U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4148 April 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Crepe Paper Products from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1070A (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Timothy Meadors, Investigator (Acting) (205-3408) 

 Alberto Goetzl, Industry Analyst (205-3323) 

 Mark Rees, Attorney (205-3116) 

Elizabeth Duall, Attorney (205-3112) 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator (205-3057)
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4148 April 2010

Crepe Paper Products from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1070A (Review)

i

CONTENTS

Page

Determination .................................................................. 1

Views of the Commission ......................................................... 3

Information obtained in the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The original investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s original determination and subsequent review determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s final result of expedited five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds to affected domestic 

producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Substitute products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

The subject industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Appendix

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Note.--Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be

published and therefore has been identified by the use of ***. Final identification of confidential

information is in the public version of the staff report.

 1

 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1070A (Review)

CREPE PAPER PRODUCTS FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on crepe paper from China

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States

within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on December 1, 2009 (74 F.R. 62815) and determined on

March 8, 2010 that it would conduct an expedited review (75 F.R. 13779, March 23, 2010).
 
VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain crepe paper

products from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 17, 2004, Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc. (“Seaman”), joined by

several other paper producers and a labor union,1

 filed an antidumping duty petition concerning imports

of certain tissue paper products (“tissue paper”) and certain crepe paper products (“crepe paper”) from

China. The case was subsequently divided into two separate investigations, crepe paper (731-TA-1070A)

and tissue paper (731-TA-1070B).2

On January 18, 2005, the Commission completed its original investigation of crepe paper,

determining that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value

(“LTFV”) imports of crepe paper from China.3

 The Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued an

antidumping duty order with respect to imports of crepe paper from China on January 25, 2005.4

On December 1, 2009, the Commission instituted the present review.5 Seaman, a major domestic

producer of crepe paper,6

 filed the sole response to the notice of institution.7 On March 8, 2010, the

Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate and the

respondent interested party group response was inadequate. In the absence of an adequate respondent

interested party group response or any other circumstances warranting a full review, the Commission

determined to conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.8

On April 8, 2010, Seaman filed final comments pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(d).9 No

respondent interested party has provided any information or arguments to the Commission in this review. 

Accordingly, for our determination in this review, we rely as appropriate on facts available on the record,

which consist of information collected in this five-year review, including information submitted by

domestic producers, purchaser responses, publicly available information, and information from the

original investigation.

 1 The other petitioners were American Crepe Paper Corporation (“American Crepe”); Eagle Tissue LLC; Flower

City Tissue Mills Co.; Garlock Printing & Converting, Inc.; Paper Service Ltd.; Putney Paper Co., Ltd.; and the

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union AFL-CIO, CLC.

 2

 Among the original petitioning firms, only Seaman and American Crepe produced crepe paper. Certain Crepe

Paper Products From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), USITC Pub. 3749 (Jan. 2005) (“USITC Pub. 3749”) at

III-2.

 3

 Certain Crepe Paper Products From China, 70 Fed. Reg. 3385 (Jan. 24, 2005). The Commission also made a

negative finding with respect to critical circumstances. Id.

 4

 Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Crepe Paper From the People’s Republic of China, 70 Fed. Reg. 3509 (Jan.

25, 2005).

 5

 Crepe Paper Products From China, 74 Fed. Reg. 62815 (Dec. 1, 2009).

 6

 Seaman accounted for *** percent of domestic production of crepe paper in the original investigation and

reportedly at least *** percent of domestic production of crepe paper in 2008. Confidential Staff Report (“CR”),

Public Report (“PR”) at Table I-3.

 7

 See Seaman Response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution (Dec. 31, 2009) (“Seaman Resp.”). Seaman

also supplemented its response by letter dated January 25, 2010 (“Seaman Letter”).

 8

 Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy, reprinted at CR, PR App. B.

 9

 See Seaman Final Comments (April 8, 2010) (“Seaman Comments”).

3
II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Act, the Commission defines “the

domestic like product” and the “industry.”10 The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which

is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an

investigation under this subtitle.”11 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like

product definition from the original determination and any completed reviews and consider whether the

record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.12

In its expedited review determination, Commerce defined the scope of the imported merchandise

subject to the antidumping duty order as follows:

. . . crepe paper products that have a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per square

meter prior to being creped and, if appropriate, flame-proofed. Crepe paper has a finely

wrinkled surface texture and typically but not exclusively is treated to be flame-retardant. 

Crepe paper is typically but not exclusively produced as streamers in roll form and

packaged in plastic bags. Crepe paper may or may not be bleached, dye-colored, surfacecolored, surface decorated or printed, glazed, sequined, embossed, die-cut, and/or flameretardant. Subject crepe paper may be rolled, flat or folded, and may be packaged by

banding or wrapping with paper, by placing in plastic bags, and/or by placing in boxes

for distribution and use by the ultimate consumer. Packages of crepe paper subject to this

investigation may consist solely of crepe paper of one color and/or style, or may contain

multiple colors and/or styles.13

The scope definition used by Commerce in its expedited review determination is unchanged from the

original order.14

Crepe paper products are manufactured from lightweight, flat tissue paper using a wet creping

process that imparts a regularly wrinkled surface to the paper. Crepe paper may be colored, decorated, or

customized in a variety of ways; it is usually cut into streamers that are used for decorative purposes.15

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v.

Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19

CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S.

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

 12 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub.

3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub.

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 13 Certain Crepe Paper Products From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review

of Antidumping Duty Order, 75 Fed. Reg. 15415 (March 29, 2010). Subject imports from China do not have distinct

classification numbers assigned under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) and may fall

under one or more of several different broad subheadings that cover a range of paper goods. Id. As such, they enter

the United States free of duty at normal trade relations rates. CR at I-8-I-9, PR at I-7.

 14 70 Fed. Reg. 3509 (Jan. 25, 2005).

 15 USITC Pub. 3749 at 3, 5; CR at I-11-I-12, PR at I-8. Small amounts are also sold in sheets to school supply

companies, craft stores, and individuals for use in craft projects. CR at I-11, PR at I-9. 

4
In the original investigation, the Commission found a single domestic like product – crepe paper

– that was coextensive with Commerce’s scope definition.16 In its response to the notice of institution,

Seaman stated that it agrees with the domestic like product definition that the Commission adopted in the

original investigation.17 There is no new information obtained during this review that would suggest any

reason to revisit the Commission’s domestic like product definition in the original investigation. 

Accordingly, we continue to find one domestic like product – crepe paper – that is coextensive

with the scope of review. 

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic “producers as a whole

of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”18 In defining the domestic

industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic

production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic

merchant market.

At the time of the Commission’s original investigation, there were four known, fully operational

domestic producers of crepe paper: Seaman, American Crepe, Cindus Corporation (“Cindus”), and The

Beistle Company (“Beistle”).19 The Commission defined the domestic industry in the original

investigation as all domestic producers of crepe paper, whether integrated or converters.20 The

Commission did not exclude any party under section 771(4)(B), the related parties provision of the Act.21

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution of this review, Seaman reported that

currently there are three domestic producers of crepe paper products: Seaman, Unique Industries

(“Unique”), and Cindus.22 Seaman stated that it agrees with the definition of the domestic industry

applied by the Commission in the original investigation.23 Seaman also stated that, to the best of its

knowledge, no U.S. producer of subject crepe paper is a related party under section 771(4)(B).24

There is no new information obtained during this review that would suggest any reason to revisit

the Commission’s domestic industry definition in the original investigation.25 Accordingly, and

 16 USITC Pub. 3749 at 6.

 17 Seaman Resp. at 23.

 18 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

 19 CR at I-9, PR at I-7-I-8. Of the petitioning firms, Seaman accounted for *** percent of total reported U.S.

production of crepe paper, and American Crepe comprised *** percent. Cindus, a non-petitioning company,

accounted for *** percent of domestic production. CR, PR at Table I-3. ***. Confidential Views of the

Commission (“Confidential Views”) at 10. 

 20 USITC Pub. 3749 at 6-7. 

 21 USITC Pub. 3749 at 7; Confidential Views at 9-10. Section 771(4)(B) allows the Commission, if appropriate

circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of

subject merchandise, or which are themselves importers. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B); see, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United

States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Exclusion of

such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based on the facts presented in each case. See, e.g., Sandvik

AB v. United States, 721 F.Supp. 1322, 1331-32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990);

Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F.Supp 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987).

 22 Seaman Resp. at 21. 

 23 Id. at 23.

 24 Seaman Letter at 2. 

 25 We note that the record in this review indicates that Beistle ceased production of the domestic like product and

currently is an importer of the subject merchandise from China, although it is unclear when Beistle ceased

production. CR at I-10, PR at I-8; Seaman Resp. at 22 n.72. Seaman has asserted that Beistle’s transition resulted in

(continued...)

5
consistent with our domestic like product definition in this review, we continue to define the domestic

industry as all domestic producers of crepe paper, whether integrated or converters.

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standards

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or subsidization is likely to

continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping duty

order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably

foreseeable time.”26 The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), Statement of Administrative

Action (“SAA”), states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important

change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its

restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”27 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.28 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review

provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year

reviews.29 30 31

 25 (...continued)

very small changes in domestic production capacity. CR at I-10 n.30, PR at I-8 n.30; Seaman Letter at 2. Beistle

has not provided any additional financial or production data on the record of this review. Therefore, even if the firm

did produce crepe paper in the United States during part of the period of review, the Commission does not have the

production-related data to exclude Beistle’s production even if the Commission found it appropriate to do so.

The instant record further indicates that Unique, a former importer, CR at I-18, PR at I-13-I-14, acquired

American Crepe and became a domestic producer in July 2007. CR at I-10 n.30, PR at I-8 n.30; Seaman Letter at 2. 

Seaman has reported, however, that Unique likely no longer imports subject merchandise from China. Id. Given the

absence of any financial or production data from Unique, the issue whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude it from the domestic industry is similarly moot.

 26 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 27 The SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury

standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of

material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations

that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

 28 Although the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 29 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn. 3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 30 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views

of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

(continued...)

6
The Act states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”32 According to

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”33

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The Act provides

that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”34 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(4).35

No respondent interested party participated in this review. The record, therefore, contains no

information from foreign producers, exporters, or importers with respect to Chinese crepe paper capacity

or production during the period of review. Accordingly, for our determination, we rely as appropriate on

facts available on the record.36 37

 30 (...continued)

Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362

(Review) and 731-TA-707 to 710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 31 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue. 

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 33 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce made no duty absorption findings with respect to the order under review. 

CR at I-5, PR at I-4. The Act further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is

required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination. 19

U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily dispositive. 

SAA at 886.

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or other person

withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time, form, or manner

requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section

782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(i) are applicable only to

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2001) (“[T]he ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification

procedures for the evidence before it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a

Commission investigation.”).

 37 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

(continued...)

7
B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the Act directs the

Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”38 We find the following conditions

of competition relevant to our determination.

Demand. In the original investigation, the Commission found that most domestic producers and

importers, as well as a number of purchasers, reported that demand in the U.S. market remained

unchanged during the period examined. Overall, apparent U.S. consumption declined by 2.6 percent

between 2001 and 2003, but was 6.7 percent higher in interim (January-September) 2004 than in interim

2003.39

More recent apparent U.S. consumption data are unavailable. Seaman reported, however, that

demand in the U.S. market for crepe paper has remained “relatively steady” since the period examined in

the original investigation, but more recently has been “lagging” due to the general economic downturn,

which Seaman states leads consumers to spend less on party supplies.40

Supply. In the original investigation, the Commission found that the U.S. market was supplied by

domestic production and subject imports, as there were no reported nonsubject imports during the period

examined. The Commission found that the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption fell

substantially from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2003.41 The domestic industry’s market share

was lower in interim 2004, at *** percent, than it was in interim 2003, at *** percent.42 Subject imports

captured the market share lost by domestic producers. The domestic industry’s loss of market share

occurred while its production capacity remained stable until interim 2004, when *** idled *** of the

firm’s capacity.43

Since the original investigation, according to Seaman, the volume of subject imports from China

has declined “dramatically,” and “Chinese imports retreated virtually entirely from the U.S. market and

have not returned in any significant volume.”44 The record indicates that no U.S. import duties were

collected on imports from China in 2005, and only limited duties have been collected since then.45 In

addition, imports from China classified under broader HTS categories that include crepe paper have

declined sharply, suggesting that imports of crepe paper from China have also declined substantially.46

There is no evidence in the record that nonsubject imports are replacing subject imports in the U.S.

market; indeed, there is no evidence of any nonsubject imports in the U.S. market.47

Seaman states that the domestic industry is producing well below full capacity and has sufficient

production capacity to meet the needs of the market if necessary. Seaman is currently operating at less

 37 (...continued)

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 

 39 USITC Pub. 3749 at 8 & C-3; CR at I-23, PR at I-18. 

 40 Seaman Resp. at 14-15, 23; CR at I-24, PR at I-18.

 41 Confidential Views at 13.

 42 Id.

 43 Confidential Views at 13.

 44 CR at I-21, PR at I-16; Seaman Resp. at 8-11.

 45 CR at I-21, PR at I-16.

 46 CR at I-21-I-22, PR at I-16.

 47 CR at I-22-I-23, PR at I-16-I-17.

8
than *** percent of its capacity, leaving it positioned to serve the U.S. market in the case of an increase in

demand.48

Channels of Distribution. In the original investigation, the Commission found that U.S.

shipments of domestically produced and subject crepe paper from China were directed to three channels

of distribution during the period examined: distributors, retailers, and end users.49 In 2003, the majority

(*** percent) of U.S. producers’ crepe paper products went to retailers, *** percent went to distributors,

and *** percent went direct to end users.50 U.S. producers’ shipments to distributors fell from *** square

meters in 2001 to *** square meters in 2002 and *** square meters in 2003.51 In contrast, U.S.

producers’ shipments to retailers and end users combined increased from *** square meters in 2001 to

*** square meters in 2002, before falling to *** square meters in 2003.52 The Commission found that the

shift in channels of distribution away from distributors was attributable to a larger decline in U.S.

producers’ shipments to distributors than the decline in U.S. producers’ shipments to retailers.53

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of crepe paper from China to distributors, to retailers, and to end

users all increased in 2002 and 2003. During this period, however, the composition of U.S. importers’

shipments shifted noticeably.54 Specifically, in 2001, the majority (55 percent) of crepe paper from China

was shipped by U.S. importers directly to end users, while 43 percent was shipped to retailers and only

two percent was shipped to distributors.55 By 2003, 83 percent of crepe paper from China was shipped by

U.S. importers to retailers, while 15 percent was sold directly to end users and only two percent was sold

to distributors.56

Based on the record evidence, the Commission found that domestically produced crepe paper and

subject imports from China competed directly in all channels of distribution and that such competition

appeared to be growing given the significant and increasing overlap in sales to retailers.57

Seaman maintains that these overlapping channels of distribution continue to exist in the market

today.58 We find no evidence of changes in the market that would likely result in the domestic industry

not competing with subject imports from China in all channels of distribution, and particularly in sales to

retailers, in the reasonably foreseeable future were the order to be revoked. 

Substitutability. In the original investigation, the Commission found that there was a high degree

of substitutability between domestically produced crepe paper and subject imports from China.59 All

domestic producers and the majority of purchasers reported that domestic crepe paper and subject imports

were “always” interchangeable.60 Purchasers considered price to be one of the most important factors in

 48 CR at I-10, PR at I-8; Seaman Resp. at 15, 23.

 49 USITC Pub. 3749 at 8; CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

 50 Id.

 51 Id.

 52 Id.

 53 USITC Pub. 3749 at 9. From 2001 to 2003, U.S. producers’ shipments to retailers declined *** from ***

square meters to *** square meters. U.S. producers’ shipments to distributors declined at a faster rate, from ***

square meters in 2001 to *** square meters in 2003. These trends continued in the interim period, with U.S.

producers’ shipments to retailers falling from *** square meters in interim 2003 to *** square meters in interim

2004, and shipments to distributors falling from *** square meters in interim 2003 to *** square meters in interim

2004. Confidential Views at 12.

 54 USITC Pub. 3749 at 9; CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

 55 USITC Pub. 3749 at 9; CR at I-13-I-14, PR at I-10. The growth in the proportion of shipments to retailers

continued during the interim period. USITC Pub. 3749 at 9; CR at I-14 n.46, PR at I-10 n.46.

 56 USITC Pub. 3749 at 9; CR at I-14, PR at I-10.

 57 USITC Pub. 3749 at 9. 

 58 Seaman Resp. at 13. 

 59 USITC Pub. 3749 at 10.

 60 Id. Nine of 11 responding importers stated that the two were “always” or “frequently” interchangeable. Id.

9
purchasing decisions.61 In response to the Commission’s questionnaire, purchasers ranked quality first

most frequently and ranked “price” first second most frequently.62 The significance of price was further

demonstrated by the fact that a large majority of responding purchasers reported that domestically

produced crepe paper and subject imports from China were comparable in terms of quality.63

Seaman maintains that the high degree of substitutability between domestically produced crepe

paper and subject imports and the importance of price in the U.S. market for crepe paper continue to exist

as factors in the market.64 There is no evidence in this record to suggest that these conditions have

changed since the original investigation. 

Accordingly, in this review, we find that the conditions in the market discussed above provide us

with a reasonable basis on which to assess the likely effects of the revocation of the order in the

reasonably foreseeable future.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty order

were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.65 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the

exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories;

(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the

United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,

which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other

products.66

In the original investigation, subject import volume increased sharply throughout the period

examined, rising from 3.8 million square meters in 2001 to 12.2 million square meters in 2002 and 20.8

million square meters in 2003 (an increase between 2001 and 2003 of approximately 444 percent).67

Subject import volume was 15.0 million square meters in interim 2003 and 25.8 million square meters in

interim 2004, resulting in a quantity of subject imports that was 73 percent higher in interim 2004 than in

interim 2003, exceeding the full-year volume for 2003.68

During the period examined in the original investigation, subject imports’ U.S. shipment volume

relative to apparent U.S. consumption grew from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002 and ***

percent in 2003.69 Subject imports’ shipment volume relative to apparent U.S. consumption was ***

percent in interim 2003 and *** percent in interim 2004.70 With nonsubject imports absent from the U.S.

market during the period examined, the domestic industry’s market share declined by precisely the

amount that the subject imports’ market share grew, from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002 and

*** percent in 2003.71 In interim 2004, the domestic industry’s market share was *** percent.72 Subject

 61 Id.

 62 Id.

 63 USITC Pub. 3749 at 10. 

 64 Seaman Resp. at 13.

 65 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 66 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D).

 67 USITC Pub. 3749 at 10.

 68 USITC Pub. 3749 at 10.

 69 Confidential Views at 14; CR, PR at Table I-7.

 70 Confidential Views at 14; CR, PR at Table I-7.

 71 Confidential Views at 14-15; CR, PR at Table I-7.

 72 Confidential Views at 15; CR, PR at Table I-7.

10
import volume relative to production in the United States also increased throughout the period examined

in the original investigation.73

The Commission therefore concluded that the volume of subject imports increased substantially

over the period examined, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the

United States, and that subject imports gained market share directly at the expense of U.S. producers. 

Accordingly, the Commission found the volume of subject imports and the increase in that volume to be

significant.74

Seaman has reported that imports of crepe paper from China have declined dramatically since the

period examined in the original investigation. As noted above, according to Seaman, “Chinese imports

retreated virtually entirely from the U.S. market and have not returned in any significant volume.”75 The

available data support this conclusion. For example, the three HTS categories most specific to subject

crepe paper (4808.20, 4808.30, and 4808.90.20) demonstrate sharp declines in volumes and values of

imports from China, suggesting that imports of crepe paper from China have declined substantially as

well.76

The data compiled in the original investigation show that the capacity and production of Chinese

producers increased substantially throughout the period examined.77 Among responding producers, there

was a marked increase in capacity from *** square meters in 2001 to *** square meters in 2002 and ***

square meters in 2003.78 Production in the same period grew similarly, from *** square meters in 2001 to

*** square meters in 2002 and *** square meters in 2003.79 The data from the original investigation also

 73 USITC Pub. 3749 at 10. Relative to production in the United States, subject import volume rose from ***

percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002 and *** percent in 2003. This ratio was *** percent in interim 2003 and

reached *** percent by interim 2004. Confidential Views at 15; CR, PR at Table I-6.

 74 USITC Pub. 3749 at 10.

 75 CR at I-21, PR at I-16.

 76 CR at I-21-I-22, PR at I-16; Seaman Resp. at 9-10 & Exh. 1. In addition, although the Continued Dumping and

Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) was repealed with respect to duties on entries of goods made and filed on or

after October 1, 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, 154 (2006), the limited distributions made under the

CDSOA support our conclusion that subject imports largely exited the market after imposition of the order. CR at 

I-6-I-7, I-21, PR at I-5, I-16; CR, PR at Table I-2. There have been no impediments that might have prevented or

delayed the liquidation of subject entries at the earliest possible date or the collection of duties for distribution. No

appeals were taken of the Commerce or Commission determinations following issuance of the antidumping duty

order, and there have been no periodic reviews of the order by Commerce pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675. CR at I-5,

PR at I-4.

The CDSOA data indicate that no duties were available for distribution in 2005 and only limited duties

have been available since then. In 2006, duties totaling $77,909.24 were distributed; in 2007, duties totaling

$29,975.52 were distributed; and in 2008, duties totaling $23,463.80 were distributed. CR, PR at Table I-2 (in each

instance, these distributions represented 100 percent of the total distribution available). In 2009, Seaman received a

distribution of $826.69, representing 100 percent of the total distribution available. Id. 

Based on the total distributions under the CDSOA and the applicable antidumping duty margins, which

have not changed from the original investigation, the total dutiable value of subject imports from China from

September 2004 through September 2007 appears to have been less than $50,000 (total distributions of $132,175.25

divided by the applicable dumping margin of 266.83 percent or 2.6683). See CR, PR at Tables I-1 & I-2. The value

and volume of subject imports therefore appear to have been very small, demonstrating a dramatic retreat from the

market by Chinese exporters following the original investigation, as Seaman has asserted.

 77 CR, PR at Table I-8. Reported exports to the United States were noticeably smaller than U.S. imports,

indicating that the reported foreign industry data are a subset of actual foreign industry data. CR at I-26, PR at I-20.

 78 CR, PR at Table I-8. 

 79 CR, PR at Table I-8. Thus, during the period examined in the original investigation, the Chinese producers

operated their facilities at aggregate capacity utilization rates ranging from *** to *** percent. CR at I-26 n.81, PR

at I-20 n.81.

11
demonstrated the significant export orientation of the crepe paper industry in China, with exports ranging

from *** percent of total shipments in 2001 to *** percent in the last full year examined.80

Due to the lack of responses from subject foreign producers in this review, there is limited

information in the record concerning current levels of production capacity in China. Available data,

however, suggest that the Chinese industry’s capacity to produce crepe paper has increased. Seaman has

included in its response multiple reports of Chinese firms expanding their facilities, hiring more laborers,

and adding to manufacturing equipment. Several Chinese producers of crepe paper have published

summaries of their development plans for crepe paper and other paper products. The information also

shows that export markets remain the focus of the industry in China.81

Seaman contends that, although there are no data on existing inventories of subject merchandise

in China or the United States, Chinese producers possess the ability to build significant inventories of

subject merchandise in a short time given the substantial capacity of the industry.82 Seaman also contends

that, although China’s exports of crepe paper currently are not subject to antidumping duties in third

country markets, the United States is the single largest market for crepe paper in the world and Chinese

imports would immediately return to the United States if the order were revoked.83

Based on the increase in the volume and market share of subject imports during the original

investigation, the substantial Chinese production capacity and unused capacity at the end of the original

investigation, the ability of Chinese producers to increase capacity and production quickly, the evidence

on the record of the Chinese industry’s current capacity to produce crepe paper, the export orientation of

the Chinese industry, and the attractiveness of the U.S. market, we find that Chinese producers have the

ability and the incentive to increase their exports to the United States significantly if the order were

revoked. Therefore, we find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms and relative

to production and consumption in the United States, would likely be significant within the reasonably

foreseeable future if the order were revoked. 

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty order were

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by

the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to

enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect

on the price of the domestic like product.84

In the original investigation, as discussed above, the Commission found that subject imports and

the domestic like product were highly interchangeable and that price played an important role in

purchasing decisions for crepe paper.85 The Commission noted that several significant purchasers

confirmed that they switched from U.S. to Chinese product to take advantage of lower prices or that U.S.

suppliers lowered prices to compete with Chinese suppliers.86 Ten of 11 responding purchasers,

 80 CR, PR at Table I-8.

 81 Seaman Resp. at 16-18 & Exh. 4; CR at I-25, PR at I-20. 

 82 Seaman Resp. at 18.

 83 Id.

 84 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on

circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA

at 886.

 85 USITC Pub. 3749 at 11.

 86 USITC Pub. 3749 at 11; CR at I-15, PR at I-11.

12
accounting for the majority of crepe paper purchases in the United States, reported that subject imports

were lower priced than domestically produced crepe paper.87

Despite this evidence of underselling by subject imports, which the Commission found was based

on reliable information obtained from purchasers, importers, and domestic producers, the quarterly

pricing data in the final phase investigation instead generally showed overselling by subject imports.88

The Commission noted, however, that the domestic industry sold crepe paper to both retailers and

distributors, including firms that were increasingly importing subject crepe paper from China, and that the

import purchase prices for both importer/retailers and importer/distributors were consistently lower than

U.S. producers’ selling prices.89

The Commission also had concerns about the comparability of the domestic and import sales

price data.90 The pricing data used in the Commission’s analysis contained sales from domestic producers

to both distributors and retailers. The record indicated that prices in these channels differed and that the

sales prices to distributors were *** than the sales prices to retailers.91 Because the domestic industry

made a greater proportion of its sales to distributors than did importers, the calculation of a weightedaverage price across channels would lower the domestic industry’s sales prices relative to importers’ sales

prices.92 The Commission concluded that this likely explained, in part, the apparent overselling by

imports shown in the price comparison data.93 Based on the mixed evidence, however, the Commission

did not find significant underselling by subject imports, but did find that the record demonstrated

significant adverse effects by subject imports on the domestic prices of crepe paper during the period

examined.94

The Commission found that significant price competition from, and the rapidly increasing volume

of, subject imports resulted in declines in U.S. sales volumes and either restricted or prevented price

increases by U.S. producers. The impact of these conditions was demonstrated by the increase in the

domestic industry’s cost of goods sold as a ratio to net sales from 2001 to 2003, a trend that continued in

interim 2004.95 The Commission found that subject imports, therefore, had a significant price suppressing

effect on the U.S. industry.96

There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record of this review. Although

subject imports have largely exited the market as a result of the antidumping duty order, as explained

above we find Chinese producers likely would increase their exports to the United States significantly in

the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order were revoked. The record in this review

also indicates, as explained above, that crepe paper products produced in the United States and China

remain highly substitutable and that price continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions. 

Consequently, we find that subject imports would be likely to compete with U.S. product on price in

order to gain market share, just as they did during the period examined in the original investigation. In

the original investigation, the industry’s large loss of market share meant that it had far fewer sales over

which to spread its fixed costs. With the industry rapidly losing its customer base to subject imports as

 87 USITC Pub. 3749 at 11; CR at I-15, PR at I-11.

 88 USITC Pub. 3749 at 11; CR at I-15, PR at I-11. The data comparing domestic and importer sales prices to

unrelated customers showed that subject imports *** oversold the domestic product, at weighted-average margins

ranging from *** percent to *** percent, with U.S. prices ranging from $*** to $*** per unit and subject import

prices ranging from $*** to $*** per unit. Confidential Views at 17; CR at I-15, PR at I-11.

 89 USITC Pub. 3749 at 12; CR at I-15, PR at I-11.

 90 USITC Pub. 3749 at 12.

 91 Confidential Views at 18.

 92 USITC Pub. 3749 at 12.

 93 Id.

 94 Id.

 95 USITC Pub. 3749 at 12-13.

 96 Id. at 13.

13
well as facing pricing pressure from those imports, the industry was unable to increase prices to offset the

financial effects of the loss of volume.97

We find that, absent the disciplining effects of the antidumping duty order, competitive

conditions likely would return to those prevailing prior to the imposition of the order. Subject imports

would likely re-enter the U.S. market in large volumes and be aggressively marketed at low prices. As a

result, the domestic industry likely would lose critical sales volume, thereby reducing the sales over

which it could spread its fixed costs. Therefore, we conclude that, if the order were revoked, subject

imports from China likely would increase significantly and those imports likely would have a depressing

or suppressing effect on prices for the domestic like product.

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports98

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty order

were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have

a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to the following: (1)

likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization

of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production

efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic

like product.99 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle

and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.100 As instructed by the Act, we have

considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the

order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order were revoked.

In the original investigation, the Commission found that virtually every indicator of the domestic

industry’s condition showed marked declines during the period examined.101 There were declines in the

domestic industry’s production capacity, output, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipment volumes.102 The

number of workers, total wages paid, and productivity similarly declined, while unit labor costs increased

 97 Id.

 98 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Tariff Act states that “the Commission may consider

the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” in making its

determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The Act defines the “magnitude of the margin of

dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the

administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

In its expedited review of the antidumping duty order, Commerce found that revocation of the order would

be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following margins: 266.83 percent for Fuzhou

Light Industry Import and Export Co., Ltd.; 266.83 percent for Fuzhou Magicpro Gifts Co., Ltd.; 266.83 percent for

Everlasting Business and Industry Co. Ltd.; 266.83 percent for Fujian Nanping Investment and Enterprise Co., Ltd.;

266.83 percent for Ningbo Spring Stationary Co., Ltd.; and 266.83 percent for the PRC-wide rate. 75 Fed. Reg.

15415 (March 29, 2010). These dumping margins are the same as the margins Commerce calculated in its original

final determination. CR, PR at Table I-1.

 99 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 100 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 101 USITC Pub. 3749 at 13.

 102 Id.; CR, PR at Table I-4.

14
throughout the period examined.103 Domestic inventories fluctuated somewhat in absolute terms and

increased throughout the period examined as a ratio to total shipments.104

The Commission found that the domestic industry’s financial indicators worsened substantially

over the period examined. The domestic industry’s operating margin fell from *** percent in 2001 to ***

percent in 2002, before further declining to a negative operating margin of *** percent in 2003.105 The

domestic industry’s operating margin was negative *** percent in interim 2003 and negative *** percent

in interim 2004.106 *** of the three responding domestic producers reported operating *** in 2003 and

interim 2004, and *** experienced worsening operating income levels during the period examined.107

Unit sales values fell between 2001 and 2003 before recovering somewhat in interim 2004, capital

expenditures declined throughout the period examined, and no firm reported research and development

expenditures.108 Finally, the Commission found that the trend of the domestic industry’s return on

investment mirrored the downward decline in its operating margin during the period examined.109 Based

on its findings of a significant volume (and increase in volume) of subject imports and negative price

effects, together with the weakened state of the domestic industry, the Commission concluded that subject

imports had had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.110

Because this is an expedited review, there is limited information on the record concerning the

performance of the domestic industry since the original injury determination. This information pertains

only to certain economic factors, is available only for 2008, and is essentially limited to Seaman’s

performance.111 The information is insufficient to enable us to make a determination as to whether the

industry is currently vulnerable.112

As discussed above, we find that revocation of the order would likely lead to a significant

increase in the volume of subject imports, and that subject imports would aggressively compete with the

domestic product on price, resulting in significant depression and/or suppression of U.S. prices for the

domestic like product. We find that the intensified subject import competition that would likely occur

after revocation of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. 

Specifically, the domestic industry would likely lose market share to low-priced subject imports and

would likely obtain lower prices due to competition from subject imports, which would adversely impact

the industry’s production, shipments, sales, and revenue. These reductions would likely have a direct

adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment levels, as well as its ability to raise capital

and make and maintain necessary capital investments.113

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order on certain crepe paper products

from China were revoked, subject imports from China would be likely to have a significant adverse

impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 103 USITC Pub. 3749 at 13-14.

 104 Id. at 14.

 105 Confidential Views at 21.

 106 Id.

 107 Id.

 108 USITC Pub. 3749 at 14.

 109 USITC Pub. 3749 at 14.

 110 Id. at 15.

 111 See CR at I-19, PR at I-14; CR, PR at Table I-4.

 112 Id.

 113 We further find that, if the order were revoked, the likely significant adverse impact would not be attributable

to nonsubject imports. Nonsubject imports had no presence in the U.S. market during the period examined in the

original investigation and have not had a presence since the imposition of the order. Nor is there any indication that

this would change in the foreseeable future were the order revoked. 

15
CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

certain crepe paper products from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

16
I-1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

 1

 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 Crepe Paper Products From China, 74 FR 62815, December 1, 2009. All interested parties were requested to

respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s notice of

institution is presented in app. A.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of a five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Review, 74 FR 62748, December 1, 2009.

 4

 The Commission received a submission from one domestic producer, Seaman Paper Company of

Massachusetts, Inc. (“Seaman”), in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. Seaman is represented

by the law firm of Wiley Rein. The domestic interested party reported that it accounted for “at least” *** percent of

total U.S. production of crepe paper. Seaman’s Response, December 31, 2009, p. 21.

 5

 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties to its notice of institution.

 6

 75 FR 13779, March 23, 2010. The Commission’s notice of an expedited review appears in app. A. The

Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

 7

 Cited Federal Register notices beginning with the Commission’s institution of a five-year sunset review are

presented in app. A.

I-3

INTRODUCTION

On December 1, 2009, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Act”),1

 the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave notice that it

had instituted a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on imports of

crepe paper products (“crepe paper”) from China would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence

of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On March 8, 2010, the Commission

determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate4

 and

that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate.5

 In the absence of respondent

interested party responses and any other circumstances that would warrant the conduct of a full review,

the Commission determined to conduct an expedited review of the antidumping duty order pursuant to

section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).6

 The following tabulation presents selected

information relating to the schedule of this five-year review.7

Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

December 1, 2009 Commission’s institution of five-year review 74 FR 62815

December 1, 2009 Commerce’s initiation of five-year review 74 FR 62748

March 8, 2010 

Commission’s determination to conduct an expedited five-year review

and scheduling of expedited review

75 FR 13779

(March 23, 2010)

March 29, 2010 Commerce’s final results for expedited five-year review 75 FR 15415

April 21, 2010 Commission’s vote Not applicable

April 30, 2010 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce Not applicable
 8

 The petition was filed by Seaman, American Crepe Corp., (“American Crepe”); Eagle Tissue LLC; Flower City

Tissue Mills Co.; Garlock Printing & Converting, Inc.; Paper Service Ltd.; Putney Paper Co., Ltd.; and the Paper,

Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union AFL-CIO, CLC.

 9

 Among the original petitioners, only Seaman and American Crepe produced crepe paper. 

 10 Commerce further found that critical circumstances existed with respect to subject imports from China. 69 FR

70233, December 3, 2004. 

 11 The Commission additionally made a negative finding with respect to critical circumstances. Certain Crepe

Paper Products From China, 70 FR 3385, January 24, 2005.

 12 Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Crepe Paper From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 3509, January

25, 2005.

 13 75 FR 15415, March 29, 2010.

I-4

The Original Investigation

On February 17, 2004, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with further material injury by reason

of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of certain tissue paper and crepe paper products.8

 The case was

subsequently divided resulting in two separate investigations, crepe paper and tissue paper products.9

 On

December 3, 2004, Commerce made an affirmative final LTFV determination10 and, on January 18, 2005,

the Commission completed its original investigation, determining that an industry in the United States

was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of crepe paper products from China.11 After receipt of

the Commission’s final affirmative determination, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on

imports of crepe paper from China.12

Commerce’s Original Determination and Subsequent Review Determinations

Commerce’s original determination was published on December 3, 2004, and the antidumping

duty order concerning crepe paper products from China was issued on January 25, 2005. Since the

issuance of the antidumping duty order, there have been no administrative reviews, no scope rulings

concerning the antidumping duty order, no new shipper reviews, no changed circumstances

determinations, and no duty absorption findings.

Commerce’s Final Results of Expedited Five-Year Review

Commerce published the final results of its expedited review on March 29, 2010. Commerce

concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty order on crepe paper from China would likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins calculated in its original final determination.13

Information on Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order, and final results of its expedited

five-year review is presented in table I-1.
 14 19 CFR 159.64(g).

 15 Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2006-09, found at

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

I-5

Table I-1

Crepe paper: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order, and final results of

expedited five-year review

Action

Effective

date

Federal

Register

citation

Period of

investigation/

review

Antidumping duty margins

FirmspecificPRCwide1

Percent ad valorem

Final

determination 12/03/2004

69 FR

70233

07/01/2003-

12/31/2003

Fuzhou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.83

Magicpro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.83

Everlasting Business &

Industry Co. Ltd ............ 266.83

Fujian Nanping Investment &

Enterprise Co., Ltd . . . . . . . . . . 266.83

Ningbo Spring 

Stationary Co., Ltd .......... 266.83 266.83

Antidumping

duty order 01/25/2005

70 FR

3509 ---

Everlasting Business & 

Industry Co. Ltd ............ 266.83

Fujian Nanping Investment &

Enterprise Co., Ltd . . . . . . . . . . 266.83

Ningbo Spring 

Stationary Co., Ltd .......... 266.83 266.83

Final results

of expedited

five-year

review 03/29/2010

75 FR

15415 ---

Fuzhou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.83

Magicpro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.83

Everlasting Business &

Industry Co. Ltd ............ 266.83

Fujian Nanping Investment &

Enterprise Co., Ltd . . . . . . . . . . 266.83

Ningbo Spring 

Stationary Co., Ltd .......... 266.83 266.83

 1 The PRC-wide rate applies to all companies that otherwise have not received a “firm-specific” rate.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Funds to Affected Domestic Producers

Qualified U.S. producers of crepe paper are eligible to receive disbursements from U.S. Customs

and Border Protection (“Customs”) under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000

(“CDSOA”), also known as the Byrd Amendment.14 With respect to crepe paper products from China

during 2006-09, certifications were filed with Customs by Cindus, Seaman, and the USW in 2006,

Seaman and the USW in 2007 and 2008, and only Seaman in 2009.15 No other CDSOA claims /

disbursements were made prior to 2006. Table I-2 presents CDSOA claims and disbursements for

Federal fiscal years 2006-09.
 16 Folding Gift Boxes from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-921 (Final), USITC Publication 3480, December 2001.

 17 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Folding Gift Boxes from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR

864, January 8, 2002.

 18 Folding Gift Boxes From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-921 (Review), USITC Publication 3917, April 2007; 72 FR

28025, May 18, 2007.

 19 Certain Tissue Paper Products From China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC Publication

3758, March 2005.

 20 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.

I-6

Table I-2

Crepe paper: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years1

 2006-09

Year Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation Certification amount2 Amount disbursed

Percent Dollars

2006

Cindus 10.30 888,183.30 8,020.85

Seaman 89.67 7,736,104.00 69,861.82

USW3 0.03 22,942.00 26.57

Total, 2006 100.00 8,647,229.30 77,909.24

2007

Seaman 99.96 15,358,460.18 29,963.98

USW 0.04 5,915.00 11.54

Total, 2007 100.00 15,364,375.18 29,975.52

2008

Seaman 99.97 17,755,244.20 23,456.00

USW 0.03 5,903.00 7.80

Total, 2008 100.00 17,761,147.20 23,463.80

2009

Seaman 100.00 17,731,788.20 826.69

Total, 2009 100.00 17,731,788.20 826.69

 1 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

 2

 Qualifying expenditures incurred by domestic producers since the issuance of an order.

 3 The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International

Union.

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2004-09, found at

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/

Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

The Commission has not conducted previous antidumping or countervailing duty investigations

concerning crepe paper. However, in 2001, the Commission conducted an antidumping duty

investigation on folding gift boxes from China, issuing a final affirmative determination in December of

that year.16 Commerce imposed an antidumping duty order on imports of certain folding gift boxes from

China on January 8, 2002.17 Following affirmative expedited review determinations by the Commission

and Commerce in 2007, the antidumping duty order was continued.18 

In addition, as discussed previously, the Commission conducted a final-phase investigation on

certain tissue paper products from China in 2004-05. Following affirmative determinations by Commerce

and the Commission in February 2005 and March 2005, respectively,19 Commerce issued an antidumping

duty order on certain tissue paper products from China.20 A five-year review of this outstanding order

was initiated in February 2010.
 21 Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Crepe Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 3509, January 25,

2005.

 22 All NTR rates in chapter 48 are “free.” Subheading 9505.90.40 covers paper spirals and streamers, party

favors and similar goods, also with an NTR duty rate of free.

 23 Confidential Views of the Commission, p. 7.

 24 Seaman’s Response, December 31, 2009, p. 23.

I-7

THE PRODUCT

Scope

In its original antidumping duty order, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows:

...crepe paper products that have a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per square meter

prior to being creped and, if appropriate, flame-proofed. Crepe paper has a finely

wrinkled surface texture and typically but not exclusively is treated to be flame-retardant.

Crepe paper is typically but not exclusively produced as streamers in roll form and

packaged in plastic bags. Crepe paper may or may not be bleached, dye-colored, surfacecolored, surface decorated or printed, glazed, sequined, embossed, die-cut, and/or flameretardant. Subject crepe paper may be rolled, flat or folded, and may be packaged by

banding or wrapping with paper, by placing in plastic bags, and/or by placing in boxes

for distribution and use by the ultimate consumer. Packages of crepe paper subject to this

investigation may consist solely of crepe paper of one color and/or style, or may contain

multiple colors and/or styles.21

Commerce has not received any requests for scope rulings since the original antidumping duty 

order date.

U.S. Tariff Treatment

The crepe paper products subject to this review do not have distinct tariff or statistical categories

assigned to them under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) and likewise appear

to be imported under one or more of the several different very broad categories covering a range of paper

goods by name and/or weight, including but not necessarily limited to the following HTS subheadings: 

4802.30; 4802.54; 4802.61; 4802.62; 4802.69; 4804.39; 4806.40; 4808.30; 4808.90; 481 1.90; 4818.90;

4823.90; and 9505.90.40. As such, the subject crepe paper products from China enter the United States

free of duty at normal trade relations (“NTR”) rates.22

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

The domestic like product is the domestically-produced product or products which are like, or in

the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with the subject merchandise. In its original

determination, the Commission defined the domestic like product as crepe paper, coextensive with

Commerce’s scope.23 Seaman indicated in its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this

review that it agrees with the definition of the domestic like product as set out in the Commission’s notice

of institution and its final determination in the original investigation.24

The domestic industry is the collection of U.S. producers as a whole of the domestic like product,

or those producers whose collective output of the domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of

the total domestic production of the product. At the time of the Commission’s original investigation

concerning crepe paper, there were four known, fully operational U.S. producers: American Crepe,
 25 In addition to these four U.S. producers, Glitterwrap reportedly *** in September 2004. However, at the time

the staff report in the original investigation was written, December 2004, nothing further regarding Glitterwrap was

available. Certain Crepe Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28,

2004, p. I-5.

 26 Ibid. p. III-1 and table IV-1.

 27 Seaman’s Response, December 31, 2009, p. 23.

 28 Ibid., p. 21.

 29 Certain Crepe Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004,

table III-1.

 30 In 2007, American Crepe was acquired by Unique, a former importer; although identified as a currently

operating importer, Seaman indicated that Unique likely no longer imports the subject merchandise from China. 

Seaman’s Cure Response, January 25, 2010, p. 2. This acquisition has not affected the domestic capacity for

production. Seaman’s Response, December 31, 2009, p. 22.

 31 Seaman’s Response, December 31, 2009, p. 21.

 32 Ibid., p. 22 and n. 72.

 33 Ibid., pp. 15 and 23.

 34 Unless indicated otherwise, discussion in this section is based on information contained in Certain Crepe

Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004, p. I-5.

I-8

Cindus, Seaman, and Beistle.25 Of the petitioning firms, Seaman accounted for *** percent of total

reported U.S. production of crepe paper and American Crepe comprised *** percent. Cindus, a nonpetitioning company, accounted for *** percent of domestic production. Beistle, a domestic producer and

an importer of the subject merchandise from China, did not provide a response to the Commission’s

questionnaire in the original investigation. The Commission’s report indicated that Beistle accounted for

only a “modest share” of the U.S. market at the time of the original investigation.26

The Commission defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers (whether integrated or

converters) of crepe paper. The domestic interested party indicated in its response to the Commission’s

notice of institution in this review that it agrees with the definition of the domestic industry as set out in

the Commission’s notice of institution and its final determination in the original investigation.27

According to the response of Seaman to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review, it

accounts for “at least” *** percent28 of total crepe paper production in the United States for 2008. 

Seaman’s share of the domestic production reported in the original investigation (*** percent) 29 falls

within the estimated range of total production reported in this review. According to its response, there are

currently three domestic producers of crepe paper products: Seaman, Unique Industries,30 and Cindus.31

Seaman reported that Beistle ceased production of the domestic like product and is currently an importer

of the subject merchandise from China, but indicated that this transition resulted in very small changes in

domestic production capacity.32

Additionally, Seaman contends that the domestic industry is producing well below full capacity

and is competent to meet the needs of the market if needed. Specifically, Seaman reported that it is

producing at less than *** percent capacity.33

Physical Characteristics and Uses34

Crepe paper is manufactured from flat tissue paper using a wet creping process that imparts a

regularly wrinkled surface to the paper. Certain crepe paper products are distinguishable from the dry

creped tissue paper used for sanitary and other household purpose and the creped kraft papers used in

industrial applications such as air, fuel, and oil filters. Certain crepe paper products may be colored,

decorated, or customized in a variety of ways. According to testimony presented at the staff conference
 35 Ibid., p. II-3. 

 36 Neither of the two firms responding to the purchaser survey identified any changes in the end uses and

applications of crepe paper. 

 37 Unless indicated otherwise, discussion in this section is based on information contained in Certain Crepe

Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004, pp. I-4-I-7.

 38 The sizing prevents the sheet of paper from disintegrating during the creping operations.

 39 Neither of the two firms responding to the purchaser survey identified any changes in the technology,

production methods, or development efforts to produce crepe paper.

I-9

in the original investigation, the consistency of color matching and crimping of crepe paper produced in

the United States reportedly is superior to that produced in China.

Certain crepe paper generally is slit into narrow rolls, although a small amount of crepe folds are

sold for arts and crafts end uses. While tissue paper (defined broadly) is an upstream product in the

manufacture of certain crepe paper products, certain crepe paper products have a finely wrinkled (creped)

surface, usually are cut into streamers and treated with fire-retardant chemicals, and most often are used

for decorative purposes. In addition, small amounts are sold in sheets to school supply companies, craft

stores, or individuals for use in craft projects.35 36

Manufacturing Process37

The crepe paper products subject to this review are produced from rolls of flat tissue paper, often

referred to as “jumbo rolls,” rather than dry creped tissue paper such as that used for sanitary and other

household purposes. The term “tissue paper” refers to a class of lightweight paper that generally exhibits

a gauze-like, fairly transparent character and that has a basis weight of less than 29 grams per square

meter (18 pounds per 3,000 square feet). The tissue paper used for the manufacture of certain crepe paper

products differs from that used for bulk and consumer tissue paper in that sizing is added to the pulp as

the paper is manufactured.38 

In contrast to the dry creping process that is used in the manufacture of sanitary tissue and

toweling, certain crepe paper products undergo a wet creping process. Typically, the first step is to mix a

solution of ammonia-based flameproof salts and, if necessary, dyes and other additives (e.g., softeners,

mineral-based pearlescent coatings). For dyed crepe papers, proper color matching from batch to batch is

critical. Once mixed, the solution is transferred to a creping machine, and a roll of tissue paper is

mounted in its roll stand. As the sheet is unwound, it is bathed in the solution, which is circulated either

in a trough or in the nip of a small roll which presses the sheet onto a large, rotating drum. The moistened

sheet adheres to the drum, which is equipped with a doctor blade extending across the surface of the back

side of the roll. Crepes are formed as the sheet is crowded against the doctor blade, and a felt picks the

sheet off the doctor blade. The relative speeds of the felt and the rotating drum are set such that the felt

will not pull the creping out of the sheet. The felt conveys the creped paper to a drier cylinder which drys

the sheet. Once dry, the crepe paper is rewound on a roll. The roll of creped paper is then moved to a

slitter, which cuts the sheet into streamer widths (typically 1-3/4 inches), winds them to the correct length

and diameter, and applies adhesive to the end to keep the streamers from unraveling. The streamers are

packed in preformed bags, wholesale bags (if needed), and finally into corrugated cartons.39
 40 Certain Crepe Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004,

p. I-7.

 41 Seaman’s Response, December 31, 2009, pp. 7 and 13.

 42 Unless indicated otherwise, discussion in this section is based on information contained in Certain Crepe

Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004, p. II-6.

 43 Neither of the two firms responding to the purchaser survey identified any changes to the existence and

availability of substitute products. 

 44 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Certain Crepe

Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004, pp. II-1-II-3.

 45 Crepe paper end users include individuals and firms that directly purchase the product for use in their

entertainment or artistic activities. 

 46 In January-September, 90 percent of U.S. shipments of crepe paper from China by U.S. importers were to

retailers, up from 80 percent in January-September 2003. 

I-10

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

Despite the reportedly higher quality of domestically-produced crepe paper by virtue of its

crimping and dyeing process, most U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers perceived certain

crepe paper produced in the United States and in China to be “always” or “frequently” interchangeable.40

Seaman echoed the Commission’s view of interchangeability from the original investigation and reported

that the U.S. crepe paper market continues to reflect a high degree of substitutability among crepe paper

products from different suppliers.41

Substitute Products42

In the original investigation, purchasers of crepe paper were asked to list the top three substitutes

for the product, and four purchasers reported that no substitutes existed. *** of three responding U.S.

producers and four of nine responding importers in the original investigation reported that there are no

direct substitutes for certain crepe paper products. Several importers and *** reported that products such

as banners, paper or foil garlands, mylar, and plastic streamers are possible substitutes. Additional

substitute products reported by purchasers included tinsel, and balloons.43

Channels of Distribution44

Crepe paper is sold through both distributers and retailers. In the original investigation, for the

year 2003, the majority (*** percent) of U.S. producers’ crepe paper products went to retailers,

*** percent went to distributors, and *** percent went direct to end users.45 U.S. producers’ shipments to

distributors fell from *** square meters in 2001, to *** in 2002, and to *** in 2003. In contrast, U.S.

producers’ shipments to retailers and end users combined increased from *** square meters in 2001, to

*** in 2002, before falling to *** in 2003. 

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of crepe paper from China to distributors, to retailers, and to end

users all increased in 2002 and in 2003. During this period, however, the composition of U.S. importers’

shipments shifted noticeably. In 2001, the majority - 55 percent- of crepe paper from China was shipped

by U.S. importers directly to end users, while 43 percent was shipped to retailers and only 2 percent was

shipped to distributors. By 2003, 83 percent of crepe paper from China was shipped by U.S. importers to

retailers, while 15 percent was sold directly to end users and only 2 percent was sold to distributors.46 

According to one U.S. producer, Chinese suppliers began to contact U.S. crepe paper distributors

at a trade show in 1999 or 2000. Gradually, companies that had distributed crepe paper produced in the
 47 Certain Crepe Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004,

p. II-2.

 48 Ibid., table IV-1.

 49 Certain Crepe Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004,

p. I-8. Additional price-related data for the three large importing distributors appears in Memorandum INV-CC-001,

January 5, 2005.

 50 Confidential Views of the Commission, p. 17.

 51 Ibid., p. 18.

I-11

United States began to import crepe paper from China. This U.S. producer identified *** as one of the

first major distributors to shift portions of its sourcing requirements from crepe paper produced in the

United States to crepe paper produced in China. According to ***. After *** began purchasing Chinese

products, other distributors followed. According to the U.S. producer, these distributors then began to

compete with U.S. producers for sales to retailers.47

Unique Industries was the *** largest U.S. importer of crepe paper from China in 2003 with a

*** percent share of U.S. imports from China.48 However, in 2007, it purchased its own crepe paper

production line via the acquisition of American Crepe. Unique is still listed in the response to the notice

of institution as an importer as well as a producer.

Pricing

In the aggregate, the average unit values for U.S. shipments of domestically-produced certain

crepe paper products were *** per thousand square meters in 2001, *** in 2002, *** in 2003, *** in

interim 2003, and *** in interim 2004. By comparison, the average unit values for U.S. imports of

certain crepe paper products from China were $117.64 per thousand square meters in 2001, $116.34 in

2002, $109.68 in 2003, $109.33 in interim 2003, and $117.31 in interim 2004. The average unit values

for U.S. shipments of imports of certain crepe paper products from China were *** per thousand square

meters in 2001, *** in 2002, and *** in 2003, *** in interim 2003, and *** in interim 2004.49

In the original investigation, ten of 11 responding purchasers accounting for the majority of crepe

paper purchases in the United States reported that subject imports were lower priced than the domestically

produced crepe paper. Several significant purchasers also confirmed that they switched from U.S. to

Chinese product to take advantage of lower prices, or that U.S. suppliers lowered prices to compete with

Chinese suppliers. Despite the evidence of underselling on the record, the Commission found that

quarterly pricing data in the final phase, which contain sales from domestic producers to both distributors

and retailers, show overselling by subject imports. The Commission noted in its Views that “data

comparing domestic and importer sales prices to unrelated customers show that subject imports ***

oversold the domestic product, at weighted average margins ranging from *** percent to *** percent,

with U.S. prices ranging from $*** to $*** per unit and prices for Chinese crepe paper ranging from

$*** to $*** per unit.” However, the Commission also noted that “the domestic industry has sold crepe

paper to both retailers and distributors, including firms that also increasingly import subject crepe paper

from China” and further “that import purchase prices for both importer/retailers ($*** per unit) and

importer/distributors ($*** per unit) are consistently lower than the selling prices of the U.S.

producers.”50 The Commission further noted that the record indicates that prices to distributors and

retailers differ with price to distributors being *** that the sales price to retailers. Recognizing that the

domestic industry has a greater proportion of their sales to distributors than importers, the Commission

reasoned that calculating a weighted average price across channels could explain the apparent overselling

shown in the price comparison data.51
 52 Certain Crepe Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004,

p. III-1.

 53 Ibid. p. III-2, Table III-1.

 54 Seaman’s Response, December 31, 2009, pp. 22-23.

I-12

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

U.S. industry data collected in the original investigation were based on the questionnaire

responses of three of the four total domestic producers that accounted for almost all U.S. production of

crepe paper products.52 The three U.S. producers that participated in the original investigation and their

shares of total domestic production during 2002 were as follows: American Crepe (*** percent), Cindus

(*** percent), and Seaman (*** percent).53

The domestic interested party reported in its response that there are currently three domestic

producers of crepe paper products: Cindus, Seaman, and Unique Industries.54 Seaman was the only

respondent to the Commission’s notice of institution of this review. Details regarding each firm’s

location and company shares of 2003 and 2008 total domestic production of crepe paper are presented in

table I-3.

Table I-3

Crepe paper: U.S. producers, locations, and company shares of 2003 and 2008 total domestic production

Firm Location

Share of 2003 reported

production (percent)

Estimated share of 2008

domestic production

(percent)

American Crepe/

Unique Industries2

Montoursville, PA/

Philadelphia, PA *** (1

)

Beistle Shippensburg, PA (1

) (3)

Cindus Cincinnati, OH *** (1

)

Seaman Gardner, MA *** ***

 Total 100.0

 1 Not available.

 2

 American Crepe was acquired by Unique Industries, a former importer of crepe paper. This reportedly has not changed

production capabilities as Unique has continued American Crepe’s production of the product.

 3

 Beistle is no longer a domestic producer of crepe paper.

Note.-- Subsequent to the filing of the petition, Glitterwrap was said to have *** and reportedly began crepe paper production in

September 2004. The company, however, has undergone multiple changes in ownership and was not identified as a producer in

this review.

Source: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final): Certain Crepe Paper Products from China- Staff Report, INV-BB-161, December 28,

2004, Table III-1; Seaman’s Response.
 55 International Greeting Acquires Glitterwrap, found at http://www.giftsanddec.com/article/CA6477874.html.

 56 Designer Greeting Acquires Glitterwrap, found at http://designergreetings.com/pages/Press_Release.html.

 57 Designer Greeting Acquires Red Farm Studio and Glitterwrap, found at

http://www.greetingsmagazine.com/ME2/Sites/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=MultiPublishing&mod=PublishingTitl

es&mid=16866170C972451FAAF3BBD694B473B4&tier=4&id=199AE3D3E9714F72A153DB4EB4E281A6&Site

ID=71DDBD9AA0F345578C063676C6E48986.

 58 Cindus Company Website, History, found at http://www.cindus.com/corp_history.php.

 59 Seaman Company Website, The History of Seaman Paper Company, found at 

http://www.seamanpaper.com/history.html.

 60 Seaman’s Response, December 31, 2009, p. 23.

 61 Unique Company Website, Home, found at http://favors.com/default.asp. 

I-13

In 2003, Glitterwrap was the *** U.S. importer of crepe paper from China with *** percent of

U.S. imports. After the filing of the petition, Glitterwrap reportedly *** and began production. On

September 7, 2007, Glitterwrap was acquired by International Greetings PLC, a world leader in the

manufacturing of stationary and paper greeting products, and became one of its subsidiaries.55 Then, in

early 2009, Glitterwrap was acquired by Designer Greetings, Inc., one of the largest greeting card

companies in the United States.56 Since then, it is reported that Glitterwrap’s party division has been

liquidated.57

Cindus

Since 1923, Cindus has been a paper converting company located in Cincinnati, OH. Its main

function is the production of different varieties of crepe paper, and their line includes crepe and

calendered insulation products for the electrical industry, creped paper for party goods, and “X-Crepe”

(its exclusive “all directional” stretch paper used in the transformer industry as an alternative to lead cable

insulation).58

Seaman

Seaman Paper Co. has its paper mill headquarters in Otter River, MA, with corporate offices in

Gardner, MA. In 1945, Seaman Paper Company of Chicago originally purchased this mill which

produced napkin and toweling products. Since, it has grown to include a second paper machine in 1954

and many eco-friendly applications in trying to keep with their environmental policy. In the 1980s,

demand began to decline, so, in 1985, Seaman developed new products which added value to the paper

grades. A few results from this program include Seaman’s SatinWrap line (which has been sold

internationally), industrial wrapping paper, private label folded gift wrap, florist tissue, arts and crafts

tissue, and decorative crepe party goods. Seaman has the capacity to produce 100 tons of paper per day

and currently comprises *** percent of domestic crepe paper production.59 However, it is only producing

at less than *** percent of its capacity.60

Unique 

Unique is headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, and is a leading producer of party merchandise. It

offers a variety of products such as balloons, pinatas, party favors, paperware, and more, including crepe

paper.61 
 62 Certain Crepe Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004,

p. I-3.

 63 Seaman’s Response, December 31, 2009, pp. 22-23.

 64 Ibid., p. 22.

 65 Staff Report on Certain Crepe Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070A (Final),

December 28, 2004 (INV-BB-161), p. III-4.

 66 Beistle, a minor producer, has ceased production of crepe paper since the original investigation, and American

Crepe has been acquired by Unique Industries, although its facilities are still in use. 

 67 Ibid. p. 8.

 68 Ibid. p. 23.

I-14

In the original investigation, Unique was listed as one of the top three importers of crepe paper

products from China.62 In the response to the notice of institution, Unique was still listed as an importer;

however, they also had become a producer via the acquisition of American Crepe in 2007. The purchase

of American Crepe, which in the original investigation accounted for *** percent of United States crepe

paper production, has not affected the supply of crepe paper production in the U.S., as Unique has

continued its production of the domestic like product.63

U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Data reported by U.S. producers of crepe paper products in the Commission’s original

investigation and in response to its five-year review institution notice are presented in table I-4. Data

presented for 2001-03, January-September 2003, and January-September 2004 were provided by three

producers (American Crepe, Cindus, and Seaman) that were believed to have represented nearly

100 percent of the U.S. production of crepe paper products. Data presented for 2008 were provided by

one producer (Seaman) which is believed to have represented *** percent of U.S. crepe paper production

during the period of review.64

During the period examined in the original investigation, U.S. capacity remained stable until

2004 when *** idled *** of its capacity. Additionally, U.S. production declined by nearly *** between

2001 and 2003 and was lower in interim 2004 than in interim 2003. ***’s production level fell by more

than *** between 2001 and 2003, and *** production level in interim 2004 was approximately *** of its

production level in interim 2003. The domestic industry’s capacity utilization decreased in each

successive period (annual and interim) relative to the comparable prior period.65

Seaman reports in its response that the Commission’s imposition of the order has allowed U.S.

crepe paper producers to stay in business66 and increase their production, in part as a result of retreating

Chinese imports.67 However, Seaman also contends that the domestic industry remains vulnerable in the

midst of the current economic downturn, which has brought stagnant demand and increased material

costs. It also reports that production is *** percent of capacity.68
I-15

Table I-4

Crepe paper: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 2001-03, January-September 2003,

January-September 2004 and 20081

Item 2001 2002 2003

January-September

2003 2004 2008

Capacity (1,000 square meters) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production (1,000 square meters) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments:

 Quantity (1,000 square meters) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value (per 1,000 square

 meters) $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Exports:

 Quantity (1,000 square meters) *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 Value ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 Unit value (per 1,000 square

 meters) $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** (2

)

Total shipments:

 Quantity (1,000 square 

meters) *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 Value ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 Unit value (per 1,000 square

 meters) $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** (2

)

End-of-period inventories (1,000

 square meters) *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Production and related workers

 (number) *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Wages paid ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Hourly wages $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** (2

)

Productivity (square meters per

 hour) *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Unit labor costs (per 1,000 square

 meters) $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** (2

)

Net sales ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss)

 ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income (loss)/sales

 (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Data presented for 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004 were provided by three producers (American Crepe,

Cindus, and Seaman) in the final phase of the original investigation. These three firms were believed to have represented nearly

all U.S. production of crepe paper during the period examined in the original investigation. Data presented for 2008 was provided

by exclusively by Seaman, which represented approximately *** percent of U.S. production.

 2 Not available.

Source: Certain Crepe Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004, tables III-2,

III-3, III-4, III-5, IV-3, V1-1, VI-5; Seaman’s Responses.
 69 Subsequent to the filing of the petition, Glitterwrap *** and reportedly began crepe paper production in

September 2004. This firm was a party to the investigation until November 19, 2004.

 70 Certain Crepe Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004,

p. IV-1.

 71 Seaman’s Response, December 31, 2009, Section 5.

 72 Ibid., p. 6.

 73 Certain Crepe Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004,

Table IV-3.

 74 Seaman’s Response, December 31, 2009, p. 8.

 75 Ibid., p. 9.

 76 Neither of the two firms responding to the purchaser survey identified any shift in supply since 2005; however,

*** noted that it expected Chinese producers to establish operations in other countries such as Vietnam.

I-16

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports

During the original investigation, 13 firms provided the requested trade data to the Commission 

including all companies that provided usable data to the Commission in the preliminary phase of the

investigation. Of those firms, six were importing subject crepe paper from China in 2001, two firms

began importing crepe paper from China in 2002, and five began importing in 2003.

Creative Expressions, Glitterwrap,69 and Unique Industries accounted for more than *** of

reported subject imports in 2003. ***.70 In Seaman’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution,

28 importers were listed, none of which responded to the notice of institution.71

Crepe paper import data for 2001-03, January-September 2003, January-September 2004, and

2008 are presented in table I-5. The volume of U.S. imports of crepe paper products from China

increased by 444 percent from 2001 to 2003.72 The quantity of imports from nonsubject countries

throughout the same period began and remained at zero.73

According to Seaman, since the period of the original investigation, the volume of U.S. imports

of crepe paper from China have declined “dramatically,” and “Chinese imports retreated virtually entirely

from the U.S. market and have not returned in any significant volume.”74 No duties were collected in

2005 and only limited duties since then. Also, broader HTS categories (4808.20, 4808.30, and

4808.90.20) have declined sharply, suggesting that imports of crepe paper products have also declined

substantially.75 Seaman’s response suggests that nonsubject imports have remained low as well.76
I-17

Table I-5

Crepe paper: U.S. imports, by source, 2001-08

Source 2001 2002 2003

January-September

2003 2004 2008

Quantity (1,000 square meters)

China 3,819 12,156 20,769 14,962 25,816 (1

)

All Others 0 0 0 0 0 (1

)

 Total imports 3,819 12,156 20,769 14,962 25,816 (1)

Value ($1,000)

China 449 1,414 2,278 1,636 3,028 (1

)

All Others 0 0 0 0 0 (1)

 Total imports 449 1,414 2,278 1,636 3,028 (1)

Unit value (per 1,000 square meters)

China $117.64 $116.34 $109.68 $109.33 $117.31 (1

)

All Others (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Average total imports 117.64 116.34 109.68 109.33 117.31 (1)

Share of quantity (percent)

China 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (1

)

All Others 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1)

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (1)

 1 Not applicable.

Note.– Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Note.– Seaman believes that imports from China have declined dramatically and “retreated virtually entirely from the U.S. market.” 

Limited duties have been collected on the product, and broader HTS categories also suggest that imports have declined markedly.

Source: Staff Report on Certain Crepe Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), December 28, 2004

(INV-BB-161), Table IV-2.

Ratio of Imports to U.S. Production

Information concerning the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production of crepe paper is presented in

table I-6. Subject imports of crepe paper from China were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. production

during 2001, increased by over three times the amount to *** percent during 2002, and then more than

doubled to *** percent in 2003. During interim 2003, the ratio of imports to production was *** percent;

by interim 2004, the ratio had reached *** percent. Nonsubject imports were nonexistent during the

period examined in the final phase of the Commission’s original investigation and for 2008.
 77 Seaman’s Response, December 31, 2009, p. 15.

I-18

Table I-6

Crepe paper: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, by sources, 2001-03, January-September 2003,

January- September 2004, and 2008 1

Item 2001 2002 2003

January-September

2003 2004 2008

Quantity (1,000 square meters)

U.S. production *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

China *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Other *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 Total imports *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 1 Production data presented for 2001-03, January-September 2003, and January-September 2004 were provided by three

producers believed to have represented nearly all U.S. production of crepe paper. Data presented for 2008 was provided by

Seaman which represents approximately *** percent of U.S. production.

 2 Not available.

Source: Staff Report on Certain Crepe Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), December 28, 2004

(INV-BB-161), Table III-2 and p. IV-5; and Seaman’s Response (for 2008 production data).

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares are presented in table I-7. The quantity of

apparent U.S. consumption of crepe paper declined by 2.6 percent between 2001 and 2003. However, the

interim period of 2004 was 6.7 percent higher than the interim period of 2003. The value of apparent

U.S. consumption of crepe paper declined by 2.0 percent from 2001 to 2003, but increased by 4.1 percent

from the interim period of 2003 to the interim period of 2004. Apparent consumption quantity in 2008 is

not available. However, Seaman described U.S. crepe paper demand as “steady” into 2008, though more

recent demand was characterized as “lagging.”77

Domestic producers’ market share based on quantity was *** percent in 2001, *** percent in

2002, and decreased to *** percent in 2003. It was *** percent by September 2004. The market share of

subject imports from China was *** percent in 2001 and *** percent in 2003. In January-September

2003, China’s market share was *** percent, and in January-September 2004, China’s market share was

*** percent. In 2008, however, imports of crepe paper are believed to be minimal.
I-19

Table I-7

Crepe paper: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 2001-

03, January-September 2003, January-September 2004, and 2008

Item 2001 2002 2003

Jan.-Sept.

20081 2003 2004

Quantity (1,000 Square Meters)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipment of imports from--

 China *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 Other sources *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 Total import shipments *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Apparent U.S. consumption 62,832 67,535 61,203 46,481 49,604 (2

)

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipment of imports from--

 China *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 Other sources 0 0 0 0 0 (2

)

 Total import shipments *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Apparent U.S. consumption 11,274 12,385 11,047 8,547 8,900 (2

)

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

U.S. shipment of imports from--

 China *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 Other sources *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 Total import shipments *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (2

)

Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

U.S. shipment of imports from--

 China *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 Other sources *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

 Total import shipments *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (2

)

 1 Data for 2008 were provided by Seaman who comprises *** percent U.S. production.

 2

 Not available.

Source: Staff Report on Certain Crepe Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), December 28, 2004

(INV-BB-161), Table IV-3, IV-4; and Seaman’s Responses (for 2008 production data), Section 8.
 78 Certain Crepe Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004,

p. VII-1.

 79 Response of Seaman, December 31, 2009, Section 6.

 80 Ibid., Section 4.

 81 During the period examined in the original investigation, the Chinese producers operated their facilities at

aggregate capacity utilization rates ranging from *** to *** percent. Certain Crepe Paper Products from China:

Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004, Table VII-1.

 82 Certain Crepe Paper Products from China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), INV-BB-161, December 28, 2004,

p. VII-3.

I-20

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Based on available information, crepe paper products have not been subject to other

investigations outside the United States.

THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN CHINA

In the original investigation, 78 firms were identified as possible tissue and crepe paper producers

or exporters in China, and they were sent foreign producer questionnaires. Two producers (Guilen

Quifeng Paper Co., Ltd, and Max Fortune Industrial, Ltd.) completed and returned the Commission’s

questionnaire in addition to one exporter (Constant China Import Export, Ltd.) concerning their

operations in China. However, only one producer, ***, reported the production of crepe paper products

(as opposed to tissue paper) in the final phase of the investigation.78

The Commission did not receive any responses to its notice of institution in this review from

Chinese producers of the subject merchandise. However, the domestic interested party’s response to the

Commission’s notice of institution listed 73 known Chinese producers of crepe paper products.79

Since the original investigation, China’s capacity to produce crepe paper reportedly has

increased. Seaman has included in its response multiple reports of Chinese firms expanding their

facilities, hiring more laborers, and increasing manufacturing equipment. Several Chinese producers of

crepe paper published summaries of their development plans for crepe paper and other paper products.80

Table I-8 presents trade data for the Chinese crepe paper industry compiled during the

preliminary and final phases of the original investigation. As these data show, Chinese production

increased substantially throughout the period for which data were collected in the original investigation.81

In the final phase of the original investigation, reporting by Chinese producers was incomplete. 

For example, the exports to the United States reported by responding Chinese producers was noticeably

smaller than U.S. imports from China. Among responding producers, however, there was a marked

increase in capacity from *** square meters in 2001 to *** square meters in 2002 to *** square meters in

2003. This trend was consistent with the growing number of Chinese producers (one company reported

production in 2001, three companies in 2002, and three in 2003).82
I-21

Table I-8

Crepe paper: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2001-03,

January-September 2003, January-September 2004, and 2008

Item 2001 2002 2003

January- September

2003 2004 2008

Quantity (1,000 square meters)

Capacity *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

Production *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

End of period inventories *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

Shipments:

Internal consumption *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

Home market *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

Exports to--

The United States *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

All other markets *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

Total exports *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

Total shipments *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

Inventories to production *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

Inventories to total

shipments *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

Share of total quantity of

shipments:

Internal consumption *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

Home market *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

Exports to--

The United States *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

All other markets *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

All export

markets *** *** *** (1

) (1) (2)

 1 Not available because few known producers in China responded to the Commission’s request for information in the original

investigation.

 2

 Not available because no Chinese producers responded to the Commission’s notice of institution.

Note – Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Staff Report on Certain Crepe Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), December 28, 2004

(INV-BB-161), Table VII-1 (including data from the preliminary phase of investigation).

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

62748 Federal Register / Vol. 229, No. 74 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Notices 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

—Products for export; and 

—Products eligible for entry under 

HTSUS # 9808.00.30 and # 9808.00.40 

(U.S. Government purchases). 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of 

November 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–28765 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty orders listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-Year Review which 

covers the same orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

For information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty orders: 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–570–895 .............. 731–TA–1070A ...... PRC ........... Certain Crepe Paper Products ............... Jennifer Moats (202) 482–5047

A–570–890 .............. 731–TA–1058 ......... PRC ........... Wooden Bedroom Furniture ................... Jennifer Moats (202) 482–5047 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/. All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 229, No. 74 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Notices 62749 

Dated: November 24, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–28775 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA): Request for Comments on 

NFPA’s Codes and Standards 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Since 1896, the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) has 

accomplished its mission by advocating 

scientifically based consensus codes 

and standards, research, and education 

for safety related issues. NFPA’s 

National Fire Codes®, which holds over 

270 documents, are administered by 

more than 225 Technical Committees 

comprised of approximately 7,000 

volunteers and are adopted and used 

throughout the world. NFPA is a 

nonprofit membership organization 

with approximately 80,000 members 

from over 70 nations, all working 

together to fulfill the Association’s 

mission. 

The NFPA process provides ample 

opportunity for public participation in 

the development of its codes and 

standards. All NFPA codes and 

standards are revised and updated every 

three to five years in Revision Cycles 

that begin twice each year and takes 

approximately two years to complete. 

Each Revision Cycle proceeds according 

to a published schedule that includes 

final dates for all major events in the 

process. The process contains five basic 

steps that are followed both for 

developing new documents as well as 

revising existing documents. These 

steps are: Calling for Proposals; 

Publishing the Proposals in the Report 

on Proposals (ROP); Calling for 

Comments on the Committee’s 

disposition of the Proposals and these 

Comments are published in the Report 

on Comments (ROC); having a Technical 

Report Session at the NFPA Annual 

Meeting; and finally, the Standards 

Council Consideration and Issuance of 

documents. 

Note: Under new rules effective Fall 2005, 

anyone wishing to make Amending Motions 

on the Technical Committee Reports (ROP 

and ROC) must signal their intention by 

submitting a Notice of Intent to Make a 

Motion by the Deadline of October 22, 2010. 

Certified motions will be posted by 

November 19, 2010. Documents that receive 

notice of proper Amending Motions 

(Certified Amending Motions) will be 

presented for action at the annual June 2011 

Association Technical Meeting. Documents 

that receive no motions will be forwarded 

directly to the Standards Council for action 

on issuance. 

For more information on these new 

rules and for up-to-date information on 

schedules and deadlines for processing 

NFPA Documents, check the NFPA Web 

site at http://www.nfpa.org or contact 

NFPA Codes and Standards 

Administration. 

The purpose of this notice is to 

request comments on the technical 

reports that will be published in the 

NFPA’s 2010 Fall Revision Cycle. The 

publication of this notice by the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) on behalf of NFPA is 

being undertaken as a public service; 

NIST does not necessarily endorse, 

approve, or recommend any of the 

standards referenced in the notice. 

DATES: Thirty-two reports are published 

in the 2010 Fall Revision Cycle Report 

on Proposals and will be available on 

December 28, 2009. Comments received 

on or before March 5, 2010, will be 

considered by the respective NFPA 

Committees before final action is taken 

on the proposals. 

ADDRESSES: The 2010 Fall Revision 

Cycle Report on Proposals is available 

and downloadable from NFPA’s Web 

site at http://www/nfpa.org or by 

requesting a copy from the NFPA, 

Fulfillment Center, 11 Tracy Drive, 

Avon, Massachusetts 02322. Comments 

on the report should be submitted to 

Secretary, Standards Council, NFPA, 1 

Batterymarch Park, Quincy, 

Massachusetts 02169–7471. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Beasley Cronin, Secretary, 

Standards Council, NFPA, 1 

Batterymarch Park, Quincy, 

Massachusetts 02169–7471, (617) 770– 

3000. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) develops building, 

fire, and electrical safety codes and 

standards. Federal agencies frequently 

use these codes and standards as the 

basis for developing Federal regulations 

concerning safety. Often, the Office of 

the Federal Register approves the 

incorporation by reference of these 

standards under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. 

Request for Comments 

Interested persons may participate in 

these revisions by submitting written 

data, views, or arguments to Amy 

Beasley Cronin, Secretary, Standards 

Council, NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park, 

Quincy, Massachusetts 02169–7471. 

Commenters may use the forms 

provided for comments in the Reports 

on Proposals. Each person submitting a 

comment should include his or her 

name and address, identify the notice, 

and give reasons for any 

recommendations. Comments received 

on or before March 5, 2010 for the 2010 

Fall Revision Cycle Report on Proposals 

will be considered by the NFPA before 

final action is taken on the proposals. 

Copies of all written comments 

received and the disposition of those 

comments by the NFPA committees will 

be published as the 2010 Fall Revision 

Cycle Report on Comments by August 

27, 2010. A copy of the Report on 

Comments will be sent automatically to 

each commenter. 

2010 FALL REVISION CYCLE REPORT ON PROPOSALS

[P=Partial Revision; W=Withdrawal; R=Reconfirmation; N=New; C=Complete Revision] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 229, No. 74 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Notices 62815 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 10–5–207, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

Issued: November 24, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–28628 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1070A (Review)] 

Crepe Paper Products From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on crepe paper products from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on crepe paper 

products from China would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury. Pursuant to section 

751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties 

are requested to respond to this notice 

by submitting the information specified 

below to the Commission; 1 to be 

assured of consideration, the deadline 

for responses is December 31, 2009. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

February 16, 2010. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207), as most recently 

amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 

2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: December 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On January 25, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

certain crepe paper products from China 

(70 FR 3509). The Commission is 

conducting a review to determine 

whether revocation of the order would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct a full review or an 

expedited review. The Commission’s 

determination in any expedited review 

will be based on the facts available, 

which may include information 

provided in response to this notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination, the Commission defined 

the Domestic Like Product as crepe 

paper, coextensive with Commerce’s 

scope. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all domestic producers 

(whether integrated or converters) of 

crepe paper. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty order under review 

became effective. In this review, the 

Order Date is January 25, 2005. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b)(19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

62816 Federal Register / Vol. 229, No. 74 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Notices 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is December 31, 2009. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is February 16, 

2010. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 and 

207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing of submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means, except 

to the extent permitted by section 201.8 

of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 

67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, 

in accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: 

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008, except as noted 

(report quantity data in square meters 

and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. 

plant). If you are a union/worker group 

or trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); 

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s); and 

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008 (report quantity data 

in square meters and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 229, No. 74 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Notices 62817 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 10–5–208, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2008 

(report quantity data in square meters 

and value data in U.S. dollars, landed 

and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(13) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 24, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–28643 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on wooden 

bedroom furniture from China would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury. Pursuant 

to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested 

parties are requested to respond to this 

notice by submitting the information 

specified below to the Commission; 1 to 

be assured of consideration, the 

deadline for responses is December 31, 

2009. Comments on the adequacy of 

responses may be filed with the 

Commission by February 16, 2010. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: December 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On January 4, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

wooden bedroom furniture from China 

(70 FR 329). The Commission is 

conducting a review to determine 

whether revocation of the order would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct a full review or an 

expedited review. The Commission’s 

determination in any expedited review 

will be based on the facts available, 

which may include information 

provided in response to this notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES


Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Notices 13779 

A. Type of response 

B. Number of 

responses 

annually 

C. Hours per 

response 

D. Annual 

hour burden 

(B × C) 

43 CFR Part 3480, Subpart 3487—Application for Formation or Modification of Logical Mining Unit ..................................................................................................................................... 2 170 340

Totals .................................................................................................................................... 3,549 ........................ 54,079 

60-Day Notice: As required in 5 CFR 

1320.8(d), the BLM published a 60-day 

notice in the Federal Register on 

January 5, 2010 (75 FR 425), soliciting 

comments from the public and other 

interested parties. The comment period 

closed on March 8, 2010. The BLM did 

not receive any comments from the 

public in response to this notice, or 

unsolicited comments from respondents 

covered under these regulations. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

Affected Public: Applicants, bidders, 

lessees, and operators seeking to obtain 

or maintain interests in Federal coal 

resources under the Mineral Leasing Act 

and other mining statutes. 

Obligation to Respond: Most of the 

information collections are required to 

obtain or retain benefits. A few are 

mandatory in specific circumstances. A 

few are voluntary. 

Annual Responses: 3,549. 

Completion Time per Response: 

Varies from 1 hour to 800 hours. 

Annual Burden Hours: 54,079 hours. 

Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: 

$625,793 for document processing fees 

associated with some of these 

information collection requirements. 

The BLM requests comments on the 

following subjects: 

1. Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

functioning of the BLM, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

2. The accuracy of the BLM’s estimate 

of the burden of collecting the 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

3. The quality, utility and clarity of 

the information to be collected; and 

4. How to minimize the information 

collection burden on those who are to 

respond, including the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other forms of 

information technology. 

Please send comments to the 

addresses listed under ADDRESSES. 

Please refer to OMB control number 

1004–0073 in your correspondence. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Jean Sonneman, 

Acting Information Collection Clearance 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6359 Filed 3–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1070A (Review)] 

Crepe Paper Products From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
13780 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the response 

submitted by Seaman Paper Company of 

Massachusetts, Inc., to be individually adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

duty order on crepe paper products 

from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on crepe paper products 

from China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy Meadors (202–205–3408) or 

Douglas Corkran (202–205–3057), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On March 8, 2010, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 62815, December 1, 2009) of the 

subject five-year review was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on April 

5, 2010, and made available to persons 

on the Administrative Protective Order 

service list for this review. A public 

version will be issued thereafter, 

pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before April 8, 

2010, and may not contain new factual 

information. Any person that is neither 

a party to the five-year review nor an 

interested party may submit a brief 

written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the review by April 8, 2010. 

However, should the Department of 

Commerce extend the time limit for its 

completion of the final results of its 

review, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 11, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6296 Filed 3–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 4) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

terminating the above-captioned 

investigation based on a settlement 

agreement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2310. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on January 5, 2010, based on a 

complaint filed by Samsung Electronics 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Samsung’’) of Korea. 75 FR 

445–46 (Jan. 5, 2010). The complaint, as 

amended and supplemented, alleges 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

1337, in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 59 / Monday, March 29, 2010 / Notices 15415 

submitted by either mail or 

electronically, but not by both methods. 

Self-nominations will be accepted. 

NACMBE Members will be selected in 

accordance with applicable Department 

of Commerce guidelines and in a 

manner that ensures that NACMBE has 

a balanced membership. In this respect, 

the Secretary seeks to appoint members 

who represent a diversity of industries, 

ethnic backgrounds and geographical 

regions, and to the extent practicable, 

gender and persons with disabilities. 

All appointments shall be made 

without discrimination on the basis of 

age, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual 

orientation, or cultural, religious, or 

socioeconomic status. All appointments 

shall also be made without regard to 

political affiliations. 

Dated: March 23, 2010. 

David A. Hinson, 

National Director, Minority Business 

Development Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6969 Filed 3–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1670] 

Expansion of Foreign–Trade Zone 26, 

Atlanta, Georgia, Area 

Pursuant to its authority under the 

Foreign–Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign– 

Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the Georgia Foreign–Trade 

Zone, Inc., grantee of Foreign–Trade 

Zone 26, submitted an application to the 

Board for authority to expand its zone 

to add proposed Site 18 in the Atlanta, 

Georgia, area, within the Atlanta 

Customs and Border Protection port of 

entry (FTZ Docket 55–2008, filed 10/6/ 

08); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 60676–60677, 10/14/08; 

correction, 73 FR 63675, 10/27/08) and 

the application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendation of the 

examiner’s report (including 

addendum), and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the approval of proposed Site 18 is 

in the public interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to expand FTZ 26 to 

add proposed Site 18 is approved, 

subject to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations, including Section 400.28, 

and to the Board’s standard 2,000–acre 

activation limit for the overall general– 

purpose zone project, and further 

subject to a sunset provision that would 

terminate authority on March 31, 2015, 

if no activity under FTZ procedures has 

occurred at Site 18 before that date. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th 

day of March 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6897 Filed 3–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–895] 

Certain Crepe Paper Products From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Expedited Sunset Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: March 29, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On December 1, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

certain crepe paper products from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On 

the basis of a timely notice of intent to 

participate, and an adequate substantive 

response filed on behalf of the domestic 

interested party, as well as a lack of 

response from respondent interested 

parties, the Department conducted an 

expedited sunset review. As a result of 

the sunset review, the Department finds 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexis Polovina, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3927. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 1, 2009, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on crepe paper products from the 

PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 74 FR 62748 

(December 1, 2009). On December 3, 

2009, the Department received a notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

producer, Seaman Paper Company of 

Massachusetts (‘‘Seaman Paper,’’ 

‘‘domestic interested party,’’ or 

‘‘Petitioner’’). Submission of the notice 

of intent to participate filed by 

Petitioner was within the deadline 

specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of 

the Department’s regulations. The 

domestic interested party claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, as Seaman Paper is 

a domestic manufacturer of crepe paper 

products in the United States. On 

December 31, 2009, the Department 

received a substantive response from the 

domestic interested party within the 

deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. We did not receive 

responses from any respondent 

interested parties to this proceeding. As 

a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and section 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department determined to conduct an 

expedited review of the order. 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

final of this expedited review is now 

April 7, 2010. See Memorandum to the 

Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 

Import Administration, regarding 

‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As 

a Result of the Government Closure 

During the Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated 

February 12, 2010. 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of the order, the term 

‘‘certain crepe paper’’ includes crepe 

paper products that have a basis weight 

not exceeding 29 grams per square 

meter prior to being creped and, if 

appropriate, flame-proofed. Crepe paper 

has a finely wrinkled surface texture 

and typically but not exclusively is 

treated to be flame-retardant. Crepe 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
15416 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 59 / Monday, March 29, 2010 / Notices 

paper is typically but not exclusively 

produced as streamers in roll form and 

packaged in plastic bags. Crepe paper 

may or may not be bleached, dye 

colored, surface-colored, surface 

decorated or printed, glazed, sequined, 

embossed, die-cut, and/or flame 

retardant. Subject crepe paper may be 

rolled, flat or folded, and may be 

packaged by banding or wrapping with 

paper, by placing in plastic bags, and/ 

or by placing in boxes for distribution 

and use by the ultimate consumer. 

Packages of crepe paper subject to the 

order may consist solely of crepe paper 

of one color and/or style, or may contain 

multiple colors and/or styles. The 

merchandise subject to the 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 

HTSUS subheadings, including: 

4802.30; 4802.54; 4802.61; 4802.62; 

4802.69; 4804.39; 4806.40; 4808.30; 

4808.90; 4811.90; 4818.90; 4823.90; 

9505.90.40. The tariff classifications are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes; however, the written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated March 23, 2010, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit in room 

1117 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) 

of the Act, we determine that revocation 

of the antidumping duty order on crepe 

paper from the PRC would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following percentage 

margins: 

Manufacturers/exporters/producers Margin 

(percent) 

Fuzhou Light Industry Import and 

Export Co., Ltd. ......................... 266.83 

Fuzhou Magicpro Gifts Co., Ltd. .. 266.83 

Everlasting Business and Industry 

Co. Ltd. ..................................... 266.83 

Fujian Nanping Investment and 

Enterprise Co., Ltd. ................... 266.83 

Ningbo Spring Stationary Co., Ltd. 266.83 

PRC–Wide .................................... 266.83 

This notice also serves as the only 

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 section 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: March 23, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6892 Filed 3–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 29, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) has determined that two 

requests for a new shipper review 

(‘‘NSR’’) of the antidumping duty order 

on certain frozen fish fillets (‘‘fish 

fillets’’) from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’), received on 

February 19, 2010, and February 24, 

2010, meet the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for initiation. The period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) for the two NSRs is 

August 1, 2009, through February 15, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emeka Chukwudebe, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–0219. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The notice announcing the 

antidumping duty order on fish fillets 

from Vietnam was published in the 

Federal Register on August 12, 2003. 

See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

47909 (August 12, 2003) (‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Order’’). On February 19, 2010, and 

on February 24, 2010, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), and 19 CFR 

351.214(c), the Department received two 

NSR requests from Thien Ma Seafood 

Company, Ltd. (‘‘Thien Ma’’) and 

International Development & Investment 

Corporation (‘‘IDI’’), respectively. Thien 

Ma and IDI’s requests were properly 

made during February 2010, which is 

the semi–annual anniversary of the 

Antidumping Duty Order. In response to 

inquiries from the Department, Thien 

Ma and IDI also submitted amendments 

to their initial NSR requests on March 

17, 2010, and March 19, 2010, 

respectively. In this instance, IDI’s sale 

of subject merchandise was made 

during the POR specified by the 

Department’s regulations but the 

shipment entered within 15 days after 

the end of the POR. The Department 

finds that extending the POR to capture 

this entry would not prevent the 

completion of the review within the 

time limits set by the Department’s 

regulations. Therefore, the Department 

has extended the POR for the new 

shipper review of IDI by 15 days. Thien 

Ma and IDI certified that they are both 

the producer and exporter of the subject 

merchandise upon which the requests 

were based. Thien Ma and IDI also 

submitted public versions of their 

requests, which adequately summarized 

proprietary information and provided 

explanations as to why certain 

proprietary information is not capable of 

summarization. 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), 

Thien Ma and IDI certified that they did 

not export subject merchandise to the 

United States during the period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’). In addition, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), 

Thien Ma and IDI certified that, since 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

B-1

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Crepe Paper Products From China, 

Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Review)

On March 8, 2010, the Commission determined that it should conduct an expedited review in the

subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(c)(3)(B)).

The Commission received a single response filed by Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts,

Inc. (“Seaman”), a domestic producer of crepe paper. Seaman is a major producer of crepe paper. The

Commission found the individual response of Seaman to be adequate. The Commission also determined

that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate. 

No responses were received from any respondent interested parties. Consequently, the

Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. 

The Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review of

the order. The Commission, therefore, determined to conduct an expedited review of the order.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and on the

Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).