U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4165 July 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Certain Tissue Paper Products from China

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

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

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

Keysha Martinez, Investigator (Acting) 

Alberto Goetzl, Industry Analyst 

Mark Rees, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Steven Hudgens, Senior Statistician 

Fred Ruggles, Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4165 July 2010

Certain Tissue Paper Products from China

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

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Dissenting views of Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson . 23

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

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

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

Commerce’s original determination and subsequent review determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Commerce’s final result of expedited five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

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

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

Related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Related party issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Bulk and consumer tissue paper imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Leading nonsubject sources of imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29

The subject industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30

Appendix

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

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

C. Tables C-1, C-2, and C-3 from Commission’s public report in the final phase of the 

original investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Domestic like product section from Commission’s public report in the final phase of 

the original investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-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.

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

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

CERTAIN TISSUE 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 certain tissue 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.2

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on February 1, 2010 (75 F.R. 5115) and determined on

May 7, 2010 that it would conduct an expedited review (75 F.R. 28061, May 19, 2010).

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

 2

 Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson found two domestic like products - consumer tissue paper and bulk

tissue paper. They determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on bulk tissue paper would be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time. They also determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on consumer tissue paper

would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within

a reasonably foreseeable time.

1

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 tissue 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.1

I. BACKGROUND

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

LLC (“Eagle”), Flower City Tissue Mills Co. (“Flower City”), Garlock Printing & Converting Inc.

(“Garlock”), and Putney Paper Co., Ltd. (“Putney”), joined by two other paper producers and a labor

union,2

 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).3

In March 2005, the Commission completed its original investigation of tissue paper, determining

that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”)

imports of tissue paper products from China.4

 The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued

an antidumping duty order with respect to imports from China on March 30, 2005.5

The Commission’s original investigation included examination of all issues raised by petitioners

and respondents, including whether tissue paper should be defined as a single domestic like product

(advocated by petitioners) or two like products consisting of consumer tissue paper and bulk tissue paper

(advocated by respondents). The Commission preliminarily found that, although there were some

differences between the products with respect to their packaging, distribution, and pricing, significant

similarities existed with respect to the products’ physical characteristics, end uses, and production

processes. The Commission therefore found that there was not a clear dividing line between consumer

and bulk tissue paper and defined them as a single like product, noting that it intended to revisit the issue

in its final investigation.6

In the final investigation, the six Commission members split on the domestic like product

definition. Three Commissioners, Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Hillman and Lane, found that

there were insufficient distinctions between consumer and bulk tissue paper to warrant treating them as

 1 Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson dissenting, finding two domestic like products consisting of bulk

and consumer tissue paper, and making an affirmative determination with respect to bulk tissue paper and a negative

determination with respect to consumer tissue paper. See Dissenting Views of Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and

Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson. They join only the Background section of this opinion. 

 2

 The two producers were Paper Service Ltd., which is no longer in business, and American Crepe Paper

Corporation, a manufacturer of crepe paper but not tissue paper. The other petitioner was the Paper, AlliedIndustrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union AFL-CIO, CLC.

 3

 Certain Crepe Paper Products from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Final), USITC Pub. 3749 (Jan. 2005) at 3;

Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC Pub. 3758 (Mar. 2005) (“USITC

Pub. 3758”) at 3.

 4

 Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, 70 Fed. Reg. 15350 (Mar. 25, 2005). The Commission also made a

negative finding with respect to critical circumstances. Id.

 5

 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 Fed. Reg. 16223 (Mar. 30, 2005).

 6

 Certain Tissue Paper Products and Crepe Paper Products from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1070 (Preliminary),

USITC Pub. 3682 (Apr. 2004) at 9-12.

3
separate like products.7

 As a result, these Commissioners defined the domestic industry as consisting of

all producers of tissue paper, both consumer and bulk.8

 They made an affirmative determination that the

industry producing consumer and bulk tissue paper was materially injured by reason of subject imports of

tissue from China.9

Three Commissioners, Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioners Miller and Pearson, found

consumer and bulk tissue paper to be separate domestic like products and therefore found that there were

two domestic industries, one producing consumer tissue paper and the other producing bulk tissue

paper.10 They determined that the industry producing bulk tissue paper was materially injured by reason

of subject imports from China and that the industry producing consumer tissue paper was neither

materially injured nor threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China.11

Because the Commissioners were evenly divided in the original investigation, pursuant to the

Act,12 the affirmative determination of Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Hillman and Lane became

the Commission’s determination.

Domestic producer and importer Cleo Inc., its subsidiary, Crystal Creative Products, Inc.

(collectively “Cleo”), and purchaser and importer Target Corporation (“Target”) appealed the

Commission’s determination to the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”), claiming errors in

the like product and domestic industry definitions, as well as in the volume, price, and impact findings.

On August 31, 2006, the CIT sustained the Commission’s determination in all respects. The

Court found that the Commission reasonably concluded that consumer and bulk tissue were one domestic

like product and that subject tissue paper imports from China materially injured the domestic tissue paper

industry.13

Cleo and Target then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(“Federal Circuit”) raising the same issues. On September 10, 2007, the Federal Circuit similarly upheld

the Commission’s determination, rejecting each of appellants’ factual and legal arguments and finding

that the Commission majority had reasonably analyzed all of the pertinent record evidence and provided

substantial support for its findings in its determination. The Court thus affirmed the determination as

being supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.14

Since issuance of the antidumping duty order, Commerce has denied two requests for exclusion

from the order of tissue paper packaged with other products15 and issued two affirmative circumvention

 7 USITC Pub. 3758 at 5-9.

 8

 Id. at 9-10.

 9

 Id. at 12-23.

 10 USITC Pub. 3758 at 29-32 (dissenting views).

 11 Id. at 33-37, 38-43 (dissenting views).

 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(11).

 13 Cleo Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT 1380 (2006). 

 14 Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

 15 See 73 Fed. Reg. 72771 (Dec. 1, 2008) (denying requests of Walgreen Co. and QVC Corporation for the

exclusion of tissue paper in their respective gift bag sets and gift wrap kits); see also Confidential Staff Report

(“CR”), Public Report (“PR”) at Table I-3. 

4
determinations concerning tissue paper imported from Vietnam and Thailand.16 Commerce recently

initiated a third circumvention proceeding.17

The Commission instituted the present review on February 1, 2010.18 The Commission received

a joint response to the notice of institution from Seaman, Eagle, Flower City, Garlock, and Putney

(collectively, “domestic interested parties”) on March 3, 2010, and no response from any respondent

interested party.19 On May 7, 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 unanimously determined to conduct an expedited review pursuant to section

751(c)(3) of the Act.20

On June 8, 2010, the domestic interested parties filed final comments pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 

§ 207.62(d).21 No respondent interested party has provided 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 and publicly available information) and information from

the original investigation.

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.”22 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.”23 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like

 16 See 73 Fed. Reg. 57591 (Oct. 3, 2008) (finding that tissue paper products produced by Vietnam Quijiang Paper

Co., Ltd. (“Vietnam Quijiang”) from jumbo rolls made in China by its Chinese parent company, Guilin Qifeng Paper

Co, Ltd. (“Guilin Qifeng”), were circumventing the antidumping duty order on tissue paper from China); 74 Fed.

Reg. 29172 (June 19, 2009) (finding that tissue paper products produced by Sunlake Décor Co., Ltd. (“Sunlake”) in

Thailand from jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets made in China were circumventing the antidumping duty order on tissue

paper from China). See also CR, PR at Table I-3. 

 17 See 75 Fed. Reg. 17127 (Apr. 5, 2010) (circumvention inquiry to determine whether tissue paper products

exported to the United States from Vietnam by Max Fortune (Vietnam) Paper Products Co., Ltd. (“Max Fortune

Vietnam”), which is wholly owned by Chinese producer Max Fortune, are circumventing the antidumping duty order

because they are allegedly made from jumbo rolls and cut sheets of tissue paper produced in China); see also CR, PR

at I-5 n.13.

 18 75 Fed. Reg. 5115 (Feb. 1, 2010).

 19 See Response to Notice of Institution of Five-Year Review (Mar. 3, 2010) (“Joint Resp.”). They also filed a

supplemental response at the request of the Commission on April 8, 2010 (“April 8 Letter”). 

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

 21 See Final Comments of Domestic Producers (June 8, 2010) (“Final Comments”).

 22 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 23 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).

5
product definition from the original determination and any completed reviews and consider whether the

record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.24

 In its expedited review determination, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows: 

 . . . tissue paper products covered by the order are cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper

having a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per square meter. Tissue paper products

subject to the order may or may not be bleached, dye-colored, surface-colored, glazed,

surface decorated or printed, sequined, crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The tissue

paper subject to the order is in the form of cut–to-length sheets of tissue paper with a

width equal to or greater than one–half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue paper may be flat or

folded, and may be packaged by banding or wrapping with paper or film, by placing in

plastic or film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for distribution and use by the ultimate 

consumer. Packages of tissue paper subject to this order may consist solely of tissue

paper of one color and/or style, or may contain multiple colors and/or styles.25

Commerce expressly excluded the following tissue paper products from the scope of

investigation:

(1) tissue paper products that are coated in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of a kind

used in floral and food service applications; (2) tissue paper products that have

been perforated, embossed, or die-cut to the shape of a toilet seat . . . ; [and]

(3) toilet or facial tissue stock, towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind used for

household or sanitary purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs of cellulose fibers

. . . .26

In the original investigation, as noted above, the Commission found a single domestic like

product that was co-extensive with Commerce’s scope definition, a finding affirmed by the CIT and the

Federal Circuit. Specifically, applying its traditional six-factor like product test, the Commission found

that bulk and consumer tissue paper share the same general physical characteristics and uses, noting that

both forms of tissue paper are made from flat tissue and consist of lightweight paper with a gauze-like,

fairly transparent character.27 Moreover, the Commission found, although consumer and bulk tissue paper

both come in a variety of grades, colors, designs, dimensions, quantities, and packaging, they are both

 24 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).

 25 Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review,

75 Fed. Reg. 32910 (June 10, 2010); see 70 Fed. Reg. at 16223 (same; original order). Subject imports from China

initially did not have distinct tariff or statistical categories assigned to them under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(“HTS”) and thus could be imported under one or more of several different broad subheadings that covered a range

of paper products. Since the original investigation, four HTS statistical reporting numbers for tissue paper were

created, effective July 1, 2005 (4804.39.4041; 4811.90.4010; 4811.90.6010; 4811.90.9010), to cover tissue paper

when it is classifiable in four legal categories. CR at I-11-I-12, PR at I-10; cf. 75 Fed. Reg. at 32910 (identifying

multiple subheadings under which subject merchandise may be classified). All general or normal trade relations

rates in HTS ch. 48 are “free.” CR at I-12, PR at I-10.

 26 75 Fed. Reg. at 32910; see 70 Fed. Reg. at 16223 (same; original order).

 27 USITC Pub. 3758 at 4-5.

6
sold primarily as white or solid color sheets.28 Further, both consumer and bulk tissue paper may be sold

in printed form or undergo specialty treatment in small amounts.29 Finally, both consumer and bulk tissue

paper are used for the wrapping of an item within a box or bag or as a lightweight gift wrap.30 

The Commission also found reasonable similarity with respect to the production processes for

bulk and consumer tissue paper.31 The Commission noted that bulk and consumer tissue paper are both

made from jumbo rolls of flat paper and, indeed, one large producer indicated that it maintains jumbo roll

inventories so it can produce both types of tissue paper.32 Moreover, the production processes for

manufacturing roll stock into both bulk and consumer tissue paper are similar.33 In fact, producers

making both forms of tissue paper reported that production takes place in the same facilities, using

overlapping equipment and employees. For example, the producer *** reported making bulk and

consumer tissue paper on the same equipment, and *** reported using the same equipment to produce

bulk tissue paper and club packs of consumer tissue paper. Finally, the Commission found that both bulk

and consumer tissue paper are printed on the same presses.34

In terms of customer and producer perceptions of the two forms of tissue paper and their

interchangeability, the Commission found that the record was somewhat mixed. The Commission noted

that some record evidence showed that market participants found the two forms of tissue to be

interchangeable.35 For example, except for Cleo, all domestic producers considered bulk and consumer

tissue paper to be the same or very similar products, while seven of twelve importers reported that bulk

and consumer tissue paper were interchangeable. Similarly, the Commission noted, although *** claimed

bulk and consumer tissue paper were distinct products, three other purchasers indicated there were no

differences between them.36 The Commission acknowledged that the interchangeability of the two

categories of tissue was limited in certain respects, such as the fact that consumer tissue paper is packaged

to catch the eye of the consumer, while bulk tissue is packaged somewhat more plainly.37 The

Commission found, however, that there were no inherent qualities in the product that would prevent the

two different types of tissue paper from being used interchangeably. 

In terms of channels of distribution and price, the Commission found there was only a limited

degree of similarity between the two forms of tissue paper.38 In this regard, domestic consumer tissue

paper was sold primarily to retailers in 2003 (*** percent of such shipments), while most domestic bulk

 28 In terms of packaging, the Commission noted that although consumer tissue is often sold packaged for sale as a

retail item in quantities ranging from 5 to 40 sheets – smaller than typical bulk quantities (bulk tissue is typically

sold by the ream, but may also be sold in half reams or in multiple ream packaging) – sheet counts for seasonal

packages and club packs of consumer tissue paper range from 90 to 400 sheets and higher, and such higher count

formats represented a modest but growing share of the U.S. market. USITC Pub. 3758 at 7. The Commission also

noted that bulk tissue is typically sold in flat sheets, but is also sold in quire-folded sheets, and that consumer tissue,

though typically sold in folds, is also sold in flat sheets. Id. 

 29 Id. at 6-7. 

 30 Id. at 5. 

 31 Id. at 8.

 32 Id.

 33 Id. at 8-9.

 34 USITC Pub. 3758 at 8.

 35 Id. at 7. 

 36 Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), Confidential Views of the

Commission (Mar. 2005) (EDIS Doc. 422544) (“Conf. Views”) at 8.

 37 USITC Pub. 3758 at 7.

 38 USITC Pub. 3758 at 7-9.

7
tissue paper sales in 2003 were made to distributors (*** percent of such shipments).39 Further, the price

of consumer tissue paper was generally higher than that of bulk tissue paper.40 On the other hand, the

Commission noted, prices for consumer tissue paper were more comparable to bulk with respect to larger

consumer packaging sizes, suggesting that sheet quantities per package played an important role in

explaining price differences.41

The Commission thus found that there was a significant degree of similarity between bulk and

consumer tissue paper in terms of physical characteristics, uses, and manufacturing processes. It also

found that the evidence was mixed with respect to the products’ interchangeability and customer and

producer perceptions, and that the similarities were limited with respect to channels of distribution and

prices. The Commission determined that the differences between these two products did not establish the

clear distinction required to establish separate domestic like products and, accordingly, defined the

domestic like product as all tissue paper, co-extensive with the scope.42 

The evidence regarding the six-factor like product test remains essentially unchanged in this

expedited review.43 In their joint response to the notice of institution, domestic interested parties agree

with the single domestic like product definition adopted by the Commission in the original investigation.44

Moreover, no party has requested that we revisit this like product definition, much less adopt a definition

that divides tissue paper into two like products. There is, therefore, no basis on this record to call into

question the Commission’s previous domestic like product definition.45 Accordingly, we continue to

define the domestic like product as all tissue paper, co-extensive with Commerce’s scope.

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.”46 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.

In the original investigation, consistent with its domestic like product finding, the Commission

found a single domestic industry – all domestic producers, whether integrated or converters, of tissue

paper.47 48 In their joint response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic interested parties

 39 Conf. Views at 8.

 40 USITC Pub. 3758 at 8. 

 41 Id. at 8 & n.48.

 42 Id. at 8-9.

 43 See CR at I-12-I-20, PR at I-11-I-16. 

 44 Joint Resp. at 32.

 45 Commissioner Aranoff notes that the Commission was divided 3-3 on the like product issue in the original

investigation. In this expedited review, she finds one like product because the issue is uncontested. Nevertheless,

she reserves the right to reconsider this domestic like product definition in any future investigation of subject tissue

paper if arguments of parties or the factual record in that proceeding warrant. 

 46 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.

 47 USITC Pub. 3758 at 9-10.

 48 Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioners Miller and Pearson, consistent with their finding of two domestic like

products, found two domestic industries, an industry producing bulk tissue and an industry producing consumer

(continued...)

8
agree with the domestic industry definition adopted by the Commission in the original investigation.49

The domestic interested parties also report that they constitute five of the six current producers of the

tissue paper products in the United States and account for approximately 95 percent of total U.S.

production.50

In the original investigation, the Commission identified *** and Cleo as related parties by virtue

of their importation of subject merchandise during the period of investigation. The Commission,

however, determined that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude these producers from the

domestic industry.51

In their joint response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic interested parties

report that ***.52 They state that ***.53 They further state that ***.54 ***.55 

The new information in this review regarding *** ownership interest in *** and importation of

subject merchandise during the period of review demonstrates that *** is a related party within the

meaning of section 771(4)(B) of the Act.56 57 We determine, however, that appropriate circumstances do

not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry.

Since the imposition of the order, the total quantity and value of *** imports of subject

merchandise have been *** square meters and $***, respectively.58 Such imports correspond to only

***.59 Moreover, domestic interested parties reported that based on the available data, *** production of

subject imports in 2009 accounted for less than *** percent of total Chinese production and exports to the

United States, and *** total 2009 production capacity of *** represented less than *** percent of the

capacity to produce tissue paper in China based on the available data.60 There is no evidence that ***

interests no longer lie primarily in domestic production or that *** related party status has shielded its

domestic production operations or otherwise benefitted its domestic production operations financially. 

Therefore, based on the record in this review, the Commission’s decisions in the original investigation not

to exclude any related party, and the lack of any objection to *** or any other producer’s inclusion in the

 48(...continued)

tissue (consisting of all firms producing these products). USITC Pub. 3758 at 32 (dissenting views). 

 49 Joint Resp. at 32.

 50 Id. at 29 (identifying Hallmark as the only other domestic producer of tissue paper).

 51 Conf. Views at 12-16.

 52 Joint Resp. at 29.

 53 Id. at 29-30; see also April 8 Letter at 4.

 54 Id.

 55 Id. at 2-4.

 56 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B) (allowing 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); see also Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d, 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).

 57 ***, but there is no evidence that *** has an ownership interest in any foreign producer or imported subject

merchandise during the period of review, or that its domestic operations benefit in any way, much less significantly,

from *** foreign interests or limited importation of subject merchandise during the period of review. CR at I-28, PR

at I-21. No other related party issues are raised on this record.

 58 Joint Resp. at 30; April 8 Letter at 2-3.

 59 CR at I-27-I-28 n.64, PR at I-21 n.64.

 60 CR at I-28, PR at I-21.

9
domestic industry, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude any producer from the

domestic industry.

Accordingly, and consistent with our like product determination, we continue to define the

domestic industry as all U.S. producers of tissue paper (whether integrated or converters), namely,

Seaman, Eagle, Flower City, Garlock, Putney, and Hallmark.

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.”61 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.”62 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.63 The CIT 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.64 65

 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.”66 According to

 61 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 62 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. 

 63 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.

 64 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’”).

 65 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. 

 66 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

10
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.”67

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.”68 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).69 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.70

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

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

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

facts available on the record.71

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.”72 We find the following conditions

of competition relevant to our determination.

Demand. In the original investigation, the Commission found that there was a modest increase in

apparent demand during the period examined, with apparent U.S. consumption growing by 4.9 percent

 67 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.

 68 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 69 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce has made no duty absorption findings with respect to the order under

review. CR, PR at I-5; 75 Fed. Reg. at 32910 (final results of its expedited review).

 70 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 71 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.”).

 72 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 

11
between 2001 and 2003.73 The Commission rejected the notion that the market for bulk and consumer

tissue paper is clearly segmented.74 Therefore, the Commission stated that it considered the data for the

market as a whole, but examined data for bulk and consumer tissue paper separately when appropriate.75 

The domestic interested parties report that the recent economic downturn has had a significant

impact on the U.S. retail market, including the holiday and gift-giving sectors, which in turn has

adversely affected the market for tissue paper products. They state that although the demand for such

products had remained relatively stable since the original investigation, demand more recently has

declined and continues to lag.76 The available data corroborate this view. The quantity of apparent U.S.

consumption in 2009 was lower than at any time during the original investigation and was *** percent

less than apparent U.S. consumption in 2003.77 American Greetings, reportedly one of the largest

purchasers of subject tissue paper in the United States, similarly observed that it “experienced difficult

industry conditions during 2009 as the global economic slowdown increased in severity throughout the

course of the year, particularly during the second half of the year, which is critical to the social

expressions industry due to the concentration of major holidays during that period. These industry

conditions were characterized by lower customer traffic in retail stores, less consumer spending due to

economic uncertainties and a number of retailer bankruptcies.” American Greetings also observed that in

this period “revenues in the North American Social Expression Products segment declined primarily due

to lower sales of gift packaging products, party goods, and specialty products . . . .”78

Supply. In the original investigation, the Commission found that the market was supplied almost

exclusively by domestic production and subject imports.79 The Commission further found that the

domestic industry’s production capacity grew between 2001 and 2002, but declined in 2003 and interim

(January-September) 2004, due in part to the temporary closure of Cleo’s production facilities.80

The Commission noted that there was conflicting evidence with respect to the reasons for Cleo’s

closure of its production facilities.81 The Commission noted that Cleo claimed it closed the facility and

began purchasing a growing volume of subject imports because one of its significant suppliers of

domestic roll stock shut down its production facilities in 2003 and one of its printers shuttered its facilities

as well.82 The Commission found, however, that the record showed there were domestic roll stock

producers willing to meet Cleo’s raw material requirements, as well as printing companies able to satisfy

 73 USITC Pub. 3758 at 13.

 74 Id. at 13 n.84. 

 75 Id. The domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution and other information submitted do not

distinguish between bulk and consumer tissue paper. The record in this expedited review contains no updated data

segregating bulk and consumer tissue paper. 

 76 See Joint Resp. at 19-21, 32.

 77 CR, PR at Table I-9; CR at I-38, PR at I-27. We note that consumption during the period examined in the

original investigation was calculated using Commission questionnaire data while the available data for calculating

2009 consumption are necessarily based on Commerce statistics.

 78 CR at I-38-I-39, PR at I-29, quoting from Joint Resp. Exh. 4. 

 79 USITC Pub. 3758 at 14.

 80 Id.

 81 Id. 

 82 Id. 

12
Cleo’s print needs.83 The Commission also noted that Cleo had been importing significant amounts of

subject tissue paper well before it lost its supplier of roll stock.84

The Commission also considered respondents’ claim that tissue paper purchasers sourced subject

imports due to an inability to obtain specialty types of tissue paper or packaging from domestic

suppliers.85 The Commission noted that this appeared not to explain the large increases in the volume of 

subject imports, because sales of specialty tissue paper in the United States were not particularly

significant when compared to the entire tissue paper market and the domestic industry competed with

subject imports for the bulk of these sales.86

Since the original investigation, the volume of subject imports from China has declined

irregularly but significantly. For example, between 2003 and 2009, subject imports from China decreased

by 81.7 percent overall, from 751.4 million square meters to 137.6 million square meters.87 The volume

of subject imports in 2008 (135.2 million square meters) and 2009 (137.6 million square meters) reflects

an increase over the 2006-07 period, when subject import volumes were 68.4 million square meters and

60.0 million square meters, respectively.88 The value of subject imports similarly declined, falling by

79.3 percent during 2003-09, from $30.1 million to $6.2 million (the highest level since the original

investigation based on available data).89

As a share of apparent U.S. consumption, subject imports from China declined in quantity from

*** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2009. In value, their share of apparent U.S. consumption declined

from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2009.90 

Non-subject imports have established a substantial presence in the U.S. market since the original

investigation, increasing substantially during 2003-09. Non-subject imports increased in quantity from

*** square meters to 374.2 million square meters during 2003-09 and increased in value from $*** to

$16.7 million during this period.91 As a share of apparent U.S. consumption, non-subject imports were

*** percent of the U.S. market in quantity and *** percent in value in 2009, compared to *** percent in

quantity and *** percent in value at the end of the original period of investigation.92 

The largest sources of non-subject imports during the period of review were Indonesia, Vietnam,

India, and Thailand, which together accounted for the vast majority of non-subject imports.93 The

available data on tissue paper imports from countries other than China, however, include certain cut-tolength sheets of tissue paper produced by converters from China-origin jumbo rolls and found by

Commerce to be circumventing the antidumping duty order.94

 83 Id. at 14-15.

 84 Id. at 14.

 85 Id. at 16-17.

 86 Id.

 87 CR, PR at Table I-6. We note that during the original investigation, import data were based on Commission

questionnaire responses; the available data for the period of review are necessarily based on Commerce statistics.

 88 CR, PR at Table I-6. Due to the lack of distinct HTS statistical reporting numbers for certain tissue paper

products, comparable data for 2004 and 2005 are unavailable. CR at I-29, PR at I-22; cf. Joint Resp. Exh. 2. 

 89 CR, PR at Table I-6 (subject import value was $2.6 million in 2006).

 90 CR, PR at Table I-9. 

 91 CR, PR at Table I-6.

 92 CR, PR at Table I-9.

 93 CR, PR at Table I-7.

 94 For example, in mid-2006, Seaman requested that Commerce conduct an inquiry to determine whether tissue

paper products exported to the United States from Vietnam and completed or assembled by Vietnam Quijiang (a

(continued...)

13
Ten established firms accounted for nearly all domestic production of tissue paper in 2003.95 The

largest of these were Cleo, which ceased any domestic production of tissue paper in 2007,96 and Eagle,

Flower City, Garlock, Putney, and Seaman – the domestic interested parties in this review.97 These

domestic interested parties are estimated to have represented 95 percent of tissue paper production in

2009.98 In 2009, the industry’s reported capacity was *** square meters, and it produced *** square

meters of tissue paper, a low capacity utilization rate of *** percent that domestic interested parties

attribute to weak demand.99

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

shipments of tissue paper – domestically produced and from China – were directed to three channels of

distribution – distributors, retailers, and end users.100 The share of U.S. shipments of domestic product to

distributors increased from 58.7 percent in 2001 to 64.7 percent in 2003, and was lower in interim 2004

than in interim 2003. Conversely, the share of U.S. shipments to retailers decreased from 41.0 percent in

2001 to 34.7 percent in 2003, and was higher in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.101 Shipments to end

users accounted for 0.4 percent of total U.S. shipments in 2001, 0.6 percent in 2003, and 0.6 percent and

1.3 percent in interim 2003 in interim 2004, respectively.102 

 94(...continued)

wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chinese producer Guilin Qifeng) from Chinese-origin jumbo rolls were

circumventing the antidumping duty order. On October 3, 2008, Commerce affirmatively determined that certain

tissue paper products produced by Vietnam Quijiang from Chinese-origin jumbo rolls were circumventing the order. 

Commerce had preliminarily suspended liquidation and required a cash deposit of estimated duties at the PRC-wide

rate of 112.64 percent ad valorem as of April 22, 2008, and in its final order also directed the imposition of duties at

this rate on all unliquidated entries of Chinese tissue paper products from Vietnam Quijiang retroactive to

September 5, 2006, when the inquiry was initiated. See 73 Fed. Reg. 57591 (Oct. 3, 2008). 

Similarly, in September 2008, Seaman requested that Commerce initiate a second circumvention inquiry,

this time concerning imports of tissue paper products from Thailand produced by Sunlake from jumbo rolls and/or

cut sheets made in China. On June 19, 2009, Commerce determined that certain tissue paper products exported to

the United States from Thailand by Sunlake were circumventing the order. Commerce had preliminarily suspended

liquidation and required a cash deposit of estimated duties at the PRC-wide rate of 112.64 percent ad valorem as of

April 30, 2009, and its final order further directed Customs to impose duties at this rate on all unliquidated entries of

Sunlake’s shipments of tissue paper product to the United States on or after October 21, 2008, the date Commerce

initiated the inquiry. See 74 Fed. Reg. 29172 (June 19, 2009).

In apparent reaction to Commerce’s anti-circumvention actions, tissue paper imports from Vietnam began

declining in 2008 and had declined by 82 percent by 2009, from 232.9 million square meters in 2006 to 40.8 million

square meters in 2009. CR, PR at Table I-7. Similarly, tissue paper imports from Thailand declined by 97.5 percent

between 2008 and 2009, from 51.9 million square meters to 1.3 million square meters. CR, PR at Table I-7. We

note that Commerce has initiated a third inquiry to determine whether tissue paper products exported to the United

States from Vietnam by Max Fortune Vietnam – whose parent is the Chinese producer Max Fortune – are

circumventing the antidumping duty order because they are allegedly made from jumbo rolls and cut sheets of tissue

paper produced in China, but no determination has been made. See 75 Fed. Reg. 17127 (Apr. 5, 2010).

 95 CR at I-23, PR at I-18; USITC Pub. 3758 at 10 n.54.

 96 CR at I-23, PR at I-18; CR, PR at Table I-4.

 97 CR at I-23, PR at I-18.

 98 CR at I-23, PR at I-18.

 99 CR, PR at Table I-5; Final Comments at 12. 

 100 USITC Pub. 3758 at 15.

 101 Id.

 102 Id. at 15 n.105.

14
During the period examined in the original investigation, subject imports’ share of U.S.

shipments to distributors increased from 8.0 percent in 2001 to 19.9 percent in 2003, and was 23.0 percent

and 30.3 percent, respectively, in interim 2003 and interim 2004. Subject imports’ share of U.S.

shipments to retailers declined between 2001 and 2003, from 80.8 percent to 51.8 percent, and was

46.6 percent in interim 2003 and 32.4 percent in interim 2004.103 Subject imports’ share of U.S.

shipments to end users increased from 11.2 percent in 2001 to 28.2 percent in 2003, and was 30.4 percent

and 37.3 percent, respectively, in interim 2003 and interim 2004. The data on U.S. shipments of subject

imports to end users included direct importing by retailers. Subject imports’ increasing shipments to end

users, the Commission found, reflected the growing role of mass merchandisers in the U.S. tissue paper

market.104

Domestic interested parties report that the overlapping channels of distribution continue to exist

in the market today.105 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 the same channels of distribution in

the reasonably foreseeable future were the order to be revoked.

Substitutability. In the original investigation, the Commission found a high degree of

substitutability between subject imports and domestically produced tissue paper, noting that most

producers, importers, and purchasers reported that the domestic and Chinese products were

interchangeable.106 The Commission also found that price was a critical factor in the purchasing decision

for tissue paper, with purchasers citing price more frequently than any other factor as one of the three

most important factors in selecting a supplier.107 

Domestic interested parties maintain that the high degree of substitutability between domestically

produced tissue paper and subject imports and the importance of price in the U.S. market for tissue paper

continue to exist as factors in the U.S. market.108 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.109 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,

 103 Id. at 15.

 104 Id. at 16.

 105 Joint Resp. at 18.

 106 USITC Pub. 3758 at 16-17. 

 107 Id.

 108 Joint Resp. at 18.

 109 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

15
which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other

products.110

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports was

significant, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States. The

absolute volume of subject imports increased by approximately 268 percent between 2001 and 2003, with

the subject imports gaining *** percentage points of market share during this period. Moreover, since

non-subject imports accounted for a very small part of the U.S. market, this growth in market share came

directly at the expense of the domestic industry, which lost *** percentage points of market share in the

same period.111 Subject import volume relative to domestic production rose from 9.8 percent in 2001 to

43.4 percent in 2003, and reached 49.7 percent in interim 2004.112

In contrast, since the imposition of the antidumping duty order, subject imports from China have

declined significantly but have remained in the U.S. market in reduced volumes. As discussed above,

subject imports decreased by 81.7 percent by quantity and by 79.3 percent by value from 2003 to 2009.113

Subject imports accounted for *** percent of the U.S. market in 2009, down significantly from the ***

percent captured in 2003.114 

In the original investigation, the Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to 78 firms

believed to be subject tissue paper producers in China. Two producers completed and returned the

questionnaires for their production operations in China (Guilin Qifeng and Max Fortune), as did one

exporter for its trading operations (Constant China Import Export, Ltd.). China National also responded,

partially.115 These firms’ exports of subject merchandise accounted for 84.1 percent of total U.S. imports

of tissue paper from China during 2003.116 The responding producers reported an increase in production

capacity from 2.36 billion square meters in 2001 to 2.88 billion square meters in 2003. Production by

these firms reportedly increased significantly as well, from 2.17 billion square meters in 2001 to

2.81 billion square meters in 2003.117 Capacity utilization fluctuated from 90.4 percent to 97.5 percent

during the period of investigation.118 The data also demonstrated the export orientation of the industry. 

Responding producers’ exports of subject merchandise to the United States reportedly accounted for

21.1 percent of their total shipments in 2003, at which time exports of subject merchandise to all export

markets reportedly constituted 29.6 percent of their total shipments.119 

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. The domestic

interested parties, however, provide evidence that the Chinese industry has increased its capacity since the

imposition of the antidumping duty order and plans to further increase capacity in the reasonably

foreseeable future.120 The information submitted indicates that the Chinese producers continue to produce

 110 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D).

 111 USITC Pub. 3758 at 17-18; Conf. Views at 23-24.

 112 USITC Pub. 3758 at 17.

 113 See CR, PR at Table I-6.

 114 CR, PR at Table I-9.

 115 CR at I-39-I-40, PR at I-30.

 116 CR at I-40, PR at I-30.

 117 CR, PR at Table I-10.

 118 Id.

 119 Id.

 120 For example, in 2005, Max Fortune transferred its headquarters and put its Changning, Huizhou factory “to

full use for production purposes,” reportedly quadrupling the size of the space. In 2009, the firm added another new

(continued...)

16
significant volumes of tissue paper, have increased production capacity since the order was imposed, have

plans for further increases in the near future, and are export-oriented, with a demonstrated interest in the

U.S. market.121 

Moreover, as noted above, the record in the original investigation demonstrated that, even though

they were operating at fairly high levels of capacity utilization, the Chinese industry produced and

exported to the U.S. market significant, and significantly increasing, volumes of tissue paper.122 Subject

import volume has dropped markedly since the original investigation; however, despite the restraining

effects of the antidumping duty order, the record shows a continuing (albeit significantly reduced)

presence of subject imports from China in the U.S. market. This indicates the continued attractiveness of

the U.S. market to the Chinese producers and, given an existing customer base and distribution channels,

demonstrates the ability to rapidly increase exports to the United States if the antidumping duty order

were revoked. Commerce’s affirmative circumvention determinations also indicate that Chinese

producers are actively seeking ways to access the U.S. market and would aggressively target the U.S.

market in the absence of the order.123 

Domestic interested parties contend 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.124 They also contend that, although China’s exports of tissue paper currently are not subject to

antidumping duties in third country markets, the United States is the single largest market for tissue paper

in the world and Chinese imports would immediately return to the United States if the order were

revoked.125

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

of the Chinese industry’s current capacity to produce tissue 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 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. 

 120(...continued)

factory in Longxi, Huizhou and announced the proposed construction of an additional, larger factory in Fuzhou, for

which it has already ordered at least two tissue paper machines that can each produce 60,000 tons of tissue paper per

year. Joint Resp. at 23-24 and Exh. 5 at 10-23 (17, 19-21, 23). Fujian Naoshan Paper Group Co., Ltd. announced

plans in November 2009 for a new special project that is expected to have an annual output of 150,000 tons. Joint

Resp. at 24-25 and Exh. 5 at 44-49 (49). The Youlanfa Group, which claims to have the world’s largest

manufacturing base for tissue paper, produced 230,000 tons in 2007. The Youlanfa Group’s “development plan”

predicts that the firm can more than double its production capacity by 2012 to 600,000 tons. Joint Resp. at 25 and

Exh. 5 at 51-53. One member of the Youlanfa Group, Fujian Youlanfa Group, is initiating a new production project

at its Huaxiang plant with a capacity to produce 150,000 tons per year and a new project at its Huarong plant with

the capacity to produce 250,000 tons per year. Joint Resp. at 25 and Exh. 5 at 55-57. Subject producer Guilin

Qifeng also announced plans, in March 2009, to move to a new, larger, paper-making factory. Joint Resp. at 24 and

Exh. 5 at 34-42 (41). 

 121 See, e.g., Joint Resp. at 22-26 and Exh. 5; Final Comments at 5-6.

 122 CR, PR at Tables I-6, I-7, I-10; USITC Pub. 3758 at 18.

 123 See 73 Fed. Reg. 57591 (Oct. 3, 2008); 74 Fed. Reg. 29172 (June 19, 2009). 

 124 Joint Resp. at 18.

 125 Id.

17
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.126

In the original investigation, the Commission examined whether subject imports significantly

undersold the domestic like product during the period of investigation.127 The Commission collected

pricing data for four tissue paper products: three consumer products (products 1-3) and one bulk product

(product 4). The Commission analyzed the price comparison data for each of the individual products, as

well as in the aggregate, and found that there was underselling in virtually every possible quarterly

comparison for products 2-4 and in 6 of 15 comparisons for product 1. The Commission found that

subject imports undersold the domestic product in 33 of 45 quarters by margins ranging from *** percent

to *** percent and, on a combined weighted basis, *** percent.128

Moreover, the Commission found that this consistent underselling caused significant market share

shifts between subject and domestic suppliers. After noting that the pricing data contained “some

evidence of price depression” but did not indicate significant price depression or suppression overall,129

the Commission found that the “significant underselling {was} fueling the rapidly increasing volume and

market share of subject imports and its direct displacement of sales by domestic producers.”130 In

addition to the fact that the consistent underselling by the subject imports correlated with the domestic

industry’s rapid market share declines, the Commission noted that 16 of 20 responding purchasers

reported that the Chinese product was lower priced than the domestic product and that they shifted

purchases from domestic suppliers to subject imports.131 Three of nine responding purchasers admitted

they had shifted to Chinese imports for pricing reasons, and another three reported that price was part of

the reason for the shift, while one other purchaser reported that the industry generally reduced its prices

because of Chinese imports.132

Further, several purchasers confirmed the domestic industry’s allegations that it lost sales to

subject imports due to the lower price of the subject imports.133 In addition, ***, reported that ***. 

Similarly, ***.134 The Commission therefore concluded that subject imports were able to gain significant

U.S. market share at the expense of the domestic industry as a result of aggressive underselling.135

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

interested parties report that domestic prices have “stabilized and increased moderately” since the

 126 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.

 127 USITC Pub. 3758 at 18-20. 

 128 Id. at 19-20. 

 129 Id. at 20. 

 130 USITC Pub. 3758 at 20. 

 131 Id. at 19-20. 

 132 Id. at 20.

 133 Id. 

 134 Conf. Views at 29. 

 135 USITC Pub. 3758 at 20.

18
imposition of the antidumping duty order.136 They also state that input costs have replaced the price of

LTFV imports as the primary driver of tissue paper prices.137 This suggests that the discipline of the order

has improved domestic prices and helped stabilize the domestic industry.

As explained above, we find that if the antidumping duty order were revoked Chinese producers

likely would increase their exports to the United States significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

Moreover, the record in this review indicates that tissue 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 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 in order to gain market share, just as they did during the period examined in the original

investigation. As a result, the domestic industry likely would lose critical sales volume and face

significant pricing pressure driven by LTFV subject imports. Therefore, we conclude that, if the order

were revoked, subject imports from China likely would increase significantly at prices that would

significantly undersell the domestic industry, eroding the domestic industry’s market share and causing

significant adverse effects on prices for the domestic like product. 

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports138

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.139 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.140 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.

 136 Joint Resp. at 16. 

 137 Id.

 138 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 a margin of 112.64 percent for all manufacturers and

exporters. 75 Fed. Reg. 32910 (June 10, 2010). These dumping margins are the same as the margins Commerce

calculated in its original final determination. CR, PR at Table I-1.

 139 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 140 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

19
In the original investigation, the Commission examined pertinent factors bearing on the condition

of the industry to assess whether the subject imports had materially impacted the industry.141 The

Commission found that, as subject imports captured significant market share by underselling, the

industry’s production, capacity utilization, shipments, sales, employment, and profitability levels all fell

between 2001 and 2003.142 Specifically, between 2001 and 2003, the industry’s output fell by

16.8 percent, its capacity utilization fell by 10.5 percentage points, its U.S. shipments fell by 18.3 percent,

and its net sales fell by 26.7 percent. The number of workers employed by the industry fell from 592 to

428, and total wages declined as well. In addition, the industry’s operating income fell from $8.2 million

in 2001 to $3.6 million in 2003, while its operating profit margins fell from 6.6 percent to 3.9 percent.143

The Commission found that the industry was experiencing significant declines in its market share,

production, sales, employment levels, and profits in the face of a rapid increase in low-priced subject

imports during the period examined. Given the correlation between these declines in the industry’s

condition and the significant increases in the volume of low-priced subject imports, the Commission

concluded that subject imports were having a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.144

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

performance of the domestic industry since the original investigation. Thus, the information pertains only

to certain economic factors145 and is available only for 2009.146 The information is insufficient to enable

us to make a determination as to whether the industry is currently vulnerable.147

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 adverse effects on 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

 141 USITC Pub. 3758 at 21-23.

 142 Id.

 143 Id. 

 144 Id. at 23. The Commission considered the arguments of Cleo and Target that subject imports were not

significantly contributing to these declines in the industry’s condition. The Commission rejected Cleo’s claim that

Cleo/Crystal had only purchased significant volumes of subject merchandise because it lost a significant source of its

roll stock and one of its printers went out of business, noting that there were other suppliers of roll stock that were

able to sell to Cleo and available printers. Id. at 22-23. Similarly, the Commission rejected Target’s claim that it

was unable to source its tissue paper requirements domestically, noting that the record showed that the industry was

willing and able to supply these products to Target and had done so at a significant level during and before the

period of investigation. Id. at 23. The Commission also noted that both arguments pertained only to consumer tissue

paper and ignored bulk tissue paper, a large part of the tissue paper market. Id. at 23 n.176. Thus, the Commission

found that these arguments did not explain the significant market share gains by subject imports of bulk tissue at the

expense of domestic producers, nor the sharp drop in profitability of the bulk tissue operations for domestic

producers that occurred from 2001 to 2003. Id.

 145 There is no information in the record of this review pertaining to indicators that we customarily consider in

assessing whether the domestic industry is in a weakened condition, such as productivity, return on investments,

wages, ability to raise capital, investment capacity, and employment levels.

 146 See CR at I-25, PR at I-20; CR, PR at Table I-5.

 147 Id.

20
the industry’s profitability and employment levels, as well as its ability to raise capital and make and

maintain necessary capital investments.148

 Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order on certain tissue 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.

CONCLUSION

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

certain tissue 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.

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

to non-subject imports. As previously noted, the available data on tissue paper imports from countries other than

China include certain cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper produced by converters from China-origin jumbo rolls and

found by Commerce to be circumventing the antidumping duty order. Moreover, even at the highest recorded levels,

non-subject imports during the review period have not approached the tremendous volume of subject imports from

China during the period of the original investigation. CR, PR at Table I-6. Finally, although non-subject imports

have increased at the same time subject imports have declined, they have not completely replaced subject imports

and have not taken market share from the domestic industry. In fact, based on the available data, the share of U.S.

consumption of all imports has declined between the last full year of the original period of investigation and 2009, as

measured by quantity and value, and the domestic industry’s share has increased. CR, PR at Table I-9. The

available information also indicates that prices have stabilized despite non-subject imports’ increased presence since

imposition of the order. Joint Resp. at 16.

21
 
DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN DEANNA TANNER OKUN AND

COMMISSIONER DANIEL R. PEARSON

I. INTRODUCTION

Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires that the U.S.

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) revoke a countervailing duty or an antidumping duty finding in

a five-year (“sunset”) review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a countervailable subsidy

would be likely to continue or recur and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”)

determines that material injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably

foreseeable time.1

 Based on the record in this five-year review, we define two domestic like products,

bulk tissue paper and consumer tissue paper, and two domestic industries. Accordingly, we determine

under section 751(c) of the Act2

 that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports of tissue

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

producing bulk tissue paper in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We further

determine that revocation of the antidumping order on subject imports of tissue paper from China would

not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry producing consumer

tissue paper in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.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.”4

 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.”5

 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.6

In the original investigation, we found significant differences between bulk tissue paper and

consumer tissue paper in terms of packaging, end use, interchangeability, customer and producer

perceptions, channels of distribution, manufacturing processes, and price. In particular, bulk tissue paper

was more likely to be packaged in large quantities and in utilitarian containers, while consumer tissue

paper was typically packaged as a retail item; consumer tissue paper was often designed, marketed, and

sold in conjunction with related products like gift bags and ribbons; consumer tissue paper was more

likely to be colorful and customized; purchasers reported dissimilarities between the products in terms of

 1 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2).

 2

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c).

 3

 We join in and adopt as our own section I, Background, from the majority opinion.

 4

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 5

 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).

 6

 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).

23
size and weight; purchasers that bought both types of paper used different purchasing departments; even

producers tended to regard the products as different business segments; consumer tissue paper was far

more likely to be sold directly to retailers, while bulk was far more likely to be sold to distributors; bulk

tissue paper was used primarily by retailers or manufacturers, while consumer tissue paper was destined

for use as wrapping paper; consumer tissue paper required different production lines or specialized

equipment for the distinct packaging, as well as sometimes lengthy design phases; and there was a marked

difference in price.7

 We therefore found bulk tissue paper and consumer tissue paper to be distinct like

products.8

The record in this expedited review contains no new information on the question of domestic like

product. We therefore adopt our domestic like product finding from the original investigation and define

bulk tissue paper and consumer tissue paper to be separate domestic like products. Accordingly, we

consider the question of whether material injury is likely to continue upon revocation separately.9

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES AND RELATED PARTIES

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.”10 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.

In light of our domestic like product findings, we therefore define two domestic industries, one

including all producers of bulk tissue paper and the other including all producers of consumer tissue

paper. We therefore analyze whether material injury is likely to continue or recur upon revocation

separately.

In the original investigation, we considered whether appropriate circumstances existed to exclude

any producers as related parties, and we declined to exclude any producer on related party grounds.11 The

record in this review indicates that ***.12 ***.13

 7 Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, Commissioner Marcia E. Miller, and Commissioner

Daniel R. Pearson, Confidential Version (CO), EDIS Document 227120, at 4-7; USITC Pub. 3758 at 29-31.

 8

 CO at 7-8; USITC Pub. 3758 at 31.

 9

 In the original investigation, three Commissioners found one domestic like product. USITC Pub. 3758 at 9. 

The single like product finding was considered and found to be supported by substantial evidence on the record by

both the Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Cleo Inc. v. United States,

30 CIT 1380, 1389 (2006); Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1298 (2007). However, neither court

considered or rejected our finding of two domestic like products; Judge Bryson, writing for the Court of Appeals of

the Federal Circuit, found the issue to be a “close one.” 501 F.3d at 1298. We therefore find no bar to our adopting

our original like product findings.

We note that domestic parties’ filings in this review failed to address the fact that half of the Commissioners

that considered the record in the original investigation made a separate, two-product finding. We hope that parties to

subsequent reviews will be more mindful of the full Commission opinions in earlier investigations and address

alternate like product findings. 

 10 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.

 11 CO at 8-10; USITC Pub. 3758 at 32-33.

 12 Domestic producers’ response to notice of institution, 3/3/2010, at 29.

 13 Domestic producers’ response to notice of institution, 3/3/2010, at 29-30 and letter of April 8, 2010, at 4.

24
Imports of subject merchandise by *** during the period of review were equivalent to *** of its

domestic production during that time period.14 There is no evidence on this record indicating that *** is

no longer primarily interested in domestic production, or that its related party status shielded its domestic

production operations or otherwise benefitted its domestic production operations financially. Based on

the record in this review and our decision in the original investigation not to exclude any related party, we

find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude any producer from either the bulk tissue paper

domestic industry or the consumer tissue paper domestic industry.

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY TO

THE INDUSTRY PRODUCING BULK TISSUE PAPER IF THE ORDER ON TISSUE

PAPER FROM CHINA WERE 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.”15 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.”16 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.17 The CIT 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.18 19

 14 CR at I-27, PR at I-21.

 15 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 16 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. 

 17 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.

 18 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’”).

 19 For a complete statement of Chairman 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 Steel

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-362 (Review) and 731-

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

25
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.”20 According to

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

‘imminent’ time frame applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”21

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.”22 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).23 The statute 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.24

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

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

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

facts available on the record.25 26

 20 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 21 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.

 22 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 23 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce has made no duty absorption findings with respect to the order under

review. CR at I-5, PR at I-5; 75 Fed. Reg. at 32910 (final results of its expedited review).

 24 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 25 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.”).

 26 Chairman 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

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.

26
B. Likely Conditions of Competition

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.”27

In the original investigation, we took into consideration the following conditions of competition:

demand for bulk tissue paper had risen over the period of investigation (POI) but was somewhat lower in

the final interim period; bulk tissue paper was primarily sold to distributors although retailers were the

primary users of the product; bulk tissue paper sales were somewhat seasonal, peaking in the fourth

quarter; the domestic industry included eight producers; all parties found domestic and subject imports of

bulk tissue paper to be interchangeable; purchasers were more likely to name price as the most important

factor in selecting a supplier of bulk tissue paper, and all responding purchasers ranked price as one of the

top three factors; three-quarters of all purchasers reported “always” or “usually” choosing the lowestprice material; and purchasers overwhelmingly regarded subject imports as less expensive.28 

We note that the record in this expedited investigation contains no new information regarding

current or future conditions of competition specific to the bulk tissue paper industry. We therefore adopt

our prior findings regarding the conditions of competition and consider these conditions as likely to

prevail upon revocation.

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.29 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.30

In the original investigation, we found that apparent U.S. consumption of bulk tissue paper had

been healthy throughout most of the POI, but the volume of subject imports had increased at a

significantly greater rate. While apparent U.S. consumption had increased by *** percent between 2001

and 2003, subject import volume had increased by *** percent over that same two-year period; subject

import volume in interim 2004 was *** percent higher than in interim 2003, though apparent U.S.

consumption was *** percent lower than in interim 2003. As subject import volume was increasing far

faster than demand, shipments by the domestic industry declined by *** percent between 2001 and 2003,

and the domestic industry’s market share declined as well. Subject imports captured the entire increase in

demand between 2001 and 2003. We therefore found the increase in subject imports to be significant,

both absolutely and relatively.31

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 

 28 CO at 11-12; USITC Pub. 3758 at 34-35.

 29 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 30 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D).

 31 CO at 13-14; USITC Pub. 3758 at 34-35.

27
The limited record in this expedited review contains no new information contradicting our

original findings on volume, including the demonstrated ability of the industry in China to increase

exports to the U.S. market in very significant quantities, in excess of any demand growth, over a short

period of time. We therefore find it likely that revocation of the order would likely lead to increases in

the volume of subject imports of bulk tissue paper that would be significant both absolutely and

relatively.

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.32

In the original investigation, we found that subject bulk tissue imports consistently undersold the

domestic like product, in 11 of 12 quarterly comparisons, and by margins ranging from *** percent to

*** percent. We found both the frequency of underselling and the margins to be significant. We also

found that prices for the domestic like product, when compared to prices for the same quarter in the

preceding year, declined steadily after the first quarter of 2002 and throughout 2003, when subject

imports began entering the U.S. market in significant quantities and underselling by significant margins. 

Product-specific data indicated that price declines did not continue into 2004, suggesting that the

pendency of the investigation had slowed growth in both import volume and brought some price

discipline into the market. Purchasers admitted that domestic producers were forced to drop prices and

that they shifted to subject import purchases for reasons of price. In light of the foregoing, we found that

underselling by subject imports had depressed domestic prices to a significant degree.33

The limited record in this expedited review contains no new information contradicting our

original findings on price, including the evidence of significant underselling and subsequent fall in prices.

We therefore find it likely that revocation of the order would likely lead to significant underselling and

subsequent significant depression or suppression of prices for the domestic like product.

 32 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.

 33 CO at 14-16; USITC Pub. 3758 at 35-36.

28
E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports 34

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.35 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.36 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, we found that domestic production capacity for bulk tissue paper had

increased over the original POI, but production and shipments had peaked in 2002 and declined in 2003;

domestic capacity utilization declined notably from its 2002 peak; market share fell by *** percentage

points between 2001 and 2003; the value of the industry’s net sales fell by *** percent between 2001 and

2003; the industry’s unit cost of goods sold (COGS) had remained steady between 2001 and 2003 but

operating income dropped by *** percent; operating income as a percentage of net sales fell from ***

percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2003; capital expenditures declined. All of these declines occurred at a

time when apparent U.S. consumption was increasing, but subject import volume was rising at a

significantly faster rate and the domestic industry’s sales actually declined as demand rose.37 

The limited record in this expedited review contains no new information contradicting our

original findings on impact, including the relationship between a rapid increase in subject imports,

significant underselling, and deterioration in the domestic industry’s condition.38 We find it likely that

revocation of the order would likely lead to a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry

producing bulk tissue paper.

 34 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 a margin of 112.64 percent for all manufacturers and

exporters. 75 Fed. Reg. 32910 (June 10, 2010). These dumping margins are the same as the margins Commerce

calculated in its original final determination. CR, PR at Table I-1.

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 37 CO at 16-18; USITC Pub. 3758 at 36-37.

 38 We find that the record in this expedited review does not permit us to determine whether the domestic industry

is vulnerable.

29
V. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY TO

THE CONSUMER TISSUE INDUSTRY IF THE ORDER ON TISSUE PAPER FROM

CHINA WERE REVOKED

A. Likely Conditions of Competition

In the original investigation, we took into consideration the following conditions of competition: 

apparent U.S. consumption of consumer tissue paper was generally stable over the POI; consumer tissue

paper was generally sold directly to retailers; demand was seasonal, peaking in the fourth quarter; it was

used by individual consumers to wrap packages and competed with other types of gift wrapping; the

industry included both integrated producers that internally produced jumbo rolls, the primary raw material

input, and converters that purchased jumbo rolls; in 2003, Crystal, a converter, learned that its primary

supplier of jumbo rolls would not be able to meet its supply obligations, and Crystal subsequently shut

down domestic production and increased imports to meet its own customer obligations; retailers

increasingly preferred suppliers to bid on groups of related products including gift bags, wrapping paper,

and tags as well as consumer tissue; and the domestic industry’s ability to compete for contracts for full

arrays of related products was somewhat limited.39 

We note that the record in this expedited investigation contains no new information regarding

current or future conditions of competition specific to the consumer tissue paper industry. We therefore

adopt our prior findings regarding the conditions of competition and consider these conditions as likely to

prevail upon revocation.

B. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In the original investigation, we found that subject import volume had increased between 2001

and 2003, with market share rising from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2003. The greatest

increase, both absolutely and relatively, came between 2002 and 2003, when approximately *** percent

of the total increase occurred. But almost *** percent of that increase was a result of Crystal’s increased

imports in the wake of a raw material supply disruption that year. Crystal’s imports were ***, and as a

result ***. Because a ***.40 We also noted that a significant portion of the U.S. market, represented by

large retailers such as Target, had specialized needs that were not generally met by domestic producers,

which had only a limited ability to supply an array of related products.41 In light of these factors, along

with the high level of production capacity utilization reported by the industry in China, no evidence

suggesting substantial increases in capacity, low inventory levels, and marked increases in shipments to

the home market, as well as the absence of orders limiting imports of subject merchandise in other

markets, we also found that substantial increases in the volume of subject imports were not likely.42

The limited record in this expedited review contains no information contradicting our original

findings on volume.43 We therefore find it likely that revocation of the order would not likely lead to

significant increases in subject import volume, either absolutely or relatively.

 39 CO at 20-22; USITC Pub. 3758 at 39.

 40 CO at 22-23; USITC Pub. 3758 at 40. 

 41 CO at 23; USITC Pub. 3758 at 40.

 42 CO at 27; USITC Pub. 3758 at 42-43.

 43 We are mindful that domestic parties have submitted information indicating an increase in capacity in China. 

Domestic producers’ response to notice of institution, 3/3/2010, at 22-26. The record does not indicate whether the

additional capacity is dedicated to bulk or consumer tissue paper production. We therefore rely primarily on the

record and our findings in the original investigation.

30
C. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In the original investigation, we found that subject imports had oversold the domestic like product

in 9 out of 15 possible comparisons for one consumer tissue product; the pricing data for the other two

consumer products were of limited value given the lack of relevant comparisons. Domestic prices were

generally stable during the POI. The record did not indicate price suppression, as the ratio of cost of

goods sold to net value declined between 2001 and 2003.44 We did not find significant price effects, and

we also found it unlikely that subject imports would enter the U.S. market at prices that would

significantly suppress or depress domestic prices in the immediate future.45

The limited record in this expedited review contains no information contradicting our original

findings on price, including the lack of significant underselling or price effects.46 We therefore do not find

it likely that revocation of the order would likely lead to significant underselling and subsequent

significant depression or suppression of prices for the domestic like product.

D. Likely Impact of Subject Imports47

In the original investigation, we noted some declines in the domestic industry’s production and

shipments, but the declines occurred largely in 2003, when ***. We therefore did not find subject

imports to be a cause of those declines, and we noted that other indicia, such as production capacity, the

number of production-related workers, wages paid, productivity, and capital expenditures were stable or

rising 2001-2002. The average unit value of U.S. shipments by domestic producers increased steadily

over the POI and per unit operating income and the ratio of operating income to net sales both rose

between 2001 and 2003.48 We further found, in the absence of significant volume, significant price

effects, or adverse impact, that subject imports did not threaten the domestic industry with material

injury.49 

 44 CO at 23-24; USITC Pub. 3758 at 40-41.

 45 CO at 27; USITC Pub. 3758 at 43.

 46 We are mindful that domestic producers have argued that revocation would likely lead to significant price

effects. Domestic producers’ response to notice of institution, 3/3/2010, at 26-28. The arguments do not address the

question of price effects for bulk or consumer tissue paper separately. We therefore rely primarily on the record and

our findings in the original investigation.

 47 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 a margin of 112.64 percent for all manufacturers and

exporters. 75 Fed. Reg. 32910 (June 10, 2010). These dumping margins are the same as the margins Commerce

calculated in its original final determination. CR, PR at Table I-1.

 48 CO at 25-26; USITC Pub. 3758 at 42.

 49 CO at 27; USITC Pub. 3758 at 42.

31
The limited record in this expedited review contains no information contradicting our original

findings on impact, including the lack of a causal link between subject imports and the condition of the

domestic industry.50 51 We do not find it likely that revocation of the order would likely lead to a

significant adverse impact on the industry producing consumer tissue paper.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the order on bulk tissue paper from

China would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry

within a reasonably foreseeable time. We determine that the revocation of the order on consumer tissue

paper would not likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry

within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 50 We are mindful that domestic parties have submitted information indicating that revocation would likely have a

negative impact on the domestic tissue paper industry. Domestic producers’ response to notice of institution,

3/3/2010, at 28-29. The record does not indicate whether these arguments are equally relevant to both the bulk and

consumer tissue paper industries. We therefore rely primarily on the record and our findings from the original

investigation.

 51 We find that the record in this expedited review does not permit us to determine whether the domestic industry

is vulnerable.

32
INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

I-1

INTRODUCTION

On February 1, 2010, 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 certain tissue

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

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On May 7, 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 Commission is scheduled to vote on this review on June 22, 2010,

and will notify Commerce of its determination on July 1, 2010. The following tabulation presents

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

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 Tissue Paper from China, 75 FR 5115, February 1, 2010. 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, 75 FR 5042, February 1, 2010.

 4

 The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution in the subject review. It was

filed on behalf of Seaman Paper Co. of Massachusetts, Inc. (“Seaman”), Eagle Tissue LLC (“Eagle”), Flower City

Tissue Mills Co. (“Flower City”), Garlock Printing & Converting, Inc. (“Garlock”), and Putney Paper Co., Ltd.

(“Putney”). The domestic interested parties reportedly accounted for approximately 95 percent of total U.S.

production of tissue paper. The production coverage figure presented for the five responding domestic producers

was provided in the domestic producers’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review, Domestic

Producers’ Response, p. 29. This estimate does not distinguish between bulk and consumer tissue paper (discussed

within).

 5

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

 6 Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, 75 FR 28061, May 19, 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
Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

February 1, 2010 Commission’s institution of five-year review

75 FR 5115

February 1, 2010

February 1, 2010 Commerce’s initiation of five-year review

75 FR 5042

February 1, 2010

May 7, 2010 Commission’s determination to conduct an expedited five-year review

75 FR 28061

May 19, 2010

June 10, 2010 Commerce’s final determination in its expedited five-year review

75 FR 32910

June 10, 2010

June 22, 2010 Commission’s vote Not applicable

July 1, 2010 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce Not applicable

The Original Investigation

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

industries in the United States were materially injured and threatened with further material injury by

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

from China.8

 Although the original petition covered both tissue paper products and certain crepe paper

products, the final phase of the Commission’s investigation proceeded on two separate schedules because

Commerce postponed its determination regarding tissue paper but not its determination regarding crepe

paper. In its preliminary-phase and final-phase investigations, the Commission treated crepe paper and

tissue paper as separate domestic like products. On February 14, 2005, Commerce made an affirmative

final LTFV determination9

 and, on March 21, 2005, the Commission completed its original investigation,

determining that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of

tissue paper from China.10 After receipt of the Commission’s final affirmative determination, Commerce

issued an antidumping duty order on imports of tissue paper from China.11

 8 The petition was filed by Seaman; American Crepe Corp. (“American Crepe”); Eagle; Flower City; Garlock;

Paper Service Ltd. (“Paper Service”); Putney; and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers

International Union AFL-CIO, CLC (“PACE”). Certain Tissue Paper Products From China: Investigation No.

731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC Publication 3758, March 2005, p. I-1. All of the original petitioning firms except

American Crepe were identified as U.S. producers of tissue paper.

 9 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 7475, February 14, 2005.

 10 Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, 70 FR 15350, March 25, 2005. Vice Chairman Okun and

Commissioners Miller and Pearson found two domestic like products – consumer tissue paper and bulk tissue paper. 

They determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of bulk tissue

paper from China. They also determined that an industry in the United States was not materially injured or

threatened with material injury, and that the establishment of an industry in the United States was not materially

retarded, by reason of imports of consumer tissue paper from China. Certain Tissue Paper Products From China: 

Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC Publication 3758, March 2005, pp. 27-43 (Dissenting Views of

Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, Commissioner Marcia E. Miller, and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson).

 11 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-4
Commerce’s Original Determination and Subsequent Review Determinations

Commerce’s original determination was published on February 14, 2005, and the antidumping

duty order concerning tissue paper from China was issued on March 30, 2005. Commerce has completed

three administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on tissue paper from China as shown in table

I-1. Commerce is currently conducting a fourth administrative review of the subject merchandise from

China for the 2008-09 period and has published its preliminary results; however, the final results of

Commerce’s administrative review are not expected to be released until mid-August 2010.12 Although

there have been two scope rulings and two circumvention findings13 concerning the antidumping duty

order,14 there have been no changed circumstances determinations and no duty absorption findings.

Commerce’s Final Result of Expedited Five-Year Review

Commerce published the final result of its review based on the facts available on June 7, 2010. 

Commerce concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty order on tissue paper from China would

likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at margins determined in its original amended final

determination. Information on Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order, administrative

review determinations and final results of its expedited five-year review is presented in table I-1.

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

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.15 Qualified U.S. producers of tissue paper have been

eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) under

CDSOA relating to the orders covering the subject merchandise beginning in Federal fiscal year 2006.16

Certifications were filed with Customs by seven claimants with respect to tissue paper from China during

2006-09. Eagle, Flower City, Hallmark, Putney, Seaman, and PACE filed separate claims to receive

disbursements under CDSOA in 2006. From 2007-09, Garlock, along with the previous six firms, filed

claims. Putney did not file a claim in 2009. No other CDSOA claims/disbursements were made with

respect to the subject merchandise from China prior to 2006.17 Table I-2 presents CDSOA claims and

disbursements for Federal fiscal years 2006-09.

 12 Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009

Administrative Review, 75 FR 18812, April 13, 2010.

 13 In February 2010, Commerce initiated a third anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether imports of tissue

paper from Vietnam, which petitioner Seaman alleges Max Fortune (Vietnam) made from jumbo rolls and cut sheets

of tissue paper produced in China, are circumventing the antidumping duty order. Max Fortune Vietnam is wholly

owned by Chinese producer Max Fortune. Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China: 

Notice of Initiation of Anti-circumvention Inquiry, 75 FR 17127, April 5, 2010.

 14 See the section of this report entitled “Scope” for information concerning Commerce’s scope rulings.

 15 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

repealed the CDSOA with respect to duties on entries of goods made and filed on or after October 1, 2007. See Pub.

L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, 154 (2006).

 16 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

 17 Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2004-2009,

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

I-5
Table I-1

Tissue paper: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order, administrative reviews,

and final results of expedited five-year review

Action Effective

date

Federal

Register

citation

Period of

investigation/

review

Antidumping duty margins

FirmspecificCountrywide1

Percent ad valorem

Final

determination 02/14/2005 70 FR 7475

Amended final

determination2 03/30/2005 70 FR 16223

07/01/2003-

12/31/2003

BA Marketing 112.64%

Everlasting 112.64%

Fujian Nanping 112.64%

Fuzhou Light 112.64%

Guilin Qifeng 112.64%

Max Fortune 112.64%

Ningbo Spring 112.64%

Qingdao Wenlong 112.64%

Samsam 112.64% 112.64%

Antidumping duty

order 03/30/2005 70 FR 16223 --

BA Marketing 112.64%

Everlasting 112.64%

Fujian Nanping 112.64%

Fuzhou Light 112.64%

Guilin Qifeng 112.64%

Max Fortune 112.64%

Ningbo Spring 112.64%

Qingdao Wenlong 112.64%

Samsam 112.64% 112.64%

Administrative

review 10/16/2007 72 FR 58642

09/21/2004-

02/28/2006 Max Fortune 0.07% 112.64%

Administrative

review 10/06/2008 73 FR 58113

03/01/2006-

02/28/2007 Max Fortune 0.00% 112.64%

Administrative

review 10/09/2009 74 FR 52176

03/01/2007-

02/29/2008 Max Fortune 14.25% 112.64%

Preliminary

results of

administrative

review 04/13/2010 75 FR 18812

03/01/2008-

02/28/2009 Max Fortune 112.64% --

Final results of

expedited

five-year review 06/10/2010 75 FR 32910 --

BA Marketing 112.64%

Everlasting 112.64%

Fujian Nanping 112.64%

Fuzhou Light 112.64%

Guilin Qifeng 112.64%

Max Fortune 112.64%

Ningbo Spring 112.64%

Qingdao Wenlong 112.64%

Samsam 112.64% 112.64%

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

 2

 Commerce ruled that no ministerial errors were made in the calculations of the weighted-average dumping margins. 

However, Commerce inadvertently identified Anhui Light as receiving a separate rate after previously determining that it did not

meet the Separate Rates criteria. Commerce also neglected to include BA Marketing, which qualified for and received a

separate rate. 70 FR 16223, March 30, 2005.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

I-6
Table I-2

Tissue paper: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years 2006-091 2

Year Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation Certification amount3 Amount disbursed

Percent4 Dollars

2006

Eagle 5.69 4,989,552.00 9,454.60

Flower City 8.11 7,117,001.98 13,485.85

Hallmark 7.70 6,759,561.00 12,808.55

Putney 8.23 7,223,072.00 13,686.84

Seaman 70.27 61,666,899.00 116,851.29

PACE 0.00 2,776.00 5.26

Total 100.00 87,758,861.98 166,292.39

2007

Eagle 4.68 10,281,429.92 26,590.15

Flower City 7.09 15,564,760.95 40,254.07

Garlock 19.41 42,631,411.00 110,254.68

Hallmark 4.81 10,556,487.45 27,301.51

Putney 5.66 12,434,457.16 32,158.38

Seaman 58.34 128,122,440.71 331,354.22

PACE 0.00 5,761.00 14.90

Total 100.00 219,596,748.19 567,927.91

2008

Eagle 4.70 11,727,762.77 195,976.11

Flower City 5.79 14,437,695.46 241,260.29

Garlock 19.61 48,936,465.32 817,750.02

Hallmark 4.68 11,685,516.94 195,270.17

Putney 5.58 13,915,376.78 232,532.11

Seaman 59.64 148,823,829.49 2,486,912.13

PACE 0.00 5,746.00 96.02

Total 100.00 249,532,392.76 4,169,796.85

2009

Eagle 4.97 11,522,332.06 31,055.77

Flower City 6.13 14,196,435.17 38,263.19

Garlock 20.77 48,118,715.30 129,692.80

Hallmark 4.96 11,490,246.77 30,969.29

Seaman 63.17 146,336,917.00 394,417.12

PACE 0.00 5,650.00 15.23

Total 100.00 231,670,296.30 624,413.40

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

 2

 No CDSOA claims or disbursements were made with respect to tissue paper from China prior to 2006.

 3

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

 4

 Total presented as reported in Annual Report may not add to figures shown.

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2004-09, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

I-7
Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

The Commission has conducted no other investigations or reviews concerning tissue 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.18 Commerce issued an

antidumping duty order on imports of certain folding gift boxes from China on January 8, 2002.19

Following affirmative expedited review determinations by the Commission and Commerce in 2007, the

antidumping duty order was continued.20

In addition, as discussed above, the Commission conducted an antidumping duty investigation on

crepe paper products from China in 2004-05, issuing a final affirmative determination on January 18,

2005.21 After receipt of the Commission’s final affirmative determination, Commerce issued an

antidumping duty order on imports of crepe paper from China.22 Following affirmative expedited review

determinations by the Commission and Commerce in 2010, the antidumping duty order was continued.23

The Commission also has conducted investigations on several paper products involving China,

including lightweight thermal paper from China, Germany, and Korea in 2008,24 coated free sheet paper

from China, Indonesia, and Korea in 2007,25 and certain lined paper school supplies from China, India,

and Indonesia in 2006.26 In addition, the preliminary phase of investigations on certain coated paper from

Indonesia and China was concluded in 2009, and the final phase is ongoing.27

 18 Folding Gift Boxes from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-921 (Final), USITC Publication 3480,

December 2001.

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

67 FR 864, January 8, 2002.

 20 Folding Gift Boxes From China, Investigation No. 731-TA-921 (Review), USITC Publication 3917, April 2007;

Folding Gift Boxes from the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order, 72 FR 28025,

May 18, 2007.

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

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

January 25, 2005.

 23 Certain Crepe Paper Products From the People’s Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty

Order, 75 FR 26919, May 13, 2010.

 24 Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China, Germany, and Korea, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-451 and

731-TA-1126-1127 (Final), USITC Publication 4043, November 2008.

 25 Coated Free Sheet Paper from China, Indonesia, and Korea, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-444-446 and

731-TA-1107-1109 (Final), USITC Publication 3965, December 2007.

 26 Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India, and Indonesia, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-442-443

and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Final), USITC Publication 3884, September 2006.

 27 Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from China and

Indonesia, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-470-471 and 731-TA-1169-1170 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4108,

November 2009.

I-8
THE PRODUCT

Scope

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

The tissue paper products subject to this order are cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper

having a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per square meter. Tissue paper products

subject to this order may or may not be bleached, dye-colored, surface-colored, glazed,

surface decorated or printed, sequined, crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The tissue

paper subject to this order is in the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper with a

width equal to or greater than one-half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue paper may be flat or

folded, and may be packaged by banding or wrapping with paper or film, by placing in

plastic or film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for distribution and use by the ultimate

consumer. Packages of tissue paper subject to this order may consist solely of tissue

paper of one color and/or style, or may contain multiple colors and/or styles. . . . 

Excluded from the scope of this order are the following tissue paper products: (1) tissue

paper products that are coated in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of a kind used in floral and

food service applications; (2) tissue paper products that have been perforated, embossed,

or die-cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., disposable sanitary covers for toilet seats;

(3) toilet or facial tissue stock, towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind used for household

or sanitary purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs of cellulose fibers (HTSUS

4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00).28 29

Commerce has received two separate requests for scope rulings and two separate requests for

circumvention inquiries since the original antidumping duty order date. The requestors, outcomes, and

completion dates of Commerce’s scope and circumvention rulings are listed in table I-3.

 28 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.

 29 Tariff treatment of this product is presented in the next section of this report. Although the HTS subheadings

are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

I-9
Table I-3

Tissue paper: Commerce’s scope and circumvention rulings

Requestor Scope/Circumvention ruling Date of completion

Federal Register

citation

Walgreen Co.

Exclusion request denied. The tissue paper in

its gift bag sets, consisting of one gift bag, one

crinkle bow, and one to six sheets of tissue

paper, is within the scope of the antidumping

duty order. September 19, 2008

73 FR 72771

(December 1, 2008)

QVC Corporation

Exclusion request denied. The tissue paper in

its gift wrap kits, each containing different

amounts and combinations of some or all of

the following components: gift bags, gift tins,

gift boxes, bows, wrapping paper, tissue

paper, gift tags, gift cards, gift card pouches,

ribbon and stickers, is within the scope of the

antidumping duty order. September 19, 2008

73 FR 72771

(December 1, 2008)

Seaman

Affirmative circumvention ruling. Certain

tissue paper products produced by Vietnam

Quijiang Paper Co., Ltd. (“Quijiang”)1

 are

circumventing the antidumping duty order. 

Quijiang circumvented the Order as a result of

its exports to the United States of PRC-origin

jumbo rolls converted to cut-to-length tissue

paper in Vietnam. October 3, 2008

73 FR 57591

(October 3, 2008)

Seaman

Affirmative circumvention ruling. Certain

tissue paper products exported to the United

States from Thailand by Sunlake Decor Co.,

Ltd. (“Sunlake”) are made from jumbo rolls

and/or cut sheets of tissue paper produced in

the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and are

circumventing the antidumping duty order. June 19, 2009

74 FR 29172

(June 19, 2009)

 1 Quijiang is wholly owned by Chinese producer Guilin Qifeng.

Note.–In February 2010, Commerce initiated a third anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether imports of tissue paper from

Vietnam, which petitioner Seaman alleges Max Fortune (Vietnam) made from jumbo rolls and cut sheets of tissue paper

produced in China, are circumventing the antidumping duty order. Max Fortune Vietnam is wholly owned by Chinese producer

Max Fortune. Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Anti-Circumvention

Inquiry, 75 FR 17127, April 5, 2010.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

U.S. Tariff Treatment

The tissue paper products subject to this review initially did not have distinct tariff or statistical

categories assigned to them under the HTS and thus could be imported under more than a dozen HTS

subheadings or statistical reporting numbers in Chapter 48, “Paper and paperboard; articles of paper pulp,

of paper or of paperboard,” and under one HTS statistical reporting number in Chapter 95, “Toys, games

and sports requisites; parts and accessories thereof.” Since the original investigation, four specific HTS

statistical reporting numbers for tissue paper were created effective July 1, 2005 to cover the subject

tissue paper when it is classifiable in four legal categories. These four statistical reporting numbers are

4804.39.4041; 4811.90.4010; 4811.90.6010; and 4811.90.9010. All general or NTR rates in Chapter 48

of the HTS are “free.”

I-10
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 was evenly divided on this issue. Chairman Koplan and Commissioners

Hillman and Lane defined the domestic like product as all tissue paper, co-extensive with Commerce’s

scope.30 Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioners Miller and Pearson, in contrast, found two domestic

like products and two domestic industries corresponding to bulk tissue paper and consumer tissue paper.31

According to Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Hillman and Lane, the record demonstrated a

significant degree of commonality in terms of physical characteristics and uses, and manufacturing

facilities, processes, and employees; mixed evidence respecting interchangeability and producer and

purchaser perceptions; and limited overlap in terms of channels of distribution and prices. These

Commissioners further noted that the most salient distinctions observed were more pertinent to the

conditions of competition in the tissue paper market rather than the like product definition.32 On the other

hand, Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioners Miller and Pearson cited differences in physical

characteristics and uses, limited interchangeability, differing customer and producer perceptions, distinct

channels of distribution, and significant price differences for defining the domestic like product as

consisting of two separate like products: bulk tissue paper and consumer tissue paper.33 

Arguing that the three-member Commission majority made errors in its single like product and

domestic industry definitions (as well as its volume, price, and impact findings), Cleo Inc., its subsidiary,

Crystal Creative Products, Inc., (at that time a domestic producer and importer of tissue paper) and Target

Corp. (at that time a purchaser and importer of tissue paper) appealed the Commission’s affirmative

determination to the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and later to the United States

Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). On August 31, 2006, the CIT sustained the

Commission’s affirmative determination in all respects and, on September 10, 2007, the Federal Circuit

similarly affirmed the determination of the Commission.34

The information regarding the nature of tissue paper (including bulk and consumer tissue paper)

is unchanged since the original investigation. The domestic producers of tissue paper participating in this

review indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution that they agree with the

Commission’s definitions of one domestic like product and one domestic industry.35

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

3758, March 2005, pp. 4-10. As discussed in greater detail below, this finding (among other issues) was appealed

unsuccessfully by three of the original respondents.

 31 Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioners Miller and Pearson determined that an industry in the United States

was materially injured by reason of imports of bulk tissue paper from China that was found by Commerce to be sold

in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and that an industry in the United States was not materially

injured or threatened with material injury, and the establishment of an industry in the United States was not

materially retarded, by reason of imports of consumer tissue paper from China, that was found by Commerce to be

sold in the United States at LTFV. Certain Tissue Paper Products From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B

(Final), USITC Publication 3758, March 2005, pp. 27-32 (Dissenting Views).

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

3758, March 2005, pp. 8-9.

 33 Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, Commissioner Marcie E. Miller, and Commissioner

Daniel R. Pearson, pp. 27-32.

 34 Cleo Inc. v. United States, 30 Ct. Int’l Trade (2006), aff’d, 501 F. 3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

 35 Domestic Producers’ Response at 32.

I-11
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. In the original investigation, the Commission

defined the domestic industry to include all domestic producers of bulk and consumer tissue paper,

whether those producers are integrated or operate as converters.36 During the original investigation, the

domestic industry producing certain tissue paper consisted of 12 established companies, the largest of

which were ***.37 Four of the 12 established companies were vertically integrated firms that

manufactured jumbo rolls and other firms were converters that purchased jumbo rolls and produced

finished tissue paper from the purchased rolls.38 The U.S. industry data presented in the Commission’s

staff report in the original investigation were based on the questionnaire responses of 10 tissue paper

producers that were believed to have accounted for nearly all U.S. production of certain tissue paper

products during 2003.39 The Commission found in the original investigation that the following five

established U.S. producers or former producers imported or purchased imports of the subject merchandise

produced in China during the original investigation period for which information was collected: ***. 

However, the Commission determined that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude these

producers from the domestic industry.40

According to the domestic producers’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this

review, there are currently six producers of tissue paper products in the United States: Seaman, Eagle,

Flower City, Garlock, Hallmark, and Putney. The five domestic interested parties participating in this

review accounted for approximately 95 percent of total U.S. domestic production.41 Two domestic

producers, Seaman and Garlock, were identified as related parties in their response. The domestic

producers explained that ***.42 In addition, the domestic producers reported that *** imported into the

United States *** square meters (*** pounds, $***) of subject merchandise from China during ***. 

They explained that ***’s subject imports accounted for *** percent of ***’s domestic production of

tissue paper since the imposition of the order. Furthermore, they indicated that ***.

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

3758, March 2005, p. 9. Converters make finished products from purchased jumbo rolls of tissue paper; integrated

producers make the jumbo rolls as well as the finished downstream products. Certain Tissue Paper Products From

China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC Publication 3758, March 2005, p. 9.

 37 Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), February

18, 2005 (INV-CC-014), p. I-3. Crystal, formerly one of the larger U.S. producers, was closing its tissue paper

operations during the original investigation.

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

3758, March 2005, p. I-9.

 39 Ibid., p. III-1. DMD Industries (“DMD”) and Printwrap Corp. (“Printwrap”), producers of certain tissue paper

products, did not complete questionnaires during the original investigation. The production and U.S. shipments of

these producers combined were believed to account for a modest share of the U.S. market during the period

examined. In addition, Glitterwrap Inc. and Standard Quality Corp. reportedly began production in the second half

of 2004 but provided few details regarding their operations. Certain Tissue Paper Products From China: 

Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC Publication 3758, March 2005, p. III-1 n. 1.

 40 Confidential Views of the Commission, pp. 12-16.

 41 The production coverage figure presented for the five responding domestic producers was provided in the

domestic producers’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review.

 42 The domestic producers reported that *** produced *** square meters of tissue paper products during 2009,

which was estimated to have accounted for less than *** percent of total Chinese production and exports to the

United States of certain tissue paper products during 2009. They also reported that *** total 2009 capacity of ***

represented less than *** percent of the capacity to produce tissue paper in China. Domestic Producers’ Response at

30; Response to Commission’s Letter Regarding Domestic Producers’ Substantive Response, pp. 2-3 and n.3.

I-12
Physical Characteristics and Uses43

Subject tissue paper is of a class of lightweight paper (no greater than 29 grams per square meter)

that generally exhibits a gauze-like, fairly transparent character. Available in a variety of colors, designs,

and packaging, it tends to be used for the wrapping of product within a box or bag, decorative purposes,

or as a lightweight gift wrap. Certain tissue paper products are cut-to-length sheets that are produced

from rolls of flat tissue paper (i.e., jumbo rolls)44 and are sold either flat or folded. Basis weights for

subject tissue paper products reportedly range from 13.8 grams per square meter to 24.4 grams per square

meter, and the ink for printed designs may add as much as an additional 4.9 to 6.5 grams per square

meter.

Although subject tissue paper is available in standard or custom colors, printed designs, and

packaging, white tissue paper is a large part of the U.S. market. The industry recognizes four different

grades of white tissue based on the whiteness and brightness of the tissue paper. Lower grades of white

tissue paper reportedly have little decorative value and are used principally as dunnage to stuff or wrap

items such as shoes and handbags.

The tissue paper covered by this proceeding is generally sold in two forms, consumer and bulk. 

“Consumer” tissue paper is sold packaged for retail sale to consumers, while “bulk” tissue paper is

typically used by businesses as a wrap to protect customer purchases. Both forms are converted from

jumbo rolls of flat tissue paper and sold in a range of dimensions, frequently in white or solid colors. In

terms of form, bulk tissue is typically sold in flat sheets, but is also sold in quire-folded sheets (in which a

stack of sheets is folded as a unit). Consumer tissue paper is typically sold in folds, although it is

occasionally sold in flat format. In terms of sheet count, bulk tissue is typically sold by the ream

(480-500 sheets), but may also be sold in half reams (250 sheets) or in multiple ream packaging. 

Consumer tissue is typically sold packaged for sale as a retail item in smaller quantities, although sheet

counts for seasonal packages and club counts range from 90 to 400 sheets.45

Manufacturing Process46

Vertically integrated producers also manufacture rolls of tissue paper, or jumbo rolls, the

principal upstream raw material for certain tissue paper products, while others are converters that

purchase jumbo rolls. Typically, the U.S. paper mills that make rolls of flat tissue paper do not have pulp

mills and, therefore, rely on purchases of market pulp and/or waste paper. Bales of dried pulp and/or

waste paper are put into a repulper (essentially a very large blender) along with water, dyes, and chemical

additives. A revolving agitator stirs the mixture thereby separating the individual wood fibers. Refiners

clean and condition the resulting pulp slurry before it is pumped to storage chests to await delivery to the

paper machine.

Next, the pulp slurry is pumped to the “wet end” of the paper machine, which forms a thin sheet

of pulp in a continuous process. Water drains from the sheet as it is formed and conveyed to the press

section. The press forms the sheet squeezing out more water, after which the sheet enters the dryer

section to be dried. Tissue paper machines have either a conventional or Yankee dryer. A conventional

 43 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Certain Tissue

Paper Products From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC Publication 3758, March 2005.

 44 Subject tissue paper is made from flat rather than dry-creped tissue paper, the latter of which is used for

sanitary or household purposes.

 45 For a more detailed discussion of consumer tissue versus bulk tissue, see Appendix D.

 46 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Certain Tissue

Paper Products From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC Publication 3758, March 2005,

pp. I-9-I-12.

I-13
dryer has two or more tiers of steam-heated cylinders 30 to 60 inches (0.8 to 1.5 meters) in diameter

which dry the sheet as it passes over and under successive cylinders. A conventional dryer imparts an

unburnished finish to the sheet called a machine finish (MF). A Yankee dryer is particularly effective

drying lightweight papers and consists of one large, steam-heated cylinder 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters)

in diameter that dries the sheet completely as it passes once around. The cylinder is polished and imparts

a hard, smooth finish called a machine glaze (MG).47

As the paper exits the dryer, it is wound onto a large reel. Once filled, the reel is hoisted by an

overhead crane to a winder that is in line with the back end of the paper machine. The winder unwinds

the reel, slits the sheet to the appropriate width, and rewinds the sheet onto paperboard cores. The

resulting jumbo rolls are wrapped with kraft paper or shrink wrap for protection during transit. Diameters

and widths of the rolls vary depending on the attributes of the converting equipment for which the paper

is intended. If necessary, tissue paper products are typically printed on high speed, multicolor, web-fed

(rotary), flexographic presses. Modern presses yield intricate graphic designs and greatly increase

manufacturers’ printing capacity. Customers may have their own seasonal designs, and their tissue

purchases may become part of a coordinated product line.

Jumbo rolls intended for bulk and consumer tissue paper may be produced from the same reel of

tissue paper. Bulk and consumer tissue paper often are printed on the same presses and typically share

the same basic converting process, which includes sheeting, folding, and packaging. Because tissue paper

is lightweight and lacks stiffness, it is not possible to cut individual sheets. Therefore, converting lines

have multiple back stands (i.e., roll stands), and multiple sheets (commonly 10 or 24 sheets) are converted

simultaneously to ensure that the web has enough rigidity to feed properly. Electric charges may be

imparted to the sheets in order to “pin” them together. Generally, sheeters are rotary knives that cut the

tissue paper at regular intervals as the web advances through the machine. Wider sheeters may also slit

the web longitudinally in addition to the perpendicular cuts being made by the rotary knife. Guillotines

also are used to cut large quantities of sheets to size at one time.

Production of tissue folds requires the paper be folded in two directions, both parallel and

perpendicular to the direction of the machine. On a particular converting line, the folding equipment may

be interspersed with the sheeting equipment. Folds made parallel to the machine flow are made before

sheeting while the paper is still a continuous web. Then, the folded web is cut with a rotary sheeter as

described above. Once cut to size, the sheets are folded perpendicular to machine flow by a tucker;

additional tucks may be made depending on the size of the package. Stepped folds are made by offsetting

different colored rolls by 1 inch on the roll stands. The offset is maintained throughout folding and

sheeting, and once packaged, the different colors can be seen through the package.

Once sheeting and folding are complete, tissue paper may be packaged in a variety of ways. In a

continuous process, form, fill, and seal equipment automatically wraps a tissue fold in plastic film and

seals the ends of each package. A three-step process is used for preformed plastic bags. A jet of air

opens the mouth of the bag, the tissue fold is inserted, and the open end is sealed. Larger, hard to handle

products (e.g., flat and quire-folded reams) may be packaged in plastic wrap using “L” bagger equipment,

which requires more manual labor to insert the product and seal the bag. If necessary, a certain number of

individual packages may be further packed in wholesale bags, which help the distributors control their

shipments and quantities. Finally, the individual packages or wholesale packages are packed manually

into corrugated containers for shipping.

 47 In general, MG papers are especially suited for printed tissue paper, especially those with intricate designs. 

However, the amount of gloss varies from sheet to sheet depending on how highly polished the surface of a

particular Yankee dryer is, so MG papers produced on different machines would exhibit a range of finishes.

I-14
Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

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

substitutability between domestically produced tissue paper and subject imports from China. Most U.S.

producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers reportedly perceived tissue paper produced in the United

States and in China to be “always” or “frequently” interchangeable.48

Channels of Distribution49

During the period examined in the original investigation, U.S. shipments of tissue paper,

domestically-produced and from China, were directed to three channels of distribution: distributors,

retailers, and end users. Overall, in terms of share of U.S. shipments, 64.7 percent of U.S. producers’

U.S. shipments were to distributors in 2003, while 34.7 percent were to retailers in the same year. In

contrast, 19.9 percent of U.S. shipment of imports were to distributors in 2003, compared to 51.8 percent

to retailers and 28.2 percent to end users. Between 2001 and 2003 there was a marked increase in

shipments to end users by U.S. retailers that were importing tissue paper directly.50

In the original investigation, the Commission noted that in 2001, 3.4 percent of consumer tissue

paper shipments of subject imports and 100.0 percent of bulk tissue paper shipments were to distributors. 

This fell to 1.3 percent for consumer tissue paper and to 77.3 percent for bulk tissue paper in 2003. For

imports of bulk tissue paper, virtually all of the remainder was imported directly by retailers. With

respect to consumer tissue paper, the share of shipments by importers to retailers fell from 84.9 percent in

2001 to 68.6 percent in 2003. Direct imports by retailers, however, rose from 11.8 percent in 2001 to

30.1 percent in 2003.

Pricing

During the original investigation the Commission collected pricing data for four tissue paper

products–three consumer and one bulk–to unrelated customers. In addition to providing quarterly sales

price data for each product, importers and U.S. producers were asked to specify if the products were sold

to distributors or retailers. Of the 45 quarters for which direct comparisons were available, subject

imports undersold the domestic product in 33 quarters by a combined weighted average margin of

*** percent.51 Consistent with the pattern of underselling revealed by the price data, the vast majority of

purchasers (16 of 20) reported that the Chinese product was lower-priced than the domestic product.

In the original investigation, purchasers identified the three major factors considered by their firm

in deciding from whom to purchase tissue paper. Purchasers cited price more frequently than any other

factor. Price was cited most often as the most important factor with respect to bulk tissue paper

purchases, and the second most important factor (after quality) with respect to consumer tissue paper

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

3758, March 2005, pp. 16-17.

 49 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Certain Tissue

Paper Products From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC Publication 3758, March 2005, pp.

15-16 and table I-3.

 50 The Commission further noted that the increasing share of subject imports procured as direct imports by

retailers reflects the growing role of mass merchandisers. These entities may purchase products via reverse internet

auctions. Mass merchandisers such as Target may procure tissue paper in conjunction with other items, such as gift

bags, gift boxes, or roll wrap, thereby requiring vendors seeking Target’s business to source items from different

manufacturers.

 51 Confidential Views of the Commission, pp. 26-30.

I-15
purchases. The Commission observed that the significance of price in this comparison was revealed

further by the fact that virtually all responding purchasers identified the quality of domestically produced

tissue paper and subject imports from China as comparable.52

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 10 domestic producers that accounted for nearly all U.S. production of certain tissue paper

products during 2003. At that time, the domestic industry producing certain tissue paper consisted of

12 established companies.53 Four of the 12 established companies were vertically integrated firms that

manufactured jumbo rolls and other firms were converters that purchased jumbo rolls and produced

finished tissue paper from the purchased rolls. The largest U.S. producers that participated in the original

investigation and their shares of reported domestic production for subject tissue paper during 2003 were

as follows: Crystal (*** percent), Eagle (*** percent), Flower City (*** percent), Garlock (*** percent),

Putney (*** percent), and Seaman (*** percent).54 55

The domestic interested parties reported in their response that there are currently six domestic

producers of certain tissue paper products.56 Five of the 10 participants from the original investigation

responded to the Commission’s notice of institution of this review. Table I-4 lists the ten original

participating firms, each firm’s location(s), and shares of reported production in 2003 and 2009.

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

3758, March 2005, pp. 16-17. Commissioners that focused on bulk tissue paper and consumer tissue paper as

separate like products noted that, with respect to the latter, “(p)rice plays an important role in sales of consumer

tissue products but was not the overriding consideration,” and later observed that underselling by U.S. imports of

consumer tissue paper from China was “limited.” Certain Tissue Paper Products From China: Investigation No.

731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC Publication 3758, March 2005, pp. 40-41.

 53 DMD and Printwrap did not complete questionnaires during the original investigation. The production and

U.S. shipments of these producers combined were believed to account for a modest share of the U.S. market during

the period examined. Certain Tissue Paper Products From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC

Publication 3758, March 2005, p. III-1 n.1.

 54 Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), February

18, 2005 (INV-CC-014), p. III-2 and table III-1.

 55 During the period for which data were collected in the original investigation, Eagle, Flower City, Garlock,

Green Mountain, Paper Service, and Putney’s domestic production operations consisted mostly, if not exclusively, of

bulk tissue paper. Crystal, Hallmark and Pacon’s operations were mostly, if not exclusively, of consumer tissue. 

Crystal and Seaman, whose production constituted more than *** of total U.S. production during the original period

examined, produced both bulk and consumer tissue paper. Certain Tissue Paper Products From China: 

Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC Publication 3758, March 2005, table III-1.

 56 See domestic producers’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review.

I-16
Table I-4

Tissue paper: U.S. producers, locations, and company shares of 2003 and 2009 total domestic

production

Firm Location Related Companies

Share of

2003

reported

production

(percent)

Estimated

share of

2009

reported

production

(percent)

Crystal1 Memphis, TN

Wholly owned by Cleo,

Inc., which is wholly

owned by CSS

Industries, Inc. ***

Ceased

production

Eagle South Windsor, CT None *** ***

Flower City3 Rochester, NY None *** ***

Garlock Gardner, MA

Seaman owns ***

percent *** ***

Green Mountain Bellows Falls, VT None *** (2

)

Hallmark4 Kansas City, MO

Hallmark is related to a

group of companies as

diverse as television

programming, crayons

and artists’ supplies,

printing, retail

merchandising, and

residential and

commercial real estate. *** (2)

Pacon Appleton, WI N/A *** (2

)

Paper Service Ashuelot, NH None *** (2

)

Putney Putney, VT None *** ***

Seaman5

Otter River, MA

Gardner, MA

MBW Inc.; Specialized

Paper Converting, Inc.;

Garlock Printing &

Converting Inc. *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0

 1 Crystal was identified as an importer of subject merchandise in the original investigation. According to Crystal,

the reason the company decided to import certain tissue paper from China was to ***. But see Views of the

Commission at 33 & 13-14.

 2

 Not available.

 3

 Flower City was identified as an importer of subject merchandise in the original investigation. The reason the

company decided to import certain tissue paper from China was ***. 

 4

 ***.

 5

 Seaman was identified as an importer of subject merchandise in the original investigation. The reason the

company decided to import subject tissue paper from China was ***.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final),

February 18, 2005 (INV-CC-014), table III-1; Domestic Producers’ Response.

I-17
During the original investigation, Crystal was a leading importer of tissue paper from China. The

company was reportedly “the largest supplier of tissue paper in the U.S. market in the 1980s and the

1990s.” In October 2002, Cleo, a subsidiary of CSS Industries and importer of the subject merchandise,

acquired Crystal. Cleo sold assets related to Crystal’s bulk tissue business in July 2003 and closed

Crystal’s primary manufacturing facility in Maysville, KY, in October 2003. To mitigate the effect of

antidumping duties resulting from the original investigation, however, Crystal resumed tissue converting

operations at its Maysville facility in 2004.57 In addition, CSS Industries stated that it was “evaluating

sourcing arrangements outside of China” for tissue paper in 2004. After the imposition of the

antidumping duty order on subject tissue paper in 2005, CSS Industries incurred an expense of

approximately $2.3 million in fiscal year 2005 to cover antidumping duties from importing Chinese tissue

paper. The company stated that it had no intention of importing subject tissue paper from China in the

future. In fiscal year 2007, CSS Industries reported the closure of Cleo’s Maysville facility.58

U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Table I-5 presents data reported by U.S. producers of tissue paper in the Commission’s original

investigation and in response to its five-year review institution notice. Data presented for the period

examined in the final phase of the original investigation were provided by 10 producers (Crystal, Eagle,

Flower City, Garlock, Green Mountain, Hallmark, Pacon, Paper Service, Putney, and Seaman) that were

believed to represent nearly all of U.S. production of tissue paper during January 2001-September 2004. 

Data presented for 2009 were provided by five producers (Eagle, Flower City, Garlock, Putney, and

Seaman) that are believed to represent *** percent of tissue paper production during 2009.59

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

3758, March 2005, pp. III-5-III-6.

 58 CSS Industries, SEC 10-K for fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2007, filed on June 14, 2004; June 1, 2005; and

June 6, 2007, respectively.

 59 The domestic interested parties accounted for the great majority of reported domestic production during the

period examined in the original investigation.

I-18
Table I-5

Tissue paper: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 2001-03, JanuarySeptember 2003, January-September 2004, and 20091

(Quantity=1,000 square meters; unit values and unit labor costs=$/1,000 square meters)

Item 2001 2002 2003

January-September

2003 2004 2009

Capacity1 3,722,201 3,878,349 3,814,081 2,737,161 2,579,323 ***

Production 2,079,215 2,221,313 1,730,868 1,249,484 1,156,725 ***

Capacity utilization (percent) 55.9 57.3 45.4 45.6 44.8 ***

U.S. shipments:

 Quantity 2,050,248 2,109,769 1,675,321 1,113,738 1,071,459 ***

 Value ($1,000) 118,875 121,388 93,879 62,552 65,091 ***

 Unit value $57.98 $57.54 $56.04 $56.16 $60.75 $***

Exports:

 Quantity 41,388 46,767 47,304 28,915 30,662 (2

)

 Value ($1,000) 2,265 2,436 2,373 1,453 1,621 (2

)

 Unit value $54.73 $52.09 $50.16 $50.25 $52.87 (2

)

Total shipments:

 Quantity 2,091,636 2,156,536 1,722,625 1,142,653 1,102,121 (2

)

 Value ($1,000) 121,140 123,824 96,252 64,005 66,712 (2

)

 Unit value $57.92 $57.42 $55.88 $56.01 $60.53 (2

)

End-of-period inventories 303,427 368,103 376,345 467,599 431,195 (2

)

Production and related workers

(number) 592 571 428 413 437 (2

)

Hours worked (1,000 hours) 1,219 1,188 1,018 725 670 (2

)

Wages paid ($1,000) 14,652 15,556 13,805 9,643 9,180 (2

)

Hourly wages $12.02 $13.09 $13.57 $13.30 $13.70 (2

)

Productivity (1,000 square

meters/hour) 1,705.7 1,869.5 1,701.1 1,723.3 1,726.8 (2

)

Unit labor costs $7.05 $7.00 $7.98 $7.72 $7.94 (2

)

Net sales ($1,000) 124,967 121,342 91,934 63,935 66,709 ***

Cost of goods sold ($1,000) 92,831 91,627 66,918 47,705 48,231 ***

Gross profit or (loss) ($1,000) 32,135 29,715 25,016 16,230 18,478 ***

SG&A expenses ($1,000) 23,908 24,672 21,403 15,059 15,771 ***

Operating income or (loss)

($1,000) 8,228 5,044 3,613 1,171 2,707 ***

Operating income (loss)/sales

(percent) 6.6 4.2 3.9 1.8 4.1 ***

 1 Data presented for 2001-03, January-September 2003, and January-September 2004 were provided by 10 producers (Crystal,

Eagle, Flower City, Garlock, Green Mountain, Hallmark, Pacon, Paper Service, Putney, and Seaman). These 10 firms were

believed to have represented nearly all of U.S. production of tissue paper during the period for which data were collected. Data

presented for 2009 were provided by five producers (Eagle, Flower City, Garlock, Putney, and Seaman) that are believed to

represent *** percent of tissue paper production during 2009.

 2

 Not available.

Note.–Separate data for bulk and consumer tissue paper appear in App. C.

Source: Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), February 18, 2005

(INV-CC-014), tables III-2, III-3, III-4, III-5, and VI-1; Domestic Producers’ Response.

I-19
During the period examined in the original investigation, the domestic industry’s capacity,

production, and capacity utilization increased between 2001 and 2002, but were lower in 2003 and in

interim 2004 (relative to interim 2003). This reflects in part the temporary (and later permanent) closure

of Crystal.60 Accordingly, the largest reductions in production and capacity during the period for which

data were collected correspond to the periods in which consumer tissue paper production (2003) and

capacity (January-September 2004) declined most noticeably. U.S. shipment volume increased somewhat

in 2002 before decreasing in 2003 (primarily as a result of lower consumer tissue paper shipments) and

into 2004 (as a result of lower bulk tissue paper shipments).61 Unit values of U.S. shipments decreased

from 2001 to 2003, but increased by 8.2 percent in January-September 2004 from January-September

2003. Average hours worked decreased gradually in relatively small increments from 2001 to 2003, and

were 7.6 percent lower in January-September 2004 than in January-September 2003. Hourly wages

increased by 12.9 percent from 2001 to 2003 and were 3.0 percent higher in interim 2004 than in interim

2003. The operating income margin decreased from 2001 to 2003, but improved in interim 2004

compared with interim 2003. Total net sales also decreased during the same period, but improved slightly

in January-September 2004 when compared with January-September 2003. The trend was similar in total

gross profit and operating income.

During the period examined in this five-year review, production capacity, production volume,

U.S. shipment quantity, value, unit value, net sales, cost of goods sold, gross profit, SG&A expenses, and

operating income for calendar/fiscal year 2009 are the only industry indicators available. U.S. production

in 2009 was lower than production during the original investigation, by *** percent compared to 2001

and by *** percent compared to 2003. Production capacity increased by *** percent in 2009 when

compared with 2003, while capacity utilization was *** percent in 2009, a decrease from *** percent in

2003. The operating income margin increased from 3.9 percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2009. U.S.

shipments in terms of quantity decreased by *** percent in 2009 when compared to 2003. The trend was

similar in net sales, which decreased by *** percent in 2009 when compared with 2003. Average unit

values were slightly higher in 2009 than in 2001-03.

The following tabulation presents Seaman’s trade and financial data for 2009 compared with

those of Eagle, Flower City, Garlock, and Putney. Seaman is the dominant remaining producer of

consumer tissue paper from the original investigation (although it produced and sold substantial quantities

of bulk tissue as well). The other four companies that provided data, Eagle, Flower City, Garlock, and

Putney, produced and sold *** in the original investigation.62

* * * * * * *

 60 Crystal was acquired in October 2002 by Cleo, a subsidiary of CSS Industries. The company subsequently sold

assets related to Crystal’s bulk tissue business in July 2003 and closed Crystal’s primary manufacturing facility in

October 2003. During the original investigation, a company official elaborated in testimony that raw material supply

was a driving factor in the closure of Crystal’s tissue paper operations. To mitigate the effect of any duties resulting

from the Commission’s investigation, however, Crystal temporarily resumed tissue converting operations. Certain

Tissue Paper Products From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), USITC Publication 3758, March

2005, pp. III-5-III-6.

 61 Crystal’s U.S. shipments decreased from *** in 2003; however, seven of the nine other domestic producers of

tissue paper also experienced declining domestic shipments in 2003, the exceptions being ***. Staff Report on

Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), February 18, 2005 (INV-CC014), p. III-10.

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

3758, March 2005, table III-1; Domestic Producers’ Response, exhibit 10.

I-20
Related Party Issues

In the original investigation, the Commission identified ***, and Cleo/Crystal as related parties

by virtue of their importation of subject merchandise.63 However, the Commission determined that

appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude these producers from the domestic industry. The

domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this

review that *** are related parties. The domestic producers explained that, ***. In addition, the domestic

producers reported that *** imported into the United States *** square meters (***, $***) of subject

merchandise from China during 2009. They explained that ***.64

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports65

The Commission reported in its original investigation that at least 42 U.S. companies imported

certain tissue paper from China, the largest of which were ***, accounting for *** of subject tissue paper

imports from China in 2003.66 The Commission sent questionnaires to 189 firms identified as U.S.

importers of tissue paper from all countries in the petition and from a review of Customs data for the

basket categories that included tissue paper in the final phase of the original investigation. Usable data on

imports of certain tissue paper products were received from 38 firms, 21 of which were importers of

subject tissue paper from China during 2001.67

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review, the domestic producers

identified approximately 250 U.S. importers of the subject tissue paper from China but noted that U.S.

imports of tissue paper from China have “retreated substantially from the U.S. market following

imposition of the order.” According to official import statistics, U.S. imports of tissue paper from China

during 2009 was valued at approximately $6.2 million.68 China, however, is no longer the largest source

 63 Confidential Views of the Commission, pp. 12-16.

 64 The domestic producers reported that *** produced *** square meters of tissue paper products during 2009,

which was estimated to have accounted for less than *** percent of total Chinese production and exports to the

United States of certain tissue paper products during 2009. They also reported that *** total 2009 capacity of ***

represented less than *** percent of the capacity to produce tissue paper in China. Domestic Producers’ Response at

30; Response to Commission’s Letter Regarding Domestic Producers’ Substantive Response, pp. 2-3 and n.3.

 65 Staff excluded Canada and Japan from the data despite seemingly substantial importation of tissue paper. Unit

values for imports from Canada were exceptionally low. Moreover, the manufacturer that accounted for the vast

majority of imports is not known to produce tissue paper products subject to the antidumping duty order. Unit

values for imports from Japan were exceptionally high.

 66 Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), February

18, 2005 (INV-CC-014), p. IV-4. In 2004, lower imports by *** were offset by higher imports by ***. Staff Report

on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), February 18, 2005

(INV-CC-014), p. IV-4 n. 6.

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

3758, March 2005, IV-1.

 68 The import data presented for 2006-09 are for subject tissue paper classified in official import statistics under

the HTS statistical reporting numbers 4804.39.4041, 4811.90.4010, 4811.90.6010, and 4811.90.9010.

I-21
of U.S. imports of tissue paper. Indeed, Target, the *** importer of subject merchandise in the original

investigation, continues to sell imported consumer tissue paper from such sources as Indonesia.69

Annual data for tissue paper for the period 2001-09 are presented in table I-6. Data are not

available for 2004 and 2005 due to the lack of distinct statistical reporting numbers for certain tissue

paper products under the HTS. Import volume increased sharply throughout the original period

examined, rising from 204.1 million square meters in 2001 to 328.1 million square meters in 2002, and

further to *** square meters in 2003 (an increase between 2001 and 2003 of approximately 268 percent). 

The trend was similar for the value of U.S. imports of tissue paper from China, with an increase of

76.2 percent from 2001 to 2002 and a continued increase of 146.4 percent from 2002 to 2003. Imports

from nonsubject countries did not have share in the U.S. market prior to 2003.

Since the period of the original investigation, the value of U.S. imports of tissue paper from

China decreased by 79.3 percent, from 2003 to 2009.70 However, the value of subject imports rose

steadily from 2006 to 2009, increasing by 25.6 percent from 2006-07, by 33.8 percent from 2007-08, and

by 43.3 percent from 2008-09, for a total increase of 140.8 percent throughout the entire period. Max

Fortune, a respondent and foreign producer in the original investigation, received reduced antidumping

duty rates from 2007 to 2009 as a result of administrative reviews.71 Max Fortune’s antidumping duty

rate was 0.07 percent in 2007, 0.00 percent in 2008, and 14.25 percent in 2009.72 Max Fortune had

previously operated under the country-wide antidumping duty rate at the time the antidumping duty order

was instituted.73

 69 See, e.g., EDIS, Document ID 424241. A Target witness testifying in the final phase of the original

investigation regarding the firm’s likely actions in the event of an antidumping duty on tissue paper from China,

stated that “We would not change our product assortments, so we would be seeking alternate suppliers in other

countries, other areas.” Hearing transcript, p. 303 (Kelly).

 70 Staff notes that this comparison is between ITC questionnaire data (2003) and Commerce import data (2009).

 71 In its questionnaire response during the original investigation, Max Fortune reported that it accounted for ***

percent of Chinese imports to the United States. 

 72 Final Results of Administrative Reviews 2004-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008. 72 FR 58642, October 16,

2007; 73 FR 58113, October 6, 2008; 74 FR 52176, October 9, 2009.

 73 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-22
Table I-6

Tissue paper: U.S. imports, by source, 2001-03 and 2006-09

Source 2001 2002 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 square meters)

China 204,082 328,119 751,352 68,393 59,952 135,207 137,610

All others1 0 0 *** 533,569 517,336 443,452 374,219

 Total imports 204,082 328,119 *** 601,961 577,288 578,660 511,829

Value ($1,000)

China 6,936 12,218 30,104 2,592 3,256 4,355 6,242

All others1 0 0 *** 24,573 24,912 22,034 16,655

 Total imports 6,936 12,218 *** 27,166 28,167 26,389 22,897

Unit value (per 1,000 square meters)

China $33.98 $37.24 $40.07 $37.90 $54.30 $32.21 $45.36

All others1 (

2

) (2) *** 46.05 48.15 49.69 44.51

 Average total

imports 33.98 37.24 *** 45.13 48.79 45.60 44.73

Share of value (percent)

China 100.0 100.0 *** 9.5 11.6 16.5 27.3

All others1 (

2

) (2) *** 90.5 88.4 83.5 72.7

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 The largest “other” sources and their respective shares of the total value of imported tissue paper during 2009

include the following: Indonesia (43.5 percent), India (15.2 percent), Vietnam (8.7 percent), and Thailand 

(0.4 percent).

 2

 Not applicable.

Note.--Data are not available for 2004 and 2005 due to the lack of distinct statistical reporting numbers for certain

tissue paper products under the HTS.

Note.--Conversion factor of 16 grams per square meter. While the Commission’s unit of measurement for subject

tissue paper is 1,000 square meters, official Commerce statistics report data in kilograms. The only Chinese

producer that addressed the issue of basis weights in its questionnaire in the original investigation used an average

basis weight of *** grams per square meter to convert the firm’s production to square meters. Also, U.S. basis

weights reportedly range from approximately 14 to 18 grams per square meter for tissue paper without printing. 

Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), February 18,

2005 (INV-CC-014), p. VII-2 n. 14 and p. VII-3.

Note.--Imports from Canada and Japan excluded. Unit values for imports from Canada were exceptionally low. 

Moreover, the manufacturer that accounted for the vast majority of imports is not known to produce tissue paper

products subject to the antidumping duty order. Unit values for imports from Japan were exceptionally high.

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final),

February 18, 2005 (INV-CC-014), table IV-2 (2001-03), official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting

numbers 4804.39.4041, 4811.90.4010, 4811.90.6010, and 4811.90.9010 (2006-09).

I-23
Bulk and Consumer Tissue Paper Imports

U.S. imports of bulk tissue paper from China accounted for all imports of bulk tissue paper

throughout the period for which data were collected in the original investigation. The quantity of U.S.

imports of bulk tissue paper from China increased from *** square meters in 2001 to *** square meters

in 2002 and to *** square meters in 2003, and was *** square meters in January-September 2004,

compared with *** square meters in January-September 2003. The value of U.S. imports of bulk tissue

paper from China increased from $*** in 2001 to $*** in 2002 and to $*** in 2003, and was $*** in

January-September 2004, compared with $*** in January-September 2003. The average unit values of

U.S. imports of bulk tissue paper from China decreased from $*** per thousand square meters in 2001 to

$*** per thousand square meters in 2002 and to $*** per thousand square meters in 2003, but was $***

per thousand square meters in January-September 2004, compared with *** per thousand square meters

in January-September 2003.74

U.S. imports of consumer tissue paper from China accounted for all imports of consumer tissue

paper in 2001 and 2002, and the vast majority throughout the remainder of the period for which data were

collected in the original investigation. The quantity of U.S. imports of consumer tissue paper from China

increased from *** square meters in 2001 to *** square meters in 2002 and to *** square meters in 2003,

but was *** square meters in January-September 2004, compared with *** square meters in

January-September 2003. The value of U.S. imports of consumer tissue paper from China increased from

$*** in 2001 to $*** in 2002 and to $*** in 2003, but was $*** in January-September 2003 and

January-September 2004. The average unit values of U.S. imports of consumer tissue paper from China

increased from $*** per thousand square meters in 2001 to $*** per thousand square meters in 2002 and

to $*** per thousand square meters in 2003, and was $*** per thousand square meters in

January-September 2004, compared with $*** in January-September 2003.75 

Staff notes that, based on average unit values, current imports appear to consist primarily of

consumer tissue paper.

Leading Nonsubject Sources of Imports

During the period examined in the original investigation, there were no nonsubject imports until

2003. There was a substantial increase in 2009 when compared to 2003. Using comparable data from

2006-09, nonsubject imports were relatively steady from 2006-07, decreased by 11.6 percent in terms of

value from 2007-08, then decreased further by 24.4 percent in terms of value from 2008-09. During the

period for which data were collected, imports of subject tissue paper entered the United States from a

variety of sources. The largest source of certain tissue paper products in 2009 was Indonesia with imports

valued at $10.0 million (43.5 percent of all imports). Other leading sources of tissue paper include: 

India, Vietnam, and Thailand, which accounted for 15.2 percent, 8.7 percent, and 0.4 percent of 2009

U.S. import share respectively. As discussed previously, Commerce found circumvention of the subject

order with respect to imports from Vietnam in 2008 and Thailand in 2009. Table I-7 presents data for the

leading sources of imports.

 74 Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), February

18, 2005 (INV-CC-014), p. IV-4 n. 7.

 75 Ibid., p. IV-6 n. 8.

I-24
Table I-7

Tissue paper: U.S. imports, by source, 2006-09

Source 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 square meters)

China 68,393 59,952 135,207 137,610

Indonesia 107,410 145,985 175,621 185,623

Vietnam 232,865 166,404 123,260 40,788

India 164,037 145,723 48,445 121,183

Thailand 8,893 44,426 51,932 1,315

All other 20,364 14,798 44,195 25,310

 Total imports 601,961 577,288 578,660 511,829

Value ($1,000)

China 2,592 3,256 4,355 6,242

Indonesia 5,736 7,319 9,570 9,968

Vietnam 11,971 7,974 5,467 1,984

India 5,223 5,573 1,722 3,478

Thailand 664 2,850 3,613 96

All other 981 1,196 1,663 1,129

 Total imports 27,166 28,167 26,389 22,897

Unit value (per 1,000 square meters)

China $37.90 $54.30 $32.21 $45.36

Indonesia 53.40 50.13 54.49 53.70

Vietnam 51.41 47.92 44.35 48.65

India 31.84 38.25 35.54 28.70

Thailand 74.62 64.14 69.57 72.63

All other 48.15 80.80 37.63 44.61

 Total imports 45.13 48.79 45.60 44.73

Table continued on the following page.

I-25
Table I-7--Continued

Tissue paper: U.S. imports, by source, 2006-09

Source 2006 2007 2008 2009

Share of value (percent)

China 9.5 11.6 16.5 27.3

Indonesia 21.1 26.0 36.3 43.5

Vietnam 44.1 28.3 20.7 8.7

India 19.2 19.8 6.5 15.2

Thailand 2.4 10.1 13.7 0.4

All other 3.6 4.2 6.3 4.9

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.--Conversion factor of 16 grams per square meter. While the Commission’s unit of measurement for subject

tissue paper is 1,000 square meters, official Commerce statistics report data in kilograms. The only Chinese

producer that addressed the issue of basis weights in its questionnaire in the original investigation used an

average basis weight of *** grams per square meter to convert the firm’s production to square meters. Also, U.S.

basis weights reportedly range from approximately 14 to 18 grams per square meter for tissue paper without

printing. Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final),

February 18, 2005 (INV-CC-014), p. VII-2 n. 14 and p. VII-3.

Note.--Imports from Canada and Japan excluded. Unit values for imports from Canada were exceptionally low. 

Moreover, the manufacturer that accounted for the vast majority of imports is not known to produce tissue paper

products subject to the antidumping duty order. Unit values for imports from Japan were exceptionally high.

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting numbers 4804.39.4041, 4811.90.4010,

4811.90.6010, and 4811.90.9010 (2006-09).

Ratio of Imports to U.S. Production

Information concerning the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production of tissue paper is presented in

table I-8. Subject imports of tissue paper from China were equivalent to 9.8 percent of U.S. production in

2001, increased to 14.8 percent during 2002, and then further increased to 43.4 percent in 2003. The

same ratio was 43.8 percent in interim 2003 and reached 49.7 percent by interim 2004. Subject imports

of tissue paper from China were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. production during 2009. The ratio of

nonsubject imports to domestic production increased substantially from *** percent in 2003 to

*** percent in 2009.

I-26
Table I-8

Tissue paper: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, by sources, 2001-03, January-September

2003, January-September 2004, and 20091

Item 2001 2002 2003

January-September

2003 2004 2009

Quantity (1,000 square meters)

U.S. production 2,079,215 2,221,313 1,730,868 1,249,484 1,156,725 ***

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

China 9.8 14.8 43.4 43.8 49.7 ***

Other 0.0 0.0 *** *** *** ***

 Total imports 9.8 14.8 *** *** *** ***

 1 Production data presented for 2001-03, January-September 2003, and January-September 2004 were provided

by 10 producers believed to have represented nearly all of U.S. production of tissue paper during January 2001-

September 2004. Data presented for 2009 were provided by Eagle, Flower City, Garlock, Putney, and Seaman.

Source: Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final),

February 18, 2005 (INV-CC-014), tables III-2 and IV-4 (2001-03, January-September 2003, and January-September

2004); official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting numbers 4804.39.4041, 4811.90.4010, 4811.90.6010,

and 4811.90.9010 (for 2009 U.S. import data); and Response of domestic interested parties (for 2009 production

data).

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares are presented in table I-9. U.S. shipments of

domestically produced tissue paper decreased overall during the period examined in the original

investigation, while U.S. shipments of tissue paper from China increased, resulting in a significant shift in

market shares.

The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption fell from 91.0 percent in 2001 to

70.9 percent in 2003, and was 71.3 percent in interim 2004 as compared to 76.1 percent in interim 2003. 

The value of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003 remained relatively stable compared with 2001. 

Additionally, the Commission noted in the original investigation that bulk tissue paper shipments

accounted for approximately 53 percent of apparent U.S. consumption of tissue paper, while consumer

tissue paper accounted for approximately 47 percent. U.S. imports of bulk tissue paper from China

accounted for all imports of bulk tissue paper during this period. U.S. imports of consumer tissue paper

from China accounted for all imports of consumer tissue paper in 2001 and 2002 and virtually all

throughout the remainder of the period examined.76

The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption in 2009 was lower than at any time during the

original investigation, and was *** percent less than apparent U.S. consumption in 2003. The domestic

tissue paper industry held an estimated *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption on the basis of quantity

in 2009 and an estimated *** percent on the basis of value in that year. U.S. imports from China held a

*** percent share of the U.S. market in 2009 on the basis of quantity and *** percent on the basis of

value, while other sources held a *** percent share on the basis of quantity and *** percent on the basis

of value.

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

3758, March 2005, pp. 17-18.

I-27
Table I-9

Tissue paper: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2001-03, January-September 2003, January-September 2004, and 2009

Item 2001 2002 2003

Jan.-Sept.

20091 2003 2004

Quantity (1,000 square meters)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 2,050,248 2,109,770 1,675,321 1,113,738 1,071,459 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from1

--

 China 202,212 310,895 *** *** *** 137,610

 Other sources 0 0 *** *** *** 374,219

 Total import shipments 202,212 310,895 687,753 350,047 431,718 511,829

Apparent U.S. consumption 2,252,460 2,420,665 2,363,074 1,463,784 1,503,178 ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 118,874 121,388 93,879 62,552 65,091 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from1

--

 China 11,201 17,291 *** *** *** 6,242

 Other sources 0 0 *** *** *** 16,655

 Total import shipments 11,201 17,291 36,822 18,828 25,856 22,897

Apparent U.S. consumption 130,075 138,680 130,701 81,380 90,947 ***

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 91.0 87.2 70.9 76.1 71.3 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from1

--

 China 9.0 12.8 *** *** *** ***

 Other sources 0.0 0.0 *** *** *** ***

 Total import shipments 9.0 12.8 29.1 23.9 28.7 ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 91.4 87.5 71.8 76.9 71.6 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from1

--

 China 8.6 12.5 *** *** *** ***

 Other sources 0.0 0.0 *** *** *** ***

 Total import shipments 8.6 12.5 28.2 23.1 28.4 ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Consumption during the period examined in the original investigation was calculated using import shipments while 2009

consumption was calculated using Commerce import data.

 2

 ***.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), February 18, 2005

(INV-CC-014), table IV-3-IV-4, official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting numbers 4804.39.4041, 4811.90.4010,

4811.90.6010, and 4811.90.9010, and response to the notice of institution.

I-28
American Greetings, reportedly one of the largest purchasers of subject tissue paper in the United

States, observed in a February 2010 news article that it “experienced difficult industry conditions during

2009 as the global economic slowdown increased in severity throughout the course of the year,

particularly during the second half of the year, which is critical to the social expressions industry due to

the concentration of major holidays during that period. These industry conditions were characterized by

lower customer traffic in retail stores, less consumer spending due to economic uncertainties and a

number of retailer bankruptcies. These circumstances significantly impacted our results during 2009,

leading to lower revenues and earnings throughout the Corporation.” American Greetings also reported

that “revenues in the North American Social Expression Products segment declined primarily due to

lower sales of gift packaging products, party goods and specialty products...”77

According to the response of the domestic interested parties, the conditions of competition in the

domestic tissue paper industry discussed in the previous sections–the high degree of substitutability,

overlapping channels of distribution, and the importance of price–continue to exist in the market, and

renders the domestic industry vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is

revoked.78

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Based on available information, subject tissue paper from China has not been subject to any other

import relief investigations in the United States or in any other countries.

 77 Domestic Producers’ Response, exh. 4. “Price of Love is Down this Valentine’s Day,” AOL News, February

10, 2010.

 78 Domestic Producers’ Response at 19.

I-29
THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The Commission reported in the original investigation that there were more than 4,000 paper

mills in China, of which approximately 750 produced tissue paper (broadly defined). However, as in the

United States, the vast majority of tissue production in China was considered to be dry-creped tissue for

sanitary and household purposes. The Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to 78 firms

identified as possible tissue paper producers in the petition and from internet searches in the original

investigation. Two producers (Guilen Quifeng Paper Co., Ltd., and Max Fortune Industrial, Ltd.)79

completed and returned the Commission’s questionnaire for their production operations in China, as did

one exporter (Constant China Import Export, Ltd.) for its trading operations. China National provided

only a partial response to the Commission’s questionnaire in the original investigation. Their exports of

subject merchandise accounted for *** percent of total U.S. imports of tissue paper from China during

2003.

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 parties listed

79 producers of tissue paper in China and indicated that China’s capacity to produce tissue paper products

has increased significantly since the imposition of the order. They provided a number of examples that

they argued were representative of a mere sampling of the increase in China’s tissue paper production

capacity in recent years.80

Table I-10 presents trade data for the Chinese tissue paper industry compiled during the original

investigation and U.S. imports from China in 2009. As these data show, Chinese production increased

throughout the period for which data were collected in the original investigation. During the period

examined in the original investigation, the Chinese producers operated their facilities at capacity

utilization rates ranging from 90.4 to 97.5 percent during 2001-03 and projected 2004. The responding

producers’ exports of the subject merchandise to the United States accounted for approximately

21.1 percent of their total shipments of tissue paper and 84.1 percent of total U.S. imports from China

during 2003.81

According to the domestic producers’ response, Chinese production capacity has increased since

the imposition of the order in 2005, and is likely to continue to increase in the reasonably foreseeable

future. The domestic interested parties emphasize that the Chinese tissue paper industry is highly exportoriented. They also emphasize that Chinese producers “have continued to demonstrate an active interest

in the U.S. market and a willingness to go to great lengths to access our market, despite the presence of

the order,” which is corroborated by the two circumvention findings and a third anti-circumvention

inquiry that is currently underway. Therefore, they conclude, in the absence of the dumping order lowpriced imports from China will surge.82

 79 Guilen Quifeng was the subject of an affirmative circumvention finding in 2008. Max Fortune is the subject of

a current anti-circumvention inquiry initiated in 2010. 73 FR 72771, December 1, 2008; 75 FR 17127, April 5,

2010.

 80 Domestic Producers’ Response, pp. 22-26 and exhibit 8.

 81 Available data for Chinese producers of bulk and consumer tissue paper are presented on a dis-aggregated basis

in Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), February 18,

2005 (INV-CC-014), tables C-4 and C-5.

 82 Domestic Producers’ Response at 22-26.

I-30
Table I-10

Tissue paper: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2001-03,

projected 2004-05, and 2009

Item 2001 2002 2003

Projections

2004 2005 2009

Quantity (1,000 square meters)

Capacity 2,356,005 2,711,866 2,877,333 2,890,900 2,880,600 (1

)

Production 2,166,512 2,451,586 2,806,246 2,813,854 2,803,714 (1

)

End of period inventories 168,443 160,528 57,927 58,730 58,450 (1

)

Shipments:

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** (1

)

Home market *** *** *** *** *** (1

)

Exports to--

The United States 425,752 468,918 631,937 542,272 503,902 137,610

All other markets2 185,309 177,990 256,457 269,110 273,120 (1

)

Total exports 611,061 646,908 888,394 811,382 777,022 (1

)

Total shipments 2,142,073 2,487,503 2,998,302 2,947,896 2,939,322 (1

)

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 92.0 90.4 97.5 97.3 97.3 (1

)

Inventories to production 7.8 6.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 (1

)

Inventories to total

shipments 7.9 6.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 (1

)

Share of total quantity of

shipments:

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** (1

)

Home market *** *** *** *** *** (1

)

Exports to--

The United States 19.9 18.9 21.1 18.4 17.1 (1

)

All other markets2 8.7 7.2 8.6 9.1 9.3 (1

)

All export

markets 28.5 26.0 29.6 27.5 26.4 (1

)

 1 Not available.

 2

 The domestic interested parties stated in their response that other Chinese export markets include Canada and Europe. 

Domestic Producers’ Response, p. 22.

 3

 ***.

Note – Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Staff Report on Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), February 18, 2005

(INV-CC-014), Table VII-1; Official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting numbers 4804.39.4041, 4811.90.4010,

4811.90.6010, and 4811.90.9010.

I-31
 
Contains Business Proprietary Information

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Notices 5115 

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. 10–5–210, 

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. 

plan for achieving refuge purposes and 

contributing toward the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS), consistent with sound 

principles of fish and wildlife 

management, conservation, legal 

mandates, and our policies. In addition 

to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and 

interpretation. We will review and 

update the CCP at least every 15 years 

in accordance with the Improvement 

Act. 

CCP Alternatives and Selected 

Alternative 

Both our draft and final CCP/EIS 

identified several major issues. To 

address those issues, we developed and 

evaluated three alternatives for 

managing Ash Meadows and Moapa 

Valley NWRs and four alternatives for 

managing Desert and Pahranagat NWRs. 

These alternatives are outlined in the 

final CCP/EIS Summary document 

available at http://www.fws.gov/ 

desertcomplex/ccp.htm. 

Our decision is to adopt Alternative C 

for Ash Meadows, Desert, and Moapa 

Valley NWRs and Alternative D for 

Pahranagat NWR, as described in the 

ROD. The ROD details the basis of our 

decision, which we made after 

considering the following: the impacts 

identified in Chapter 4 of the draft and 

final CCP/EIS; the results of public and 

other agency comments; how well the 

alternative addresses the relevant issues, 

concerns, and opportunities identified 

during the planning process; and other 

relevant factors, including fulfilling the 

purposes for which the wildlife refuges 

were established, contributing to the 

mission and goals of the NWRS, and 

statutory and regulatory guidance. We 

have determined that Alternative C for 

Ash Meadows, Desert, and Moapa 

Valley NWRs and Alternative D for 

Pahranagat NWR include the suite of 

activities that best achieve the stated 

purpose and need for action and the 

goals for each wildlife refuge presented 

in the final CCP/EIS Chapter 1. These 

alternatives were selected for 

implementation because they provide 

the greatest number of opportunities for 

the wildlife refuges to make a significant 

contribution to the conservation of fish, 

wildlife, and habitat needs in the region, 

balanced with opportunities for highquality wildlife-dependant recreation. 

Dated: January 26, 2010. 

Ren Lohofener, 

Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region, 

Sacramento, California. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2046 Filed 1–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Temporary Concession Contract for 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 

AZ/NV 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intention to award 

temporary concession contract for Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 36 CFR 51.24, 

public notice is hereby given that the 

National Park Service intends to award 

a temporary concession contract for the 

conduct of certain visitor services 

within Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area, Arizona and Nevada for a term not 

to exceed 3 years. The visitor services 

include marina and boat rentals, 

overnight accommodations, food and 

beverage, retail, fuel, and short term 

trailer villages. This action is necessary 

to avoid interruption of visitor services. 

DATES: The term of the temporary 

concession contract will commence (if 

awarded) no earlier than February 1, 

2010. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

temporary concession contract is 

intended to be awarded to Forever 

Resorts, a qualified person (as defined 

in 36 CFR 51.3). The existing 

concessioner, Seven Resorts, Inc., has 

informed the National Park Service 

(NPS) that it will be concluding its 

operations at Echo Bay under CC– 

LAME010–71 within Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area effective 

January 31, 2010. 

The National Park Service has 

determined that a temporary concession 

contract is necessary in order to avoid 

interruption of visitor services and has 

taken all reasonable and appropriate 

steps to consider alternatives to avoid 

an interruption of visitor services. 

This action is issued pursuant to 36 

CFR 51.24(a). This is not a request for 

proposals. 

January 5, 2010. 

Jonathan B. Jarvis, 

Director, National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1861 Filed 1–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–53–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1070B (Review)] 

Tissue Paper From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on certain tissue 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 certain 

tissue 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 March 3, 2010. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

April 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: February 1, 2010. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
5116 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Notices 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On March 30, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

certain tissue paper products from 

China (70 FR 16223). 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 all tissue 

paper, co-extensive with Commerce’s 

scope. Certain Commissioners defined 

the Domestic Like Product differently. 

(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 

tissue paper. Certain Commissioners 

defined the Domestic Industry 

differently. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty order under review 

became effective. In this review, the 

Order Date is March 30, 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 

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 March 3, 2010. 

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 April 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Notices 5117 

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 2009, 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 2009 (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 

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 2009 

(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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
5118 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Notices 

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: January 26, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1836 Filed 1–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 1210–5] 

Possible Modifications to the 

International Harmonized System 

Nomenclature 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Request for proposals to amend 

the international Harmonized System. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is requesting 

proposals from interested persons and 

agencies to amend the international 

Harmonized Commodity Description 

and Coding System (Harmonized 

System) in connection with the Fifth 

Review Cycle of the World Customs 

Organization (WCO), with a view to 

keeping the Harmonized System current 

with changes in technology and trade 

patterns. The proposals will be 

reviewed by the Commission, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, and the 

U.S. Department of Commerce (Bureau 

of the Census) for potential submission 

by the U.S. Government to the WCO in 

Brussels, Belgium. 

DATES: November 1, 2010: Deadline for 

submissions. 

ADDRESSES: All Commission offices are 

located in the United States 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. All written 

submissions should be addressed to the 

Secretary, United States International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. The public 

record for this collection of proposals 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

www.usitc.gov/secretary/edis.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Beck, Director, Office of Tariff 

Affairs and Trade Agreements (202– 

205–2603, fax 202–205–2616, 

david.beck@usitc.gov). The media 

should contact Margaret O’Laughlin, 

Office of External Affairs (202–205– 

1819, margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov). 

Hearing impaired individuals may 

obtain information on this matter by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal at 202–205–1810. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet Web site (http://www.usitc.gov). 

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. 

Background: Section 1210 of the 

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness 

Act of 1988 (the 1988 Act) (19 U.S.C. 

3010) designates the Commission, the 

U.S. Department of the Treasury, and 

the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

subject to the policy direction of the 

Office of U.S. Trade Representative, as 

the principal agencies responsible for 

formulating U.S. Government positions 

on technical and procedural issues and 

in representing the U.S. Government in 

activities of the World Customs 

Organization (WCO) relating to the 

International Convention on the 

Harmonized Commodity Description 

and Coding System, informally known 

as the Harmonized System (HS). The 

U.S. Trade Representative subsequently 

designated the Commission to lead the 

U.S. delegation to the HS Review SubCommittee (RSC), which is responsible 

for considering amendments to the HS 

in order to keep the HS current with 

changes in technology and patterns of 

international trade (see 53 FR 45646, 

Nov. 10, 1988). 

Through this notice the Commission 

is seeking proposals to amend the HS in 

connection with the Fifth Review Cycle 

of the HS Review Sub-Committee of the 

WCO. Proposals received will be made 

a part of the Commission’s record 

keeping system and available for public 

inspection (with the exception of any 

confidential business information) 

through the Commission’s record files 

and through the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS). The 

Commission has designated this notice 

as number five in the series and is in the 

process of adding available notices and 

submissions from the four prior 

instances in which it requested such 

proposals under section 1210 of the 

1988 Act. 

By way of further background, shortly 

after implementation of the 

international Harmonized System (HS) 

in 1988, the WCO’s HS Review SubCommittee (RSC) began a series of 

systematic reviews of the HS. Four such 

reviews have been completed, resulting 

in WCO Recommendations that 

countries using the HS update their 

national tariffs to reflect international 

amendments. The Fifth Review Cycle 

has begun, with a view to examining 

proposals to amend the HS, for 

inclusion in a WCO Recommendation to 

be issued in June 2014 and targeted 

implementation of amendments on 

January 1, 2017. 

The HS was established by an 

international convention, which, inter 

alia, provides that the HS should be 

kept up to date in light of changes in 

technology and patterns of international 

trade. The HS Nomenclature, which is 

maintained by the WCO, provides a 

uniform structural basis for the customs 

tariffs and statistical nomenclatures of 

all major trading countries of the world, 

including the United States. 

An up-to-date copy of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTS), which incorporates 

the international HS in its overall 

structure, can be found on the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/bychapter/ 

index.htm). Hard copies and electronic 

copies on CD can be found at many of 

the 1,400 Federal Depository Libraries 

located throughout the United States 

and its territories; further information 

about these locations can be found at 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fdlp.html or 

by contacting GPO Access at the 

Government Printing Office, 866–512– 

1800. 

The international HS comprises the 

broadest levels of categories in the HTS, 

that is, the General Rules for the 

Interpretation of the Nomenclature, 

Section and Chapter titles, Section and 

Chapter legal notes, and heading and 

subheading texts to the 6-digit level of 

detail. Additional U.S. Notes, further 

subdivisions (8-digit subheadings and 

10-digit statistical annotations) and 

statistical notes, as well as the entirety 

of chapters 98 and 99 and several 

appendixes, are national legal and 

statistical detail added for the 

administration of the U.S. tariff and 

statistical programs and are not part of 

the international HS review process that 

is the subject of this notice.


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
5042 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / 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. 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

grants authority for subzone status for 

activity related to the manufacturing 

and distribution of ground barite at the 

facility of Excalibar Minerals LLC, 

located in New Iberia, Louisiana 

(Subzone 124N), as described in the 

application and Federal Register notice, 

subject to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations, including Section 400.28. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

January 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2062 Filed 1–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

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 order 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 order. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 1, 2010. 

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 & Constitution 

Ave., 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 Fiveyear (‘‘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 order: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department Contact 

A–570–894 ........................... 731–TA–1070B China Tissue Paper Products Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Notices 5043 

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). 

Dated: January 22, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2063 Filed 1–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

[Docket No.: PTO–P–2010–0006] 

Interim Procedure for Patentees To 

Request a Recalculation of the Patent 

Term Adjustment To Comply With the 

Federal Circuit Decision in Wyeth v. 

Kappos Regarding the Overlapping 

Delay Provision of 35 U.S.C. 

154(b)(2)(A) 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) is modifying 

the computer program it uses to 

calculate patent term adjustments in 

light of Wyeth v. Kappos, No. 2009– 

1120 (Fed. Cir., Jan. 7, 2010). The 

USPTO expects to complete this 

software modification by March 2, 2010. 

In the meantime, the USPTO is 

providing patentees with the ability to 

request a recalculation of their patent 

term adjustment without a fee as an 

alternative to the petition and fee 

required by 37 CFR 1.705(d). In order to 

qualify, a form requesting a 

recalculation of the patent term 

adjustment must be submitted no later 

than 180 days after the patent has issued 

and the patent must be issued prior to 

March 2, 2010. In addition, this 

procedure is only available for alleged 

errors that are specifically identified in 

Wyeth. The USPTO is deciding pending 

petitions under 37 CFR 1.705 in 

accordance with the Wyeth decision. 

This notice also provides information 

concerning the Patent Application 

Information Retrieval (PAIR) screen that 

displays the patent term adjustment 

calculation. 

DATES: Effective Date: The procedure set 

forth in this notice is effective on 

February 1, 2010. 

Applicability Date: The procedure set 

forth in this notice is applicable only to 

patents issued prior to March 2, 2010, 

in which a request for recalculation of 

patent term adjustment in view of 

Wyeth is filed within 180 days of the 

day the patent was granted. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Office of Patent Legal Administration by 

telephone at (571) 272–7702, or by mail 

addressed to: Mail Stop CommentsPatents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. 

Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 35 

U.S.C. 154(b)(1), an applicant is entitled 

(subject to certain conditions and 

limitations) to patent term adjustment 

for the following reason: (1) If the 

USPTO fails to take certain actions 

during the examination and issue 

process within specified time frames (35 

U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)), which are known 

as the ‘‘A’’ delays; (2) if the USPTO fails 

to issue a patent within three years of 

the actual filing date of the application 

(35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)), which are 

known as the ‘‘B’’ delays; and (3) for 

delays due to interference, secrecy 

order, or successful appellate review (35 

U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(C)), which are known 

as the ‘‘C’’ delays. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A) 

provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent that 

periods of delay attributable to grounds 

specified in [35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)] 

overlap, the period of any adjustment 

granted under this subsection shall not 

exceed the actual number of days the 

issuance of the patent was delayed.’’ The 

USPTO interpreted this provision as 

covering situations in which a delay by 

the USPTO contributes to multiple 

bases for adjustment (the ‘‘pre-Wyeth’’ 

interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A)). 

See Explanation of 37 CFR 1.703(f) and 

of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office Interpretation of 35 

U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A), 69 FR 34283 (June 

21, 2004). The United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 

however, recently held in Wyeth that 

the USPTO’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 

154(b)(2)(A) was too strict, and that 

periods of delay overlap under 35 U.S.C. 

154(b)(2)(A) only if the periods which 

measure the amount of adjustment 

under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1) occur on the 

same calendar day. 

The USPTO makes patent term 

adjustment determinations by a 

computer program that uses the 

information recorded in the USPTO’s 

Patent Application Locating and 

Monitoring (PALM) system, except 

when an applicant requests 

reconsideration pursuant to 37 CFR 

1.705. See Changes to Implement Patent 

Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year 

Patent Term, 65 FR 56365, 56370, 

56380–81 (Sept. 18, 2000) (final rule). 

The USPTO is in the process of revising 

the computer program it uses to 

calculate patent term adjustment to 

calculate overlapping delays consistent 

with the Federal Circuit’s interpretation 

of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A) in Wyeth. The 

USPTO expects the revisions to the 

patent term adjustment computer 

program to be in place for use on the 

patents issuing on March 2, 2010. 

Patentees should note that the patent 

term adjustment provisions of 35 U.S.C. 

154(b) are complex, there are numerous 

types of communications that are 

exchanged between applicants and the 

USPTO during the patent application 

process, the PALM system was not 

originally designed for the purpose of 

calculating patent term adjustment as 

provided in 35 U.S.C. 154(b), and one or 

more of the time frames specified in of 

35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A) and (B) are not 

met presently in a high percentage of 

the patents. In addition, revisions to the 

patent term adjustment computer 

program necessary to calculate 

overlapping delays consistent with the 

Federal Circuit’s interpretation of 35 

U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A) in Wyeth 

significantly increases the complexity of 

the patent term adjustment computer 

program. Thus, for patents issuing on or 

after March 2, 2010, a patentee who 

believes that the patent term adjustment 

calculation for his or her patent is not 

correct must file a request for 

reconsideration under 37 CFR 1.705(d) 

that complies with the requirements of 

37 CFR 1.705(b)(1) and (b)(2) within two 

months of the date the patent issued. 

The USPTO is modifying and will 

continue to modify the patent term 

adjustment computer program as it 

becomes aware of situations in the 

patent term adjustment computer 

program where it is not correctly 

calculating the applicable patent term 

adjustment. 

Requests for Reconsideration of the 

Patent Term Adjustment indicated in 

the Patent: 37 CFR 1.705(d) provides, in 

part, that any request for 

reconsideration of the patent term 

adjustment indicated in the patent must 

be filed within two months of the date 

the patent issued and must comply with 

the requirements of 37 CFR 1.705(b)(1) 

and (b)(2). 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(4) provides 

that an applicant dissatisfied with a 

determination made by the Director 

under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3) shall have 

remedy by a civil action against the 

Director filed in the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia within 180 days after the 

grant of the patent. 

The USPTO is providing an optional 

procedure under which patentees 

seeking a revised patent term 

adjustment in a patent issued prior to 

March 2, 2010, may request that the


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Notices 28061 

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 responses 

submitted by Eagle Tissue LLC, Flower City Tissue 

Mills Co., Garlock Printing & Converting, Inc., 

Putney Paper Co., Ltd., and Seaman Paper Co. of 

Massachusetts, Inc. to be individually adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

that are like or directly competitive with 

those that are subject to investigation, 

and (4) U.S. consumers. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving written submissions that 

address the aforementioned public 

interest factors in the context of this 

investigation. 

When the Commission orders some 

form of remedy, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the Commission’s action. 

See section 337(j), 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) and 

the Presidential Memorandum of July 

21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 

During this period, the subject articles 

would be entitled to enter the United 

States under bond, in an amount 

determined by the Commission. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving submissions concerning the 

amount of the bond that should be 

imposed if a remedy is ordered. 

Written Submissions: Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding, and 

such submissions should address the 

recommended determination by the ALJ 

on remedy and bonding. The 

complainant and the IA are also 

requested to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainant is also 

requested to state the dates that the 

patents at issue expire and the HTSUS 

numbers under which the accused 

articles are imported. The written 

submissions and proposed remedial 

orders must be filed no later than close 

of business on May 24, 2010. Reply 

submissions must be filed no later than 

the close of business on June 1, 2010. 

No further submissions on these issues 

will be permitted unless otherwise 

ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document and 12 

true copies thereof on or before the 

deadlines stated above with the Office 

of the Secretary. Any person desiring to 

submit a document to the Commission 

in confidence must request confidential 

treatment unless the information has 

already been granted such treatment 

during the proceedings. All such 

requests should be directed to the 

Secretary of the Commission and must 

include a full statement of the reasons 

why the Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in 

sections 210.42–46 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 

210.42–46. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 13, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11973 Filed 5–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1070B (Review)] 

Certain Tissue Paper Products From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited 

five-year review concerning the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

tissue 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 certain tissue 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: May 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), 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 May 7, 2010, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (75 

FR 5115, February 1, 2010) 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 June 

3, 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 June 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 June 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
28062 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Notices 

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: May 13, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11970 Filed 5–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

JOINT BOARD FOR THE 

ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES 

Meeting of the Advisory Committee; 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment 

of Actuaries. 

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Executive Director of the 

Joint Board for the Enrollment of 

Actuaries gives notice of a meeting of 

the Advisory Committee on Actuarial 

Examinations (a portion of which will 

be open to the public) in Washington, 

DC at the Office of Professional 

Responsibility on June 28 and June 29, 

2010. 

DATES: Monday, June 28, 2010, from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m., and Tuesday, June 29, 

2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Internal Revenue Service Building, 

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick W. McDonough, Executive 

Director of the Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries, 202–622–8225. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that the Advisory 

Committee on Actuarial Examinations 

will meet in at the Internal Revenue 

Service Building, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC on 

Monday, June 28, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 

5 p.m. and Tuesday, June 29, 2010, from 

8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

The purpose of the meeting is to 

discuss topics and questions which may 

be recommended for inclusion on future 

Joint Board examinations in actuarial 

mathematics and methodology referred 

to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B) and to 

review the May 2010 Basic (EA–1) and 

Pension (EA–2B) Joint Board 

Examinations in order to make 

recommendations relative thereto, 

including the minimum acceptable pass 

score. Topics for inclusion on the 

syllabus for the Joint Board’s 

examination program for the November 

2010 Pension (EA–2A) Examination will 

be discussed. 

A determination has been made as 

required by section 10(d) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., 

that the portions of the meeting dealing 

with the discussion of questions that 

may appear on the Joint Board’s 

examinations and the review of the May 

2010 Joint Board examinations fall 

within the exceptions to the open 

meeting requirement set forth in 5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public 

interest requires that such portions be 

closed to public participation. 

The portion of the meeting dealing 

with the discussion of the other topics 

will commence at 1 p.m. on June 29 and 

will continue for as long as necessary to 

complete the discussion, but not beyond 

3 p.m. Time permitting, after the close 

of this discussion by Committee 

members, interested persons may make 

statements germane to this subject. 

Persons wishing to make oral statements 

must notify the Executive Director in 

writing prior to the meeting in order to 

aid in scheduling the time available and 

must submit the written text, or at a 

minimum, an outline of comments they 

propose to make orally. Such comments 

will be limited to 10 minutes in length. 

All other persons planning to attend the 

public session must also notify the 

Executive Director in writing to obtain 

building entry. Notifications of intent to 

make an oral statement or to attend 

must be faxed, no later than June 19, 

2010, to 202–622–8300, Attn: Executive 

Director. Any interested person also 

may file a written statement for 

consideration by the Joint Board and the 

Committee by sending it to the 

Executive Director: Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries, c/o Internal 

Revenue Service, Attn: Executive 

Director SE:OPR, Room 7238, 1111 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20224. 

Dated: May 6, 2010. 

Patrick W. McDonough, 

Executive Director, Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11922 Filed 5–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

Notice is hereby given that on May 3, 

2010, a proposed consent decree in 

United States v. T. Frank Flippo & Sons, 

LLC, Civil Action No. 3:10–cv–292 was 

lodged with the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

In this action the United States sought 

the implementation of land use 

restrictions at the HH Burn Pit 

Superfund Site located in Hanover, 

Virginia. The consent decree would 

resolve the litigation in exchange for 

implementation of land use restrictions 

at the site, the filing of a notice to 

successors in title, and a commitment 

by the defendant to retain a restrictive 

easement in the event that defendant 

conveys the property. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the consent decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. T. Frank Flippo & Sons, LLC 

D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–1408/3. 

The consent decree may be examined 

at the Office of the United States 

Attorney, 600 East Main Street, 

Richmond, Virginia, and at U.S. EPA 

Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. During the 

public comment period, the consent 

decree, may also be examined on the 

following Department of Justice Web 

site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

consent decree may also be obtained by 

mail from the Consent Decree Library, 

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or 

by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $10.00 (25 cents per


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32910 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices 

1On January 30, 2007, at the direction of U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, the Department 

added the following HTSUS classifications to the 

antidumping duty/countervailing duty module for 

tissue paper: 4802.54.3100, 4802.54.6100, and 

4823.90.6700. However, we note that the six-digit 

classifications for these numbers were already listed 

in the scope. 

Information Submitted by 

Eastfound at Verification 

B. Whether the Department Should 

Use a Surrogate Value for 

Galvanizing 

C. Whether the Department Should 

Revise the Surrogate Value for 

Galvanizing 

Comment 10: DHMP’s Date of Sale 

Comment 11: Value of Sulfuric Acid, 

Thiourea, Caustic Soda, Zinc Oxide, 

Nitric Acid 

[FR Doc. 2010–13977 Filed 6–9–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–894] 

Certain Tissue Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Expedited Sunset Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On February 1, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated a sunset review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

tissue paper products from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). The Department 

conducted an expedited (120–day) 

sunset review of this order. As a result 

of this sunset review, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty order would be likely to lead to the 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith or Brandon Farlander, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

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

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: 

On February 1, 2010, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on certain tissue paper products 

from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act. See Initiation of Five–year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 5042, February 

1, 2010. The Department received a 

Notice of Intent to Participate from the 

following domestic tissue paper 

producers: Seaman Paper Company of 

Massachusetts, Inc., Eagle Tissue LLC, 

Flower City Tissue Mills Co., Garlock 

Printing & Converting, Inc., and Putney 

Paper Co., Ltd. (collectively the 

domestic interested parties), within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act, as producers of a domestic like 

product in the United States. We 

received an adequate substantive 

response from the domestic interested 

parties within the 30–day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We 

received no substantive responses from 

any respondent interested parties. As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted an expedited (120–day) 

sunset review of the order. 

Scope of the Order 

The tissue paper products covered by 

the order are cut–to-length sheets of 

tissue paper having a basis weight not 

exceeding 29 grams per square meter. 

Tissue paper products subject to the 

order may or may not be bleached, dye– 

colored, surface–colored, glazed, surface 

decorated or printed, sequined, 

crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The 

tissue paper subject to the order is in the 

form of cut–to-length sheets of tissue 

paper with a width equal to or greater 

than one–half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue 

paper may be flat or folded, and may be 

packaged by banding or wrapping with 

paper or film, by placing in plastic or 

film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for 

distribution and use by the ultimate 

consumer. Packages of tissue paper 

subject to the order may consist solely 

of tissue paper of one color and/or style, 

or may contain multiple colors and/or 

styles. 

The merchandise subject to 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 subheadings, 

including: 4802.30, 4802.54, 4802.61, 

4802.62, 4802.69, 4804.31.1000, 

4804.31.2000, 4804.31.4020, 

4804.31.4040, 4804.31.6000, 4804.39, 

4805.91.1090, 4805.91.5000, 

4805.91.7000, 4806.40, 4808.30, 

4808.90, 4811.90, 4823.90, 4802.50.00, 

4802.90.00, 4805.91.90, 9505.90.40. The 

tariff classifications are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive.1

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are the following tissue paper products: 

(1) tissue paper products that are coated 

in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of a kind 

used in floral and food service 

applications; (2) tissue paper products 

that have been perforated, embossed, or 

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

disposable sanitary covers for toilet 

seats; (3) toilet or facial tissue stock, 

towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind 

used for household or sanitary 

purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs 

of cellulose fibers (HTSUS 

4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

the Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (Decision Memo), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memo include the likelihood of the 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the order were to be 

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, room 1117 of the 

main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ 

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision Memo 

are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices 32911 

tissue paper products from the PRC 

would be likely to lead to the 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted–average 

percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted–Average Margin (percent) 

Qingdao Wenlong Co. Ltd ............................................................................................................................. 112.64 

Fujian Nanping Investment & Enterprise Co ................................................................................................. 112.64 

Fuzhou Light Industry Import & Export Co. Ltd ............................................................................................ 112.64 

Guilin Qifeng Paper Co. Ltd .......................................................................................................................... 112.64 

Ningbo Spring Stationary Limited Company ................................................................................................. 112.64 

Everlasting Business & Industry Corporation Ltd .......................................................................................... 112.64 

BA Marketing & Industrial Co. Ltd ................................................................................................................. 112.64 

Samsam Production Limited & Guangzhou Baxi Printing Products Limited ................................................ 112.64 

Max Fortune Industrial Limited ...................................................................................................................... 112.64 

PRC–wide rate ............................................................................................................................................... 112.64 

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 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

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, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: June 3, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13972 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Economic Development Administration 

Notice of Informational Meeting for the 

i6 Challenge Under EDA’s Economic 

Adjustment Assistance Program 

AGENCY: Economic Development 

Administration (EDA), Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The i6 Challenge is a new, 

multi-agency innovation competition 

led by the Economic Development 

Administration (EDA), a bureau of the 

U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). 

The i6 Challenge is designed to 

encourage and reward innovative, 

ground-breaking ideas that will 

accelerate technology 

commercialization and new-venture 

formation across the United States, for 

the ultimate purpose of helping to drive 

economic growth and job creation. To 

accomplish this, the i6 Challenge targets 

sections of the research-to-deployment 

continuum that are in need of additional 

support, in order to strengthen regional 

innovation ecosystems. Applicants to 

the i6 Challenge are expected to propose 

mechanisms to fill in existing gaps in 

the continuum or leverage existing 

infrastructure and institutions, such as 

economic development organizations, 

academic institutions, or other nonprofit organizations, in new and 

innovative ways to achieve the i6 

objectives. Under the i6 Challenge, EDA 

intends to fund implementation grants 

for technical assistance through its 

Economic Adjustment Assistance 

Program (42 U.S.C. 3149). The federal 

funding opportunity for the i6 Challenge 

was announced on May 3, 2010, and a 

notice and request for applications was 

published in the Federal Register (75 

FR 23676). 

DATES: EDA will hold an additional 

informational meeting via conference 

call at 4 p.m. (Eastern time) on Monday, 

June 21, 2010, to answer questions 

about the i6 Challenge. More details on 

the meeting and any updates will be 

posted at the i6 Challenge Web site at 

http://www.eda.gov/i6. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information, please send 

questions via e-mail to i6@doc.gov. 

EDA’s Web site at http://www.eda.gov/ 

i6 also has information on EDA and the 

i6 Challenge. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Meeting: To 

communicate the goals and 

requirements of the i6 Challenge and to 

answer questions related to the federal 

funding opportunity announcement. 

Public Participation: To participate in 

the informational meeting, please call 

1–800–779–5194. Please give the 

operator the passcode ‘‘EDA.’’ Because of 

the anticipated number of callers, 

callers should plan to dial-in 10 minutes 

early. Please be advised that the 

organizers of the meeting intend to (1) 

record the full conference call and all 

questions and answers, and (2) post the 

recording at http://www.eda.gov/i6. 

Dated: June 7, 2010. 

Hina Shaikh, 

Deputy Chief Counsel, Economic 

Development Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13970 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–24–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–008] 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Circular 

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 

From Taiwan 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on circular 

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 

from Taiwan for the period May 1, 2008, 

to April 30, 2009 (the POR). We 

preliminarily determine that sales of 

subject merchandise by Yieh Phui 

Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui) have 

been made below normal value (NV). If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess antidumping duties on 

appropriate entries. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. We will issue the 

final results no later than 120 days from 

the publication of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 10, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Contains Business Proprietary Information

B-1

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Tissue Paper from China

Inv. No. 731-TA-1070B (Review)

On May 7, 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 consolidated response to the notice of institution from

domestic producers Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc., Eagle Tissue LLC, Flower

City Tissue Mills Co., Garlock Printing & Converting, Inc., and Putney Paper Co., Ltd. These

producers collectively account for approximately 95 percent of U.S. production of the domestic

like product. The Commission found the individual response of each of these domestic

producers to be adequate. The Commission also determined that the domestic interested party

group response was adequate. 

No responses were received from any respondent interested parties. Consequently, the

Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. 

In the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response or any other

circumstance warranting proceeding to a full review of the order, the Commission determined to

conduct an expedited review. 

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and

on the Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).
 
APPENDIX C

TABLES C-1, C-2, AND C-3 FROM COMMISSION’S PUBLIC REPORT IN

THE FINAL PHASE OF THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

C-1
 
Table C-1 

Tissue piper products: Summay datamncerning the US. maket.20[11-[13, Jmuay-Septem ber 2m3.md Jmuay-Septem ber ZW 

~ 

Reported data Period changes 

January . S eptember Jan:Sept. 

Item 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2001-03 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 

U.S. consumption quantity: 

Amount.. ................. 2,252,460 2,420,665 2,363,074 1,463,784 1,503,178 4.9 75 -2.4 2.7 

Roducers' share [l] ......... 91 .o 87.2 70.9 76.1 71.3 .20.1 -3.9 .16.3 -4.8 

Imoorters'share 111: X." XI" xxx X." .XX X." 

zxx .XI xxx 1x1 XI" xxx 

3.9 

0.0 

. r- ~~ ~ ~~ I, 

China. ................... 9.0 12.8 

All other sources.. ........ 0.0 0.0 

Total imports ............. 9.0 12.8 29.1 23.9 28.7 20.1 3.9 16.3 4.8 

US consumption value: 

Amount.. ................. 130,075 138,680 130,701 81,380 90,947 0.5 6.6 -5.8 11.8 

Roducers'share (11.. ....... 91.4 87.5 71.8 76.9 71.6 .19.6 -3.9 .15.7 -5.3 

Importers'share (1): XII ."" 1111 XII IX" xllx China. ................... 8.6 12.5 3.9 "," .XX xxx XS" xxx XI" All other sources .......... 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total imports ............. 8.6 12.5 28.2 23.1 28.4 19.6 3.9 15.7 5.3 

U.S. shipments of imports from: 

China: 

Quantity. ................. 

Value. ................... 

Unit value. ............... Ending inventory quantity .... 

Quantity .................. 

Value. ................... 

Unit value. ............... Ending inventory quantity .... 

Quantity .................. 

Value. ................... 

Unit value. ............... Ending inventory quantity .... 

AU other sources: 

All sources: 

U.S. producers': 

Average capacity quantity .... Roduction quantity .......... 

Capacity utilization (11. ....... 

U.S. shipments: 

Quantity .................. 

Value .................... Unit value. ............... 

Quantity .................. 

Value .................... 

Unit value.. .............. 

Ending inventory quantity ..... 

lnventorieshotal shipments 111 . Roduction workers ........ 

Hours worked[1,000s]. ..... 

Wages paid [$1.000s] ....... 

Hourly wages.. ............ 

Roductivity [sqmeteirhour] . . Unit labor costs.. ........... 

Net sales: 

Quantity ................. 

Value.. .................. 

Unit value. ............... 

Cost of goods sold [COGS]. .. 

Gross profit or [loss]. ....... 

SGhA expenses ............ 

Operating income or [loss) ... 

Capital expenditures ......... 

Unit COGS ................ 

Unit SGhA expenses.. ...... Unit operating income or [loss] 

COGSWales 111.. ........... 

Operating income or [loss]/ 

sales (11.. ............... 

Export shipments: 

202.21 2 

1 1,201 

$55.39 

21,750 

0 

0 

€-4 

0 

202.21 2 

11,201 

$55.39 

21,750 

3,722,201 

2.079.21 5 

55.9 

2,050,248 

11 8,874 

S7.98 

41,388 

2,265 

$54.73 

303,427 

14.5 

592 

1.21 9 

14,652 

$1 2.02 

1.705.7 

$7.05 

2,191,763 

124,967 

$57.02 

92,831 

32,135 

23,908 

8,228 

2,057 

$42.35 

$10.91 

$3.75 

74.3 

6.6 

31 0,895 

17,291 

E55 62 

37.1 97 

0 

0 

61 

0 

31 0,895 

17,291 

$55 62 

37.1 97 

3,878,349 

2,221.31 3 

57 3 

2,109,770 

121,388 

$57 54 

46,767 

2,436 

$52 09 

368.1 03 

17 1 

571 

1.1 88 

15,556 

$13 09 

1,869 5 

$7 00 

2,114,996 

121,342 

$57 37 

91,627 

29,715 

24,672 

5,044 

1,382 

$43 32 

$11 67 

$2 38 

75 5 

42 

I." 

XI" 

X." 

.X" 

.." 

XX" 

..(I 

I." 

687,753 

36,822 

$53 54 

95.427 

3.81 4,081 

1,730,868 

45 4 

1,675,321 

93,879 

$56 04 

47,304 

2,373 

S50 16 

376 345 

21 8 

428 

1,018 

13,805 

$13 57 

1,701 1 

$7 98 

1.606.772 

91,934 

$57 22 

66,918 

25,016 

21,403 

3.61 3 

1,004 

$41 65 

$13 32 

$2 25 

72 8 

39 

=x* .." 

.I" 

.XX 

.I. 

XXX 

JXX 

.XI 

350,047 

18,828 

$53.79 

233.686 

2.737.1 61 

1,249,484 

45.6 

1.1 13,738 

62,552 

$56.1 6 

28.91 5 

1,453 

$50.25 

467.599 

30.7 

41 3 

725 

9.643 

$1 3 30 

1.723.3 

$7.72 

1.1 42.607 

63.935 

$55.96 

47.705 

16,230 

15.059 

1.171 

2,464 

$41.75 

$13.18 

$1.02 

74.6 

1.8 

*Xl 

*XX 

xxx .." 

"1" 

xxx 

"XX 

""" 

431.71 8 

25,856 

$59.89 

235.1 54 

2,579,323 

1,156,725 

44.8 

1,071,459 

65,091 

$60.75 

30,662 

1,621 

$52.87 

431.195 

29.3 

437 

670 

9.1 80 

$1 3.70 

1,726.8 

$7.94 

1.1 02,121 

66,709 

$60.53 

48,231 

18,478 

15.771 

2,707 

291 

$43.76 

$1 4.31 

$2.46 

72.3 

4.1 

..I 

XZI 

xxx 

XIS 

XI. 

I.. 

"1" 

1x2 

240.1 

228.7 

-3.3 

338.7 

25 

-10.5 

.16.8 

-18.3 

-21.0 

.3.4 

14.3 

4.8 

-8.3 

24.0 

7.3 

-27.7 

-165 

-5.8 

12.9 

13.2 

.0.3 

-26.7 

-26.4 

0.4 

-27.9 

-22.2 

-10.5 

-56.1 

-51.2 

-1.7 

22.1 

-40 1 

-1.5 

-2.7 

53.7 

54.4 

0.4 

71.0 

61 

Q 

Q 

€-4 

53.7 

54.4 

0.4 

71.0 

4.2 

6.8 

1.4 

2.9 

2.1 

-0.8 

13.0 

7.5 

.4.8 

21.3 

2.6 

-3.4 

.2.5 

6.2 

8.9 

9.6 

-0.6 

-3 5 

-2.9 

0.6 

.1.3 

.7.5 

3.2 

-38.7 

-32.8 

2.3 

6.9 

-36.5 

1.2 

.2.4 

"". 

xxx 

xxx 

""X 

I"" 

X.X 

""" 

"1" 

121.2 

113.0 

-3.7 

156.5 

-1.7 

-22.1 

-11.9 

.20.6 

-22.7 

-2.6 

1.1 

-2.6 

-3.7 

2.2 

4.8 

.25.2 

.14.4 

-11.3 

3.6 

.9.0 

13.9 

.24.0 

.24.2 

-0.3 

-27.0 

.15.8 

.13.2 

.28.4 

-27.4 

-3.9 

14.2 

-5.7 

-2.7 

-0.2 

... 

..I 

""X .." 

"I" 

xxx 

xxx 

"I" 

23.3 

37.3 

11.3 

0.6 

-5.8 

-7.4 

.0.8 

-3.8 

4.1 

8.2 

6.0 

11.6 

5.2 

-7.8 

.1.3 

5.8 

-7.6 

-4.8 

3.0 

0.2 

2.8 

-3.5 

4.3 

8.2 

1.1 

13.8 

4.7 

131.2 

-88.2 

4.8 

8.6 

139.7 

.2.3 

2.2 

[I] 'Reported data"are in percent and 'beriod changes"are in percentage points. 

[2] Not applicable. 

Note:-Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarik be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, 

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

c-3 
Table C-2 

Bulk tissue paper products: Sumrnay ddamncerning the US. rnaket.arm-m.Jinuay-Septernber =,ad Januay-September 2002 

[Quantity=1,000 square meters. value=l,000 dollars. unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 square meters; period changes=percent, except w here noted] 

January- September Jan.-Sept. 

Reported data Period changes 

Item 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2001-03 2001.02 2002-03 2003-04 

US. consumption quantity: XX" X". "XI .xj. X"X IX. Xi. .I. "XI 

"I. XI" xxx X"X XlZ x.. XXI "1" xxx 

Amount. .................. 

Roducers'share [l] ......... 

Importers'share 111: 

China 

All other sources 

XX. rXX "XX "XI "1" "X. 1"X I"" 

xxx E"" "I. *"" I"" xxx "XI ll"" 

XI. SIX "*X 1"" 1." XII "XI "XI 

.................... X." 

"XI 

I." 

.......... Total imports ............. 

US. consumption value: 

Amount 

Roducers'share Ill.. 

lmpor ter s' share [I 1: China. 

All other sources 

"1" "I. .XX xxx "I" xxx XI. XX. XrX 

"Z" "(1. "1" xllx *** *xx ... ""I xxx 

................... 

....... 

XI. "XI XI" "I. XXI XX" XIX ."X XX" 

XI" xxx ... "1" ""l XIS XIX ""I "XI 

"1" ""X XX" "11 "1" ""r XI" XX. "1" 

................... 

.......... 

Total imports ............. 

U.S. shipments of imports from: 

China: 

Quantity .................. vakre .................... 

Unit value, ............... Ending inventory quantity .... 

Quantity .................. 

Value. ................... 

Unit value,, .............. Ending inventory quantity .... 

Quantiy .................. 

Value .................... 

Ending inventory quantity .... 

All other sources: 

All sources: 

U.S. producers': 

Average capacity quantity .... Roduction quantity .......... 

Capacity utilization I1 1 ........ US. shipments: 

Quantity .................. 

Value .................... Unit value. ............... 

Quantity .................. 

Value .................... 

Unit value,. .............. Ending inventory quantity ..... 

lnventorieshotal shipments (1 1 . 

Roduction w orkers ......... 

HOUIS worked (1,OOOsl. ..... 

Wages paid [$l.OOOs] ....... 

Hourb wages.. ............ Roductivity [sq metershour] . . 

Unit labor costs ............. 

Net sales: 

Quantity .................. 

Value .................... 

Unit value. ............... Cost of goods sold [COGS]. .. 

GIOSS profit or [loss] ........ 

SG&A expenses.. .......... 

Operating income or [loss] .... 

Capital expenditures ......... 

Unit COGS.. ............... 

Unit SG&A expenses ........ Unit operating income or [loss] . 

COGShales [l) ............. 

Operating income or [loss]/ 

sales 111.. ............... 

Export shipments: 

9.1 01 

286 

$31.43 

1,495 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9.1 a 

286 

$31.43 

1.495 

xxx 

"XI 

EX. 

XI. 

"I. 

"X. 

""X 

"I. 

XI" 

xxx 

""I 

"1" 

XXX 

"SX 

I.. 

I." 

"XX 

XI" 

""I 

"(I" 

"XI 

XI. 

X". 

X.. 

"1" 

"ax 

""1 

XI" 

IXX 

"I. 

47,296 

1.081 

$22.86 

6,230 

0 

0 

E) 

0 

47.296 

1.081 

$22.86 

6,230 

"XI 

"XI 

xxx 

"I. 

"1" 

XI" 

XX. 

XII 

I"" 

I". 

"XI 

XX. 

=.. 

"LX. 

XXI 

xxx 

"XI 

xxx 

XX. 

"XI 

"XX 

""1 

"XI 

XXI 

xxx 

XX" 

I", 

"1" 

XX. 

XI" 

I"" 

="x 

X"" 

%XI 

x.. 

."X 

... 

X"" 

168.459 

3,383 

$20.08 

24,685 

."I 

."I 

XXX 

XI" 

"1" 

xxx 

".. 

Z"l( 

JXX 

S"" 

.XI 

xxx 

X"" 

xxx 

"1" 

"XI 

X"X 

""I 

xxx 

xxx 

"XI 

I.. 

I.. 

111 

I"" 

S"X 

IXX 

=xx 

"1" 

.XI 

I"" 

I". 

1"" 

,(I" 

"XI 

"I. 

"I. 

"XX 

96,633 

1.91 9 

$19.86 

6.889 

"XI 

I". 

"XI 

""X 

lXll 

1"" 

XX. 

11" 

"I. 

"X1 

XXX 

"XI .". 

IXX 

I"" 

I"" 

"XI 

xxx 

"XI 

"I. 

.xx 

xxx 

""X 

XI. 

)"I 

"XI 

"Xlj 

... 

"XI 

"XI 

419.7 

2780 

-27.3 

316.7 

a 

E) 

E) 

@ 

419.7 

278.0 

31 6.7 

-27.3 

XI" 

X.8 

XIX 

"ljl 

IX" 

XI" 

XI" 

XII 

xx, 

"1" 

XI. 

"XZ 

..x 

""i 

xxx 

xxx 

"I. 

",)I 

X.l 

"I" 

"1" 

"X. 

X.Z 

XI, 

xxx 

XI" 

I.. 

..I 

X.. 

11. 

XI* 

"LX. 

"XI 

XX. 

x.= 

"Xjl 

"XI 

""X 

256.2 

212.9 

.12.1 

296.2 

111 

"11 

"XI 

"I. 

XX. 

I"* 

XX. 

I". 

XI. 

XX. 

111 

"1" 

xxx 

xxx 

XX. 

XX. 

xxx 

I"" 

XI* 

"X. 

XX. 

!."I 

XI. 

.I= 

"XI 

XlX 

"XI 

XX. 

xxx 

xxx 

lll" 

XX" 

""" 

."I 

"XI 

"1" 

""" 

X"" 

39.1 

63.6 

17.6 

728.2 

""X 

IXX 

xxx 

11" 

""8 

"SX 

I"" 

xxx 

xxx 

"1" 

JXX 

xxx 

=XI 

(I"" 

XXX 

xxx 

"XI 

I"" 

I"" 

XI" 

"1" 

"XI 

"XI 

xxx 

"XX 

"XI 

111 

"XX 

X"" 

"1" 

11 ] 'Reported data"are in percent and 'beriod changes"are in percentage points. 

[2] Not applicable. 

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, 

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires 

c-5 
Table C-3 

Consumer tirruepqer products: Summay dataarncerning the US. maket.arm-m.JinuayIeptember 2003.indJmuay-September 2001 

[Quantity=1.000 square meters. value=l,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 square meters, period changes=percent, except w here noted] 

January- September Jan -Sept 

Reported data Period changes 

Item 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2001-03 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 

US. consumption quantity. "XI ."I """ ... ..I x.r xxx I"" I.. 

"XI XXI ."I XI" j"" "XZ xxx xxx I.1 

Amount. .................. 

Roducers'share (11. ........ 

Importers'share [l]: XX. xxx ""l ""X .I" "1" "XI .XX ."I 

xx(. XI= ..X X.. EX" "I" I"" XX" I"" 

I". ""(x xxx .XX 1"" XI. JXX xxx 

China. ................... 

All other sources.. , , . . , . . , 

............. Total imports XX. 

1"" "XI XI" SIX xxx I"I ,111 "I" 

XX. """ 111 "1" X"" xxx XX. ."I X"" 

................. .XX 

US. consumption value: 

Amount. 

Roducers'share [I]. ........ Importers' share (11: 

China. 

All other sources 

Total imports 

XXX XIS X"" XX. .I" "11. xxx XLX" XX" 

xxx xxx Z"" "XI EX" "I. X"X "XX ""X 

*XI "XI .XX 111 I". """ .XX 

................... 

.......... ............. XX. "". 

U.S. shipments of imports from: 

China: 

Quantity. ................. 

Value. ................... 

Unit value.. .............. Ending inventory quantity . . , . 

Quantity .................. 

Value. ................... 

Unit value. ............... 

Ending inventory quantity .... 

Quantity .................. 

Value. ................... 

Unit value.. .............. 

Ending inventory quantity ... 

All other sources: 

All sources: 

U.S. producers'. 

Average capacity quantity .... Roduction quanlity .......... 

Capacity utization (1). ....... U.S. shipments: 

Quantity ................. 

Unit value. ............... 

Quantity .................. 

Value .................... 

unit value.. .............. 

Ending inventory quantity ..... 

lnventorieskotal shipments [l] , 

Roduction workers,. ....... 

HOW worked [1,000s]. ..... 

Wages paid [$1,000s] ....... 

Hourly wages .............. 

Roductivity [sq metershour] . . Unit labor costs.. ........... 

Net sales: 

Quantily .................. 

Value. .................. 

Unit value.. .............. 

Cost of goods sold [COGS]. .. 

GIOSS profit or [loss] ........ 

SGbA expenses., ........ 

Operating income or [loss]. ... 

Capital expenditures ......... 

Unit COGS.. ............... 

Unit SGhA expenses.. ...... Unit operating income or [loss] . 

COGSkales (11.. ........... 

Operating income or [loss]/ 

sales 11). ................ 

Export shipments : 

193,111 

10.91 5 

$56.52 

20,255 

0 

0 

co 

0 

193.1 1 1 

10.91 5 

$56.52 

20,255 

"XI 

"XI 

XXI 

I.. 

"1" 

silx 

"XI 

IlX 

"11. 

""X 

xxx 

XX" 

""I 

"X. 

""" 

"I" 

"XX 

xxx 

"Xi 

XX. 

!.XI 

XIX 

XXX 

""X 

"1" 

/I." 

""1 

"I. 

xxx 

XX. 

263,599 

16.21 0 

$61.50 

30,967 

0 

0 

R 

0 

263,599 

16.21 0 

$61.50 

30,967 

I". 

IXI 

XIX 

""* 

"1" 

"XI 

"XI 

111 

"XI 

"1" 

xxx .". .". 

XX" 

"XI 

11" 

1x1 

IS" 

"XI 

"XI 

"XI 

XXI 

X"i 

.I. 

I"" 

112 

l"" 

XX. 

xxx 

xxx 

Xll 

X"" 

.I" 

IXX 

.I. 

xxx 

xxx 

"1" 

519,294 

33,439 

$64.39 

70,742 

.XI 

8"" 

Xll 

1"" 

XX" 

I." 

IX1 

I"" 

X"" 

XI" 

JXX 

I"" 

.XI 

X"" 

X"" 

XX" 

I"" 

"XX 

""" 

111 

rll 

IXI 

I"" 

11"" 

X"1 

"XI 

.XI 

I". 

.r. 

xxx 

"XI 

""I 

"XI 

xxx 

x.l 

I%, 

XXI 

"XI 

253.413 

16,909 

$66.73 

226,797 

""Z 

I(=. 

I", 

XXI 

xxs 

"XI 

I.. 

IXX 

XIX 

XI. 

XXI 

*XI 

*x. 

.(L. 

)/XX 

XX. 

X", 

*XI 

XII 

XS" 

*X" 

%XX 

IIX" 

XXX 

""X 

"(XI 

*I" 

""I 

*"Z 

-11 

EX" 

*"" 

Z"" 

llxx 

I"" 

S"" 

.XX ."" 

297,306 

22,717 

$76.41 

178,096 

I"" 

X"" 

Z"" 

*.I 

llxx 

""jx 

x.. 

1"" 

I"" 

Z"" 

"1" 

xxx 

xxx 

X"" 

1"" 

.XI 

X"% 

I"" 

xxx 

xxx 

I"" 

.XI 

"I" 

XX. 

I"" 

I"" 

xxx 

SXX 

XI" 

.I" 

"I. 

"XX 

I"= 

IX1 

I". 

..* 

11". 

XXI 

168.9 

206.4 

13.9 

249.3 

xxx 

XI. 

"IX 

"X. 

""" 

"XI 

XX" 

"I" 

XI" 

"1" 

xxx 

XI" 

I.. 

XI" 

X.. 

"I" 

"111 

.X" 

I.. 

".I 

xxx 

IXI 

XX" 

""I 

X"8 

X1" 

"l. 

I.. 

XIX 

"XI 

36.5 

48.5 

8.8 

52.9 

m 

?3 

tl 

m 

36.5 

48.5 

8.8 

52.9 

XX" 

xxx 

xxx 

"11 

"11 

"XI 

XI" 

XIX 

xxx 

XI. 

XX. 

""I 

"1" 

XI" 

xxx 

XXI 

"XI 

xxx 

""I 

""1 

"1" 

"1" 

"XI 

xxx 

xxx 

XX" 

111 

"XI 

XI" 

"1" 

.a" 

"IX 

"X" 

.XX 

"I" 

xxx 

xxx 

"X" 

97.0 

106.3 

4.7 

128.4 

xxx 

X*X 

XXX 

IIX 

111 

I"" 

xxx 

xxx 

xxx 

JXX 

.XX 

xxx 

X"" 

.I" 

xxx 

*"" 

X"" 

EX" 

."I 

1"" 

"1" 

*"" 

.XX 

xxx 

XXX 

I"" 

1"" 

X.j* 

.I. 

XI" 

[l] 'Reported data"are in percent and 'beriod changes"are in percentage points. 

(21 Not applicable. 

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, 

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

c-7 
 
APPENDIX D

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT SECTION FROM COMMISSION’S PUBLIC

REPORT IN THE FINAL PHASE OF THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

D-1
 
typically require high levels of management, logisti~al,~~ andor design expertise of their suppliers:’ all of 

which may be manifest in vendor prequalification programs?’ Subject tissue paper may be purchased in 

conjunction with other items such as gift bags, gift boxes, andor roll wrap93 requiring vendors to source 

items from different manufacturers. 

Price 

Price data collected by the Commission for specific tissue paper products appear in Part V of this 

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

tissue paper products were $57.98 per thousand square meters in 2001, $57.54 in 2002, and $56.04 in 

2003. By comparison, the average unit values paid by direct importers for U.S. imports of certain tissue 

paper products from China were $33.98 per thousand square meters in 2001, $37.24 in 2002, and $40.07 

in 2003. The average unit values for U.S. shipments of imports of certain tissue paper products from 

China were $55.39 per thousand square meters in 2001, $55.62 in 2002, and $*** in 2003.94 Because 

certain U.S. retailers are themselves direct importers of the subject merchandise from China, both 

calculations of average unit values are believed to be relevant. 

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES 

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic products that are “like” the 

subject imported products is based on a number of factors including (1) physical characteristics and uses; 

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and 

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and, where appropriate, (6) price. In this investigation, 

petitioners have identified one domestic like product, certain tissue paper product^.'^ Petitioners oppose 

further subdivision or expansion of the domestic like 

Commission should find two distinct domestic like products, consumer tissue paper and, in contrast, bulk 

tissue paper.97 98 

Respondents contend that the 

90 Respondents Cleo ’s and Crystal Creative’s Prehearing Brief; exhibit 2, p. 22. 

9’ Respondent Target’s Responses to Hearing Questions, p. 2. 

92 Respondent Target’s Responses to Hearing Questions, p. 7. 

’’ Respondent Target’s Responses to Hearing Questions, p. 1. 

94 For additional details on prices, please see Part V, “Price Data.” For additional details on average unit values, 

9i Petition, p. 30. 

96 Petitioners’ Postconference Briej; pp. 4-14. 

97 Respondents Cleo ’s and Crystal Creative’s Posthearing Briej; p. 2, and Respondent Target’s Posthearing 

Briej; p. 1. 

98 The Commission noted in its Views in the preliminary phase of this investigation its intention of collecting 

additional information and revisiting the issue as to whether bulk tissue paper and consumer tissue paper should be 

characterized as two domestic like products, Certain Tissue Paper Products and Crepe Paper Products From 

China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1070 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3682, April 2004, p. 12. Accordingly, this 

report contains additional quantitative and narrative information from questionnaire responses in the final phase of 

this investigation. Comparisons between bulk and consumer tissue paper by U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and 

U.S. purchasers are reproduced in full in appendix D. 

please see Part I11 and Part IV. 

1-14 
Physical Characteristics and Uses 

Certain tissue paper products are cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper in various sizes, colors, and 

printed designs that are packaged in various forms.99 In questionnaire responses, U.S. producers of 

certain tissue paper products generally indicated that the physical characteristics of sheets of bulk and 

consumer tissue were essentially the same. However, the respondents contend that there are discernable 

physical differences in the tissue paper based on sheet size and design.'" According to the respondents 

and one purchaser of both bulk and consumer tissue (see purchaser comments in appendix D), sheets of 

bulk tissue generally are larger than sheets of consumer tissue."' Petitioners dispute the claim that bulk 

tissue sheets are always larger than consumer tissue sheets and note that some retailers are reducing the 

size of their tissue paper in order to control cost.'o2 They suggest that there is substantial overlap in sheet 

sizes.Io3 A comparison of Seaman's standard sizes for bulk (*** sizes) and consumer (*** sizes) tissue 

paper is shown in table 1-4. 

Table 1-4 

Standard dimensions of Seaman's consumer and bulk tissue paper products 

* * * * * * * 

Respondents also contend that bulk and consumer tissue have different designs; bulk tissue is 

often plain, solid color, or has a basic pattern,'" whereas consumer tissue is customized with colors, 

artwork, and designdo' that are sometimes coordinated with other products such as gift bags (see 

purchaser comments in appendix D). Of 2003 U.S. shipments of bulk tissue paper, *** percent was white 

tissue paper, *** percent was solid colored tissue paper (other than white), *** percent was printed tissue 

paper, and *** percent was other tissue paper.'06 (Comparable figures for consumer tissue paper appear 

in table 1-1 .) 

Respondents stress the differences in packaging between bulk'and consumer tissue. Bulk tissue 

packaging is functional and minimally adorned,"' whereas consumer tissue paper is packaged in colorfbl, 

customized primary packaging'" and in decorated corrugated containers that are intended to be in-store 

displays. Finally, respondents contend that a difference exists based on sheet counts of bulk and 

consumer tissue packages.'" Purchasers report that sheet counts for packages of consumer tissue paper 

range from 5 to 480 sheets; sheet counts for packages of bulk tissue paper vary from 200 sheets (see 

99 Petition, p. 30. 

'" Respondents Cleo 's and Crystal Creative's Postconference BrieJ; pp. 4,5. 

'O' Respondents Cleo's and Crystal Creative's Postconference Brief; p. 5. 

'02 Hearing Transcript, testimony of George Jones, president, Seaman, p. 22. 

'03 Petitioners ' Prehearing Brief; p, 6 and Postconference Brief; pp. 6,7. 

'04 Respondents Cleo's and Crystal Creative's Prehearing Brief; p, 5. 

Respondents Cleo 's and Crystal Creative 's Postconference Brief; p. 5. 

IO6 The reported shares by type oftissue paper are weighted averages based on shipment data provided by five 

U.S. producers of bulk tissue paper and representing *** percent of total U.S. shipments of bulk tissue paper in 

2003. Respondents Cleo's and Crystal Creative's Posthearing Brief; p. 5, e-mail from Kathleen Cannon, Counsel to 

the Petitioners, Collier Shannon Scott, to Fred Forstall, USITC, February 16,2005, and Hearing Transcript, p. 67. 

Respondents City Paper et al. 's Postconference BrieJ; p. 4. 

'Ox Respondents Cleo's and Crystal Creative's Posthearing Brief; p. 5 and Postconference Brief, p. 5. 

IO9 Respondents Cleo's and Crystal Creative's Prehearing Brief; p. 6 and Postconference Brief; p. 3. 

1-15 
purchaser comments in appendix D) to multiple reams, and in some cases, bulk tissue is sold strictly by 

weight. 

Petitioners assert that such differences in dimensions, colors, and designs as noted above 

demonstrate a continuum within a single domestic like product, and argue that the sale of tissue paper in 

bulk does not constitute a separate domestic like product from the sale of the same tissue paper in 

consumer packages."' Petitioners assert that the characteristics of tissue paper sold in bulk to retailers 

and to consumers are similar and that the vast majority of the tissue sold to consumers in the U.S. market 

is white or a single color."' They also suggest that differences in package size reflect customers' shelf 

space and that tissue paper sold in bulk to retailers can be either folded or flat.'I2 

Respondents emphasize the difference in the end uses of consumer tissue, which is used for 

"decorative wrapping," and bulk tissue, which is sold to retail storesIl3 to protect merchandise and laundry 

and to fill voids in goods and package~."~ Petitioners note that in either case, the tissue paper is used as 

internal wrapping in a box or bag.'I5 

Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees 

The domestic industry producing certain tissue paper products includes 12 established producers, 

of which Seaman, Flower City, and Pacon currently produce both consumer and bulk tissue paper.'I6 In 

addition, Crystal Creative (acquired in 2002 by U.S. importer Cleo) produced both consumer and bulk 

tissue paper until 2003 when it suspended production at its Maysville, KY, facility;'I7 it now produces 

only consumer tissue, having recently resumed converting operations at Maysville.'I8 These four firms 

accounted for *** percent of total U.S. tissue paper production in 2001, *** percent in 2002, and *** 

percent in 2003. 

Respondents acknowledge that certain manufacturing steps (e.g., printing) may be accomplished 

on the same equipment for both bulk and consumer tissue paper,"'but they note that the manufacture of 

consumer tissue paper begins with a design phase that can require an 18-month lead time."' They 

contend that bulk and consumer tissue often are manufactured on different production lines or on different 

"types" of equipment, the principal differences being sizeI2' and the number of folds. Finally, they note 

'lo Petitioners ' Prehearing Brief; p. 8. 

'I1 Petitioners' Prehearing Brief; p. 7 and Postconference Brief; p. 6. 

'I2 Petitioners ' Prehearing Brief; p. 6 and Postconference Brief; pp. 6,7. 

Respondents Cleo's and Crystal Creative's Prehearing Brief; pp. 6,7 and Postconference Brief; p. 3. 

Respondents City Paper et. a1.S Postconference BrieJ; p. 5. 

'I5 Petitioners ' Postconference BrieJ; p. 8. 

'I6 Conference Transcript, testimony of George Jones, president, Seaman, p. 19; testimony of William Shafer, 

'I7 Conference Transcript, testimony of Andrew Kelly, president, Cleo, pp. 125-126. 

president, Flower City, p. 26. 

CSS Industries 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30,2004, Petitioners ' Posthearing Brief; exhibit 6, p. 

16. 

'I9 Respondents Cleo's and Crystal Creative S Postconference Brief; p. 7. 

12' Respondent Target's Postconference Brief; p. 2. 

"' Jumbo rolls used in the production of bulk tissue paper are typically wider. Respondents Cleo's and Crystal 

Creative's Postconference Brief; p. 7. 

1-16 
that bulk and consumer tissue often are manufactured in different factories122 or by different firrns.Iz3 

Petitioners contend that all tissue paper shares the same basic manufacturing process124 and that bulk 

grades and consumer grades may be produced in the same facility with common employees and similar 

processe~.'~~ In its questionnaire response, one firm, ***, asserted that there was no crossover of product 

between bulk and consumer tissue. However, ***, reported that it made bulk and consumer tissue with 

the very same equipment. Another U.S. producer, ***, uses the same equipment to produce bulk and 

club packs.Iz6 

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions 

Respondents contend that at the level "defining the products as sold," bulk tissue paper (sold to 

retailers) and consumer tissue paper (sold to consumers) are not inter~hangeab1e.I'~ Respondents also 

note the differences in quantities per package between consumer and bulk tissue, arguing that individuals 

that purchase consumer tissue do not wish to purchase tissue paper in reams'" and that club packs, in fact, 

are consumed by consumers and not by busine~ses.'~~ Petitioners dispute this contention, arguing that 

small businesses may also purchase club packs.I3' Respondents also assert that consumer tissue is a more 

"flashy" ~ommodity'~' that retailers do not use as dunnage for their products.132 

least very similar, with one exception. *** indicated that the only similarity between consumer and bulk 

tissue is the base tissue stock. That company pointed to differences in the packaging, diversity of product 

with packages, labeling, artwork, folds, and customers of consumer and bulk tissue paper. 

differences (or general interchangeability) between bulk and consumer tissue, one (***) stated flatly that 

there was no comparability between the tissue types, stressing differences in package size, content, price 

(to consumer), and seasonal offerings. Many purchasers indicated that they purchased only one form of 

tissue paper; others pointed out distinctions in the size, weight, packaging, and ultimate consumer of bulk 

and consumer tissue paper.'33 

U.S. producers reportedly view bulk tissue paper and consumer tissue paper as the same, or at 

Customer perceptions were more mixed. While three purchasers suggested that there were no 

Respondents City Paper et. al. 's Postconference Brief; p. 10. 

L23 Respondents Cleo's and Crystal Creative s Postconference Brief; p. 7. 

'24 Petition, p. 3 1. 

125 Petitioners' Postconference Brief; p. 8. 

126 E-mail from Kathleen Cannon, Counsel to the Petitioners, Collier Shannon Scott, to Fred Forstall, USITC, 

'27 Respondents Cleo's and Cvstal Creative's Prehearing Brief; p. 7. 

'2a Respondents City Paper et. al. s Postconference Brief; p. 6. 

'29 Respondents City Paper et. al. 's Postconference Brief; p. 13, and Respondents Cleo's and Crystal Creative's 

'30 Petitioners ' Postconference Brief; p. 7. 

13' Respondents City Paper et. al. S Postconference Brief; p. 8. 

132 Respondents City Paper et. al. 's Postconference Brief; p. 7. 

'33 Many importers addressed this issue based on whether or not they themselves imported bulk and consumer 

tissue paper; those that imported only one variety tended not to be able to compare the two varieties. Seven 

importers generally found consumer and bulk tissue paper to be interchangeable and five importers generally found 

the two varieties not to be at all interchangeable. Many of those importers with clearly stated views are parties to 

this investigation. 

March 25,2004. 

Postconference BrieJ; p. 4. 

1-17 
Channels of Distribution 

According to the petition, certain tissue paper products are sold through both distributors and 

retai1e1-s.'~~ Distributor sales, however, are more prevalent for bulk tissue paper than for consumer tissue 

paper. Questionnaire responses indicate that, with respect to consumer tissue paper, *** percent of 

domestic shipments in 2003 were made through distributors and *** percent were made directly to 

retailers. With respect to bulk tissue paper, *** percent of 2003 domestic shipments were made through 

distributors, *** percent were made directly to retailers, and *** percent were made directly to the 

consumer. One U.S. producer, ***, indicated that bulk and consumer tissue were sold to the same 

distributors, sometimes on the same order, but that larger distributors tended to buy more bulk tissue 

paper. Respondents contend, however, that bulk and consumer tissue generally are sold by different 

firms'35 and generally are purchased by different firms. High-end retailers (e.g., Saks, Nordstrom) and 

laundries buy bulk tissue, and party stores, gift stores, and low-end retailers (e.g., Target, Wal-Mart) 

purchase consumer Respondents also contend that U.S. manufacturers that sell both bulk and 

consumer tissue have separate sales personnel for each type of tissue.'37 Respondents note that when 

firms purchase both types of tissue paper the purchases are made by different parts of the 0rgani~ation.l~~ 

Petitioners agree that some differences in channels of distribution do exist and that a greater percentage 

of bulk tissue sales is to distributors and a greater percentage of consumer tissue goes to retailers, but 

point out that substantial volumes of each go through the other channel of di~tribution.'~' 

Price 

U.S. purchasers and U.S. importers of certain tissue paper products report that prices depend on 

such factors as the quantity purchased, the design (e.g., colors or prints), the grade of paper, the basis 

weight, whether the paper is a specialty (e.g., die cut), packaging, and freight (see purchaser comments in 

appendix D). Respondents contend that prices generally are higher for consumer tissue based on the 

difference in quantities and pa~kaging'~' and the fact that bulk tissue is sold by eight'^' or on a ream or 

half ream basis.'42 One U.S. producer, ***, indicated that the price of bulk tissue was lower than 

consumer tissue because it generally required less packaging and fewer folds. However, petitioners 

maintain that prices are within a reasonable range of a single like pr0du~t.l~~ Price data collected by the 

Commission for tissue paper folds (consumer tissue paper) and tissue paper reams (bulk tissue paper) 

appear in Part V of this report. In the aggregate, the average unit values for U.S. shipments of consumer 

tissue paper were $*** per thousand square meters in 2001, $*** in 2002, and $*** in 2003. By 

comparison, the average unit values for bulk tissue paper were lower: $*** per thousand square meters in 

2001, $*** in 2002, and $*** in 2003. 

'34 Petition, p. 3 1. 

'35 Respondents Cleo's and Crystal Creative's Postconference Brief; p. 6. 

'36 Respondents City Paper et. al. 's Postconference Brief; p. 7. 

'37 Respondents Cleo s and Crystal Creative's Prehearing BrieJ; p. 2. 

13' Respondent Target's Postconference Brief; p. 2. 

Petitioners' Prehearing BrieJ; pp. 7, 8. 

14' Respondents Cleo's and Crystal Creative's Postconference Brief; p. 7. 

''' Respondents City Paper et. a1.S Postconference Brief; p. 30. 

'42 Respondents Cleo's and Crystal Creative's Prehearing Brief; p. 15. 

143 Petitioners' Postconference Brief; p. 10. 

1-18