 

tissue paper from Vietnam produced and/or 

exported by MFVN. See Certain Tissue Paper 

Products From the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Anti-circumvention Inquiry, 75 FR 

17127 (April 5, 2010). 

4See Memorandum to The File entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire Response of Max 

Fortune (VN) Paper Products Co., Ltd. (MFVN) and 

Its Affiliates in the Anti-circumvention Inquiry and 

2009–2010 Administrative Review of Certain Tissue 

Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC),’’ dated March 31, 2011 (MFVN Verification 

Report); and Memorandum to The File entitled 

‘‘Meeting with Vietnamese Customs,’’ dated March 

31, 2011. 

March 31, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8213 Filed 4–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–894] 

Certain Tissue Paper Products From 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department is conducting 

an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty (AD) order on certain 

tissue paper products (tissue paper) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) for the period of review (POR) of 

March 1, 2009, to February 28, 2010, 

with respect to Max Fortune (Vietnam) 

Paper Products Company Limited 

(MFVN). MFVN claimed in this 

administrative review that it made no 

sales/shipments during the POR of 

tissue paper products produced from 

Chinese-origin jumbo rolls/sheets. 

Contrary to MFVN’s claim and based on 

our verification findings, we 

preliminarily determine, as adverse 

facts available (AFA), that during the 

POR MFVN made sales/shipments to 

the United States of tissue paper 

products produced using Chinese-origin 

jumbo rolls/sheets. Further, based on 

AFA, we find that no substantial 

transformation is occurring as a result of 

further processing in Vietnam, and thus 

the country of origin for AD purposes of 

the tissue paper products produced by 

MFVN from Chinese-origin jumbo rolls/ 

sheets is China. 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to collect 

cash deposits on all future entries of 

tissue paper produced and/or exported 

by MFVN. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482– 

3773, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 30, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

tissue paper products from the PRC. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Tissue Paper Products From the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 16223 

(March 30, 2005) (Tissue Paper Order). 

On March 1, 2010, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

tissue paper products from the PRC. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 9162 

(March 1, 2010). 

In response, the petitioner 1 timely 

requested an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

tissue paper products from the PRC with 

respect to entries of the subject 

merchandise during the POR from 

MFVN. Therefore, on April 21, 2010, the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review of MFVN.2 See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Request for 

Revocation in Part, 75 FR 22107 (April 

27, 2010). MFVN is a company located 

in Vietnam which exports tissue paper 

to the U.S. market through its parent 

company based in Hong Kong—Max 

Fortune Industrial Limited (Max 

Fortune HK). MFVN is also a 

respondent in an on-going anticircumvention inquiry involving the 

subject merchandise from the PRC.3

In its June 28, 2010, response to the 

Department’s April 23, 2010, 

questionnaire in the anti-circumvention 

inquiry (June 28 Response), MFVN 

claimed that it had not exported tissue 

paper to the United States produced 

from jumbo rolls or cut sheets imported 

from the PRC since January 2008. MFVN 

also filed this questionnaire response on 

the record of this administrative review. 

Similarly, in its August 17, 2010, 

response to the Department’s May 7, 

2010, questionnaire in this review, 

MFVN claimed that it did not export 

subject merchandise from the PRC or 

Vietnam during the POR. 

The Department postponed the 

preliminary results in this review until 

March 31, 2011, in order to have 

sufficient time to conduct verification of 

MFVN’s ‘‘no-shipment’’ claim. See PRC. 

Tissue Paper Partial Rescission Notice. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(3) and 

351.225(f)(iii)(2), the Department 

conducted a verification of the ‘‘noshipment’’ claim MFVN made in this 

administrative review and in the anticircumvention inquiry, and met with 

Vietnamese Customs on this matter in 

December 2010. Both the verification 

report and meeting memorandum are on 

the record of this segment,4 and are 

available in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU) of the Department’s main 

building. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is March 

1, 2009, through February 28, 2010. 

Scope of the Order 

The tissue paper products covered by 

this order are cut-to-length sheets of 

tissue paper having a basis weight not 

exceeding 29 grams per square meter. 

Tissue paper products subject to this 

order may or may not be bleached, dyecolored, surface-colored, glazed, surface 

decorated or printed, sequined, 

crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The 

tissue paper subject to this order is in 

the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue 

paper with a width equal to or greater 

than one-half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue 

paper may be flat or folded, and may be 

packaged by banding or wrapping with 

paper or film, by placing in plastic or 

film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for 

distribution and use by the ultimate 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES