Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 77831 

to assess duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by reviewed 

companies for which these companies 

did not know their merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after publication of these final 

results of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash-deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of this notice of final results 

of administrative review for all 

shipments of purified CMC from the 

Netherlands entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act): (1) The 

cash-deposit rates for ANFC and CP 

Kelco will be the rates established in the 

final results of this review; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not covered in this review, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this or 

any previous review or in the less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation but the 

manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous review 

or the investigation, the cash-deposit 

rate will continue to be the all-others 

rate of 14.57 percent, which is the allothers rate established by the 

Department in the LTFV investigation. 

See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and 

Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). 

These cash-deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely, 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation that is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 8, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Comments in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum 

Clerical Errors 

Comment 1: Physical Characteristic Codes of 

Comparison-Market Sales. 

Comment 2: Double-counting of Warehousing 

Expenses Incurred in the Country of 

Manufacture. 

Comment 3: Inventory Carrying Costs 

Incurred in the United States on Certain 

Sales. 

Comment 4: Calculation of U.S. Indirect 

Selling Expenses Incurred in the Country 

of Manufacture. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31369 Filed 12–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–428–840] 

Lightweight Thermal Paper From 

Germany: Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

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 lightweight 

thermal paper from Germany. For the 

period November 20, 2008, through 

October 31, 2009, we have preliminarily 

determined that Papierfabrik August 

Koehler AG and Koehler America, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Koehler’’) did not make 

sales of subject merchandise at less than 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) (i.e., sales were 

made at de minimis dumping margins). 

If these preliminary results are adopted 

in the final results of this administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 14, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Moore or George McMahon, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3692 or (202) 482– 

1167, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 2, 2009, the Department 

issued a notice of opportunity to request 

an administrative review of this order 

for the period of review (‘‘POR’’) 

November 20, 2008, through October 31, 

2009. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 74 

FR 56573 (November 2, 2009). 

On November 30, 2009, we received 

a timely request from Appleton Papers, 

Inc. (‘‘petitioner’’) for the Department to 

conduct an administrative review of 

Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Flensburg 

GmbH, Mitsubishi HiTec Paper 

Bielefeld GmbH and Mitsubishi 

International Corporation (collectively, 

‘‘Mitsubishi’’), and Papierfabrik August 

Koehler AG and Koehler America, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Koehler’’). We also 

received a request from Koehler for the 

Department to conduct an 

administrative review of Koehler. 

On December 23, 2009, the 

Department published the notice of 

initiation of this antidumping duty 

administrative review covering the 

period November 20, 2008, through 

October 31, 2009, naming Mitsubishi 

and Koehler as respondents. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
77832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 

1LWTP is typically produced in jumbo rolls that 

are slit to the specifications of the converting 

equipment and then converted into finished slit 

rolls. Both jumbo and converted rolls (as well as 

LWTP in any other form, presentation, or 

dimension) are covered by the scope of these 

orders. 

2A base coat, when applied, is typically made of 

clay and/or latex and like materials and is intended 

to cover the rough surface of the paper substrate 

and to provide insulating value. 

3A thermal active coating is typically made of 

sensitizer, dye, and co-reactant. 

4A top coat, when applied, is typically made of 

polyvinyl acetone, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or like 

materials and is intended to provide environmental 

protection, an improved surface for press printing, 

and/or wear protection for the thermal print head. 

5HTSUS subheading 4811.90.8000 was a 

classification used for LWTP until January 1, 2007. 

Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.8000 was 

replaced with 4811.90.8020 (for gift wrap, a nonsubject product) and 4811.90.8040 (for ‘‘other’’ 

including LWTP). HTSUS subheading 4811.90.9000 

was a classification for LWTP until July 1, 2005. 

Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.9000 was 

replaced with 4811.90.9010 (for tissue paper, a nonsubject product) and 4811.90.9090 (for ‘‘other,’’ 

including LWTP). 

Part, 74 FR 68229 (December 23, 2009) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On December 23, 

2009, the Department also issued initial 

questionnaires covering Sections A, B, 

C, and E to Mitsubishi and Koehler with 

a due date of January 29, 2010. 

On January 26, 2010, petitioner, the 

sole party that requested a review of 

Mitsubishi timely withdrew its request 

for a review of Mitsubishi. Accordingly, 

the Department rescinded the 

administrative review with respect to 

Mitsubishi. See Lightweight Thermal 

Paper from Germany: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 11135 

(March 10, 2010). 

On January 29, 2010, Koehler 

submitted its response to Section A of 

the Department’s initial questionnaire. 

On February 16, 2010, Koehler 

submitted its response to Sections B and 

C of the Department’s initial 

questionnaire. On March 8, 2010, 

petitioner requested that the Department 

conduct an investigation of sales below 

cost of production by Koehler (March 

8th Cost Allegation). On March 19, 

2010, the Department issued questions 

to petitioner to obtain additional 

information regarding its March 8th 

Cost Allegation. On March 23, 2010, 

petitioner responded to the 

Department’s March 19, 2010, 

questionnaire regarding the sales below 

cost allegation it filed with respect to 

Koehler, and on March 25, 2010, 

Koehler commented on petitioner’s 

March 23, 2010, response. In the letter 

of March 23, 2010, Koehler asserted that 

the basis for petitioner’s March 8th Cost 

Allegation is unrepresentative of 

Koehler’s costs and should be rejected. 

On April 6, 2010, the Department 

requested additional information from 

petitioner regarding its allegation of 

below cost sales made by Koehler, and 

petitioner responded on April 8, 2010. 

On April 16, 2010, Koehler commented 

on petitioner’s April 8, 2010, response 

to the Department’s questions regarding 

its March 8th Cost Allegation. 

On April 16, 2010, the Department 

found that petitioner had provided a 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that Koehler is selling lightweight 

thermal paper (‘‘LTWP’’) at prices below 

its cost of production, and initiated a 

sales below cost investigation on April 

20, 2010. See Memorandum to Melissa 

Skinner, Director, Office 3 from the 

Team titled ‘‘Petitioner’s Allegation of 

Sales Below the cost of Production for 

Papierfabrik August Koehler AG,’’ 

(‘‘Sales Below Cost Memo’’) dated April 

16, 2010. 

On April 19, 2010, petitioner 

submitted factual information from the 

investigation for the record of the 

instant administrative review. On April 

21, 2010, Koehler requested that it be 

allowed to report its costs based on its 

fiscal year 2009 costs instead of the 

POR, and the Department responded on 

the same date with a letter to Koehler 

requesting additional information. On 

April 23, 2010, Koehler submitted its 

reply to the Department’s April 21, 

2010, letter seeking certain additional 

cost information. On April 28, 2010, and 

on May 7, 2010, petitioner submitted 

letters objecting to Koehler’s request to 

shift its cost reporting period, on the 

basis that weighted-average POR costs 

would be distorted if Koehler’s request 

to report its costs based on its fiscal year 

was granted. On April 29, 2010, the 

Department requested additional cost 

information from Koehler regarding 

Koehler’s request to shift the cost 

reporting period. On May 6, 2010, 

Koehler submitted its reply to the 

Department’s April 21, 2010, letter 

seeking certain additional cost 

information. On May 10, 2010, the 

Department denied Koehler’s request to 

shift its cost reporting period in this 

administrative review. 

On May 25, 2010, Koehler submitted 

its response to Section D of the 

Department’s initial questionnaire 

which was issued on April 20, 2010. On 

June 11, 2010, petitioner submitted 

deficiency comments concerning 

Koehler’s supplemental sales and initial 

cost responses. On June 17, 2010, 

Koehler submitted a letter in response to 

the petitioner’s letter of June 11, 2010. 

On July 16, 2010, the Department 

published a notice extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results of the administrative review 

from August 2, 2010, to December 7, 

2010. See Lightweight Thermal Paper 

from Germany: Extension of Time Limits 

for the Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 41439 (July 16, 2010). 

The Department issued several 

supplemental questionnaires to Koehler 

and received timely responses to its 

requests for additional information. 

On November 5, 2010, petitioner 

submitted ‘‘pre-preliminary results’’ 

comments to reiterate certain comments 

that it previously made in this review. 

Specifically, the petitioner argues that 

the Department should disregard 

Koehler’s home market sales of the 48 

grams per square meter (g/m 2) product, 

alleging that such sales established a 

fictitious market and were made outside 

the ordinary course of trade. The 

petitioner argues that if the Department 

does not exclude Koehler’s sales of KT 

48 F20 thermal paper from its margin 

calculations, then it should disallow 

certain rebates relating to those sales. 

Period of Review 

The POR is November 20, 2008, 

through October 31, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain lightweight thermal paper, 

which is thermal paper with a basis 

weight of 70 grams per square meter (g/ 

m 2) (with a tolerance of ± 4.0 g/m 2) or 

less; irrespective of dimensions; 1 with 

or without a base coat 2 on one or both 

sides; with thermal active coating(s) 3 on 

one or both sides that is a mixture of the 

dye and the developer that react and 

form an image when heat is applied; 

with or without a top coat; 4 and 

without an adhesive backing. Certain 

lightweight thermal paper is typically 

(but not exclusively) used in point-ofsale applications such as ATM receipts, 

credit card receipts, gas pump receipts, 

and retail store receipts. The 

merchandise subject to this order may 

be classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under subheadings 

3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4811.90.8040, 

4811.90.9090, 4820.10.20, and 

4823.40.00.5 Although HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), all products produced by Koehler 

covered by the description in the ‘‘Scope 

of the Order’’ section above and sold in 

Germany during the POR are considered 

to be foreign like products for purposes 

of determining appropriate product 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 77833 

6See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary 

Results of New Shipper Review, 64 FR 46350, 46352 

(August 25, 1999) (citing Tubeless Steel Disc Wheels 

from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 56 FR 14085 (April 1, 

1991)). 

7See Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From 

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 58 FR 25803, 25804 (April 

28, 1993). 

8See petitioner’s comments, dated March 5, 2010, 

at pages 7–8. 

9See petitioner’s comments, dated November 5, 

2010, at pages 5–7. 

10See petitioner’s comments, dated March 5, 

2010, at page 8. 

11See Koehler’s March 16, 2010 letter, at pages 

3- 5; see also Koehler’s Section A–C Supplemental 

Questionnaire response, dated April 15, 2010, at 

pages 8–10 and Exhibit S–8. 

comparisons to U.S. sales. We have 

relied on 12 criteria to match U.S. sales 

of subject merchandise to comparison 

market sales of the foreign like product: 

(1) Form, (2) thermal active coating, (3) 

top coating, (4) basis weight, (5) 

maximum optical density units, (6) 

static sensitivity, (7) dynamic 

sensitivity, (8) color coating, (9) 

printing, (10) width, (11) length, and 

(12) core material. Where there were no 

sales of identical merchandise in the 

home market made in the ordinary 

course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, 

we compared U.S. sales to the next most 

similar foreign like product on the basis 

of the characteristics listed above. 

For purposes of these preliminary 

results, where appropriate, we have 

calculated the adjustment for 

differences in merchandise based on the 

difference in the variable cost of 

manufacturing (‘‘VCOM’’) between each 

U.S. model and the most similar home 

market model selected for comparison. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of LWTP 

from Germany were made in the United 

States at less than NV, we compared the 

export price (‘‘EP’’) or constructed export 

price (‘‘CEP’’) to the NV, as described in 

the Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price and Normal Value sections of this 

notice. In accordance with section 

777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated 

monthly weighted-average prices for NV 

and compared these to individual U.S. 

transaction prices. 

Allegation of a Fictitious Market 

In petitioner’s letter dated March 5, 

2010, petitioner argued that the 

Department should scrutinize Koehler’s 

pricing in the German market. Petitioner 

asserts that there is evidence in the 

pricing trends for certain products 

which indicate that Koehler has 

artificially manipulated prices for 

certain sales or created a ‘‘fictitious 

market’’ within the meaning of section 

773(a)(2) of the Act. Citing Stainless 

Steel Bar from India,6 and Gray 

Portland Cement and Clinker From 

Mexico,7 the petitioner states that the 

Department investigates whether there 

might be a ‘‘fictitious market’’ where 

there is evidence of ‘‘different 

movements in prices at which forms of 

the foreign like product are sold,’’ and 

where such movements tend to reduce 

normal value for the like product 

matching to the respondent’s U.S. 

sales.8

Petitioner states that heavier basis 

weight paper is more costly to produce, 

and thus, commands a higher price, 

than lighter basis weight paper on a per 

square meter basis because of the 

additional material required to produce 

the same area. However, petitioner 

states that, when priced on a per 

kilogram basis, heavier basis weight 

paper is generally less expensive than 

lighter basis weight paper. The 

petitioner asserts that Koehler’s 

reporting of its sales prices in the home 

market does not follow this relationship 

and contends that Koehler’s explanation 

based on the relative demand of the 

products does not explain the alleged 

distortions in Koehler’s home market 

prices.9 The petitioner alleges that there 

is a significant difference in price 

movements between Koehler’s home 

market sales of certain products.10 The 

petitioner asserts that Koehler has 

manipulated its sales in such a way that 

causes artificial price comparisons with 

Koehler’s U.S. sales. 

Koehler refutes petitioner’s assertions 

that Koehler has artificially manipulated 

prices for certain sales or created a 

fictitious market. Koehler claims that it 

has been marketing KT 48 F20 in 

commercial quantities in the German 

and U.S. markets since February 2007, 

and that such sales are normal market 

transactions. Koehler states that the KT 

48 F20 lowers transportation costs by 15 

percent, because a reel of KT 48 F20 

provides 15 percent more length than a 

reel of KT 55 F20. Koehler explains that 

there are relatively more sales of KT 48 

F20 in the United States than in 

Germany because it is lighter and longer 

than KT 55 F20, which translates to 

fewer reels needed and a reduction in 

the cost of transportation. Koehler states 

that shipping costs are not as significant 

in Germany because all German 

destinations are much closer compared 

to U.S. destinations. Therefore, German 

companies tend to purchase less KT 48 

F20 than U.S. companies. Koehler also 

points out what it claims to be other 

additional benefits for U.S. companies 

that purchase KT 48 F20, such as less 

waste paper and time lost due to 

changing reels that do not have the 

length of KT 48 F20.11

Koehler states that data for the POR, 

plus sales data from the period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’), show a consistent 

pricing pattern in Germany in which KT 

55 F20 sells at a higher price than KT 

48 F20. Koehler contends that 

petitioner’s assertion relating pricing to 

grams per square meter of merchandise 

ignores the role of market demand in 

pricing, and further contends that there 

is no one-to-one relationship between 

grams per square meter and price. 

Furthermore, Koehler states that it 

needs to offer competitive prices in the 

home market to attract customers to this 

new product. 

In accordance with section 773(a)(2) 

of the Act, no pretended sale or offer for 

sale, and no sale or offer for sale 

intended to establish a fictitious market, 

shall be taken into account in 

determining normal value. The 

occurrence of different movements in 

the prices at which different forms of 

the foreign like product are sold (or, in 

the absence of sales, offered for sale) in 

the exporting country after the issuance 

of an antidumping duty order may be 

considered by the administering 

authority as evidence of the 

establishment of a fictitious market for 

the foreign like product if the movement 

in such prices appears to reduce the 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds the export price (or the 

constructed export price) of the subject 

merchandise. 

In Gray Portland Cement and Clinker 

From Mexico, we stated that ‘‘the 

existence of a fictitious market is not 

necessarily established merely on the 

basis of price movements without regard 

to the reasons that may have caused 

those price movements. The presence of 

commercial factors other than the 

existence of an antidumping duty order 

is relevant in determining whether a 

fictitious market exists.’’ See Gray 

Portland Cement and Clinker From 

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 

25803, 25804 (April 28, 1993). 

Accordingly, the Department will 

examine not only whether there are 

price movements, but also whether 

there are commercial or market factors 

that explain these price movements. A 

review of the record of this case shows 

that the International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’) examined U.S. market 

conditions in its report issued for its 

Preliminary Determination and noted a 

shift from the 55 g/m2 product to the 48 

g/m2 product. Based on the analysis 

performed by the ITC, it stated that ‘‘the 

entire increase in subject import volume 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
77834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 

12See Koehler’s Section A–C Supplemental 

Questionnaire response, dated April 15, 2010, at 

pages 14–17. 

13See Koehler’s March 16, 2010 letter, at page 1. 

from Germany from 2005 to interim 

2007 was attributable to increased 

shipments of the 48 gram product. At 

the same time, subject imports from 

Germany of the traditional 55 gram 

product have declined since 2005.’’ See 

ITC Preliminary Determination Report: 

Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from 

China and Germany, Investigation Nos. 

701–TA–451 and 731–TA–1126–1127 

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’) at 48–49, 

Publication 3964, November 2007. See 

also Preliminary Results Calculations in 

the 08/09 Administrative Review of 

Lightweight Thermal Paper from 

Germany at Appendix 3 (‘‘Preliminary 

Results Calculation Memo’’). 

Similarly, the ITC’s Final 

Determination Report analysis of the 

trends in the basis weight of thermal 

paper sales stated that: ‘‘{a}ccording to 

Appleton, paper markets have, in 

general, been gravitating toward lighter 

basis weight products, and in recent 

years, certain LW thermal paper 

weighing 48 g/m2 has been introduced 

into the U.S. market at a discount to the 

55 g/m2 product, which makes it 

appealing to some converters. However, 

Appleton contends that there has not 

been a big push by end users for lighter 

basis weights and that market 

acceptance of the 48 g/m2 product has 

been limited because of certain 

disadvantages (e.g., thinner paper more 

prone to breaking during converting, 

smaller converted rolls, and the need to 

inventory more types of packaging). On 

the other hand, Koehler, which 

introduced its 48 g/m2 certain LW 

thermal paper to the U.S. market in 

2005, sees an advantage in the thinner 

paper in that it can be used to make a 

longer finished roll with the same 

diameter meaning less time spent by the 

end user changing rolls. Koehler also 

notes that the product has a freight 

advantage for converters because they 

can ship 10 percent more footage at the 

same shipping weight, and the firm 

expects sales of the 48 g/m2 product to 

continue growing.’’ See ITC Report: 

Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from 

China and Germany, Investigation Nos. 

701–TA–451 and 731–TA–1126–1127 

(Final) at I–8. Publication 4043, 

November 2008. See also Preliminary 

Results Calculations Memo. 

The Department’s review of the 

marketing materials (i.e., product 

brochures) submitted by Koehler 

combined with the ITC discussion of the 

48 g/m2 product in the context of the 

underlying investigation provides 

evidence that this is a relatively new 

product with expected growth in the 

United States. See Koehler’s Section A– 

C Supplemental Questionnaire 

response, dated April 15, 2010, at pages 

8–10 and Exhibit S–8. Koehler’s 

arguments about the effect of lower 

shipping costs, and the factual 

information on the record, are 

consistent with the ITC analysis of this 

product. This product’s sales growth 

appears to be more significant in the 

United States than in Germany because 

freight cost for shipping the subject 

merchandise is comparatively more 

important in the U.S. market than in 

Germany, as the United States is a larger 

country and the distances to deliver to 

the United States are much more 

significant than in Germany. 

In addition, we find that petitioner’s 

allegation that there are different price 

trends for certain product(s) is 

inaccurate. Specifically, we disagree 

with the petitioner’s analysis because it 

examined only net prices and was 

predicated on a prior version of 

Koehler’s home market sales database, 

which has been corrected by Koehler to 

account for all of Koehler’s rebates 

during the reporting period covered by 

this review. Koehler reported that, in 

the first version of the home market 

sales database that it submitted in this 

review, it inadvertently excluded 

certain quarterly rebates which apply to 

the period immediately prior to the POR 

for KT 48 F20. See Koehler’s Section A– 

C Supplemental Questionnaire 

response, dated April 15, 2010, at pages 

16–17. Once these rebates were 

accounted for, the Department’s analysis 

of this data shows the general price 

trend for the products at issue is 

consistent over time, based on the 

revised rebate amounts and 

corresponding gross and net prices for 

the pre-POR and POR time periods. 

Therefore, the Department preliminary 

finds that Koehler’s pricing of sales of 

certain products in Germany does not 

result in a fictitious market. Due to the 

proprietary nature of this issue, see 

Preliminary Results Calculations Memo. 

Allegation of Sales Made Outside the 

Ordinary Course of Trade 

The petitioner argues that the 

Department should disregard Koehler’s 

home market sales of the KT 48 F20 

product, alleging that such sales were 

made outside the ordinary course of 

trade. The petitioner asserts that 

Koehler’s home market sales of the KT 

48 F20 product comprise a relatively 

small portion of its home market sales 

and were made pursuant to unusual 

terms of sale based on the post-sale 

adjustments discussed below. 

Koehler rebuts these arguments, 

claiming that it has been marketing KT 

48 F20 in commercial quantities in the 

German and U.S. markets since 

February 2007, and that such sales are 

normal market transactions. Koehler 

reports sales of KT 48 F20 during the 

investigation and this POR to multiple 

customers. Koehler states that the 48 g/ 

m2 product is still a relatively new 

product and faces relatively lower 

demand in the home market, as 

compared to its U.S. sales of 48 g/m2

and its home market sales of other 

products. In regard to its sales terms, 

Koehler states that it bases its pricing 

and rebates on its customer-specific 

sales negotiations and the commercial 

demand of its products relative to its 

other products.12

The Department considers sales to be 

outside the ordinary course of trade 

when, ‘‘based on an evaluation of all of 

the circumstances particular to the sales 

in question,’’ they ‘‘have characteristics 

that are extraordinary for the market in 

question.’’ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(35). 

Although there is no exhaustive list of 

such characteristics, {e}xamples of sales 

that the Secretary might consider as 

being outside the ordinary course of 

trade are sales or transactions involving 

off-quality merchandise or merchandise 

produced according to unusual product 

specifications, merchandise sold at 

aberrational prices or with abnormally 

high profits, merchandise sold pursuant 

to unusual terms of sale, or merchandise 

sold to an affiliated party at a non-arm’s 

length price. See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(35); 

see also section 771(15) of the Act and 

the Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, 

Vol. 1 at 834 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). 

We have examined the terms of sale 

for the products in question and the 

sales trends of the products in question. 

Koehler reported sales of KT 48 F20 to 

a number of customers in both the POI 

and the POR.13 Furthermore, we have 

evaluated all of the circumstances 

particular to the sales in question and 

do not find that such sales have 

characteristics that are extraordinary for 

the market in question. Based on our 

examination of the record, we find that 

there is no evidence on the record to 

demonstrate that Koehler’s sales of KT 

48 F20 are based on transactions 

involving off-quality merchandise, 

merchandise produced according to 

unusual product specifications, 

merchandise sold at aberrational prices 

or with abnormally high profits, 

merchandise sold pursuant to unusual 

terms of sale, or merchandise sold to an 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 77835 

14See Canned Pineapple from Thailand: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 70948 (December 7, 

2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1 (Thai Pineapple Final 

Results). 

15See Koehler’s April 15, 2010, Supplemental 

Questionnaire Response at Exhibits S–11 through 

S–13. 

16See Canned Pineapple from Thailand: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 70948 (December 7, 

2006) (Thai Pineapple Final Results), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

17See Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 44256 (August 4, 

2006) (Thai Pineapple Preliminary Results). 

18 Id. 

19See Thai Pineapple Final Results. 

affiliated party at a non-arm’s length 

price. 

In summary, the record of this review 

does not support a finding of sales 

outside the ordinary course of trade. 

Petitioner has not provided sufficient 

evidence to demonstrate that Koehler’s 

sales of KT 48 F20 are outside the 

ordinary course of trade. 

Allegation That Koehler’s Home Market 

Rebates Are Not Bona Fide Adjustments 

The petitioner argues that if the 

Department does not exclude Koehler’s 

sales of KT 48 F20 thermal paper from 

its margin calculations on the basis that 

such sales were made outside the 

ordinary course of trade, then it should 

disallow certain rebates relating to those 

sales. Petitioner contends that the terms 

were not agreed to by the customers 

until after the respective sales occurred, 

and thus, the rebates are not within 

normal commercial considerations. 

Citing the Thai Pineapple Final 

Results,14 petitioner states that the 

Department’s practice is to closely 

examine the circumstances surrounding 

the adjustment to determine whether it 

was a bona fide adjustment made in the 

ordinary course of business. 

The petitioner argues that Koehler has 

significantly increased the rebates to a 

particular customer in the home market 

during the POR. The petitioner asserts 

that Koehler has manipulated its sales 

prices by applying rebates to certain 

product(s). In its letter dated March 5, 

2010, the petitioner provided an 

analysis of certain products sold by 

Koehler in the home market using net 

prices for several months prior to the 

POR for comparison to the months 

during the POR. Based on this analysis, 

the petitoner asserts that Koehler 

artificially manipulated its home market 

pricing by applying higher rebates 

during the POR for the product(s) 

identified by petitioner, as compared to 

the months prior to the POR. The 

petitioner alleges that Koehler has 

applied a pricing scheme using post-sale 

adjustments and argues that these are 

not bona fide rebate adjustments where 

the customer knows the rebate amount 

at the time of sale. 

Koehler reports customer-specific 

rebates which may apply to all products 

or be product-specific. Koehler paid 

rebates on a periodic basis (either 

monthly, quarterly, or annually). The 

rebate terms were all agreed to on a 

percentage of gross unit price basis and 

differ by customer and by product. 

Koehler states that there are generally 

no written rebate agreements covering 

sales of subject merchandise during the 

POR. Koehler reports that it had these 

rebate agreements in place for several 

years and although there were initially 

written agreements with customers, the 

rebate practices had become routine 

enough by the POR that the parties did 

not bother with formalized written 

rebate agreements.15 Rather, the rebate 

percentage is simply specified on the 

relevant customer-specific price lists. 

Koehler rebuts petitioner’s allegation 

that its home market prices were 

artificially manipulated, stating that its 

home market pricing and rebate 

percentages cannot be examined in 

isolation; rather, the sales prices are 

based on customer-specific price 

negotiations in which the starting prices 

may differ by customer and product 

based on commercial demand 

considerations. Koehler acknowledges 

that, in its reporting for certain sales, the 

customer may not know the exact 

percentage of the rebate that will be 

received until after the sale date. 

Koehler states that regardless of whether 

this adjustment may be referred to as a 

post-sale billing adjustment or a rebate, 

it must be accounted for as a reduction 

to normal value in the Department’s 

margin calculations. 

The Department’s practice is to 

reduce the gross selling price by the 

amount of the rebate when the seller 

establishes the terms and conditions 

under which the rebate will be granted 

at or before the time of sale. See, e.g., 

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From Canada; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 13815, 

13822–23 (March 28, 1996). Consistent 

with this practice, we have disallowed 

certain rebates that are instituted 

retroactively since such rebates could be 

designed to reduce the comparison 

market price for the purpose of reducing 

or eliminating dumping margins. See id. 

In the instant case, although certain 

customers may not always know the 

precise rebate amount at the time of the 

sale, the customer-specific price lists 

indicate the rebate percentages and the 

customers expect to receive rebates 

based on their existing, and in some 

cases, long-standing relationship with 

Koehler and their prior written rebate 

agreements. 

We find that the fact pattern in this 

case is dissimilar to the fact pattern in 

cases such as Thai Pineapple Final 

Results.16 In Thai Pineapple Final 

Results, the Department was concerned 

as to why post-sale price increases were 

made by the respondent, Vita, for only 

U.S. sales and not comparison market 

sales. The Department stated that in the 

Thai Pineapple Preliminary Results,17 it 

rejected the claimed post-sale price 

increases because (1) the record did not 

support Vita’s rationale for the price 

increases; (2) Vita either could not 

supply an agreement providing for the 

price increases or supplied an 

agreement where virtually none of the 

terms of the agreement were followed; 

and, (3) the price increases appeared to 

be unique given there was no evidence 

that Vita made post-sale price 

adjustments to sales to any other 

markets or any other customers.18

In the Thai Pineapple Final Results, 

the Department stated ‘‘the 

circumstances surrounding the U.S. 

customers’ payment of the post-sale 

price increases do not appear to be 

consistent with commercial realities and 

call into question the nature of these 

payments. As noted in the Preliminary 

Results, if these are, in fact, payments 

on the claimed post-sale price 

adjustments, it would mean that these 

customers were willing to pay 

significant charges imposed after the 

sale, even though, in the case of one 

U.S. customer, there was: (1) No 

agreement requiring the company to pay 

such amounts; (2) no understanding as 

to how these additional charges would 

be calculated; and (3) no limits placed 

on the amount of the additional charges. 

Similarly, another U.S. customer 

reportedly paid the post-sale price 

increases even though: (1) The 

purported agreement covering these 

additional charges was not followed; 

and (2) the price increases appear to be 

inconsistent with Vita’s cost increases. 

Thus, regardless of how Vita labeled the 

payments, the payments do not 

demonstrate that Vita is entitled to the 

claimed post-sale price adjustments.’’19

In contrast, in the instant review, 

Koehler has reported rebates in both the 

U.S. and comparison market during the 

POI and POR and has provided rebate 

agreements covering sales dating back to 

2002 and 2003. Koehler has explained 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
77836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 

20See Koehler’s April 15, 2010, Supplemental 

Questionnaire Response at Exhibits S–11 through 

S–13. 

21See Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany: 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 73 FR 57326 (October 2, 2008); see also 

Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, titled ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Final Determination Koehler,’’ dated September 25, 

2008 (‘‘Final Cost Memorandum’’); see also 

Memorandum to The File, titled ‘‘Final Analysis 

Memorandum for Sales—Koehler,’’ dated September 

25, 2008 (‘‘Final Sales Memo’’). 

that the customers subject to the rebate 

programs are aware of the general rebate 

terms and expect the rebate, which is 

negotiated by Koehler on a product and 

customer-specific basis. 

As referenced above, the petitioner’s 

allegation that there are different 

movements in prices between certain 

products in the home market is 

inaccurate, and the petitioner’s analysis 

was based on an incorrect prior version 

of Koehler’s home market sales database 

which did not account for all of 

Koehler’s rebates. Furthermore, as 

Koehler indicated in its June 11, 2010 

letter, and as the Department’s analysis 

confirms, there is not a significant 

difference in the rebate percentages 

applied to home market sales of KT 48 

F20 during the investigation, as 

compared to the POR. 

We have analyzed Koehler’s home 

market rebates for two products KT 48 

F20 and KT 55 F 20 using data from the 

POI and the POR. See Preliminary 

Results Calculations Memo. These data 

clearly show a consistent pattern. 

Regarding the nature of the sales 

documentation and whether these are 

‘‘post-sale adjustments’’ as alleged by 

petitioner, we find that Koehler has a 

long-standing practice of allowing 

rebates. Koehler provided 

documentation to demonstrate that 

there was an original formal written 

rebate program in effect during 2002 

and 2003.20 Koehler then began 

documenting the rebate percentages on 

individually negotiated customer 

specific price lists which are updated 

periodically by Koehler. See, e.g., 

Koehler’s Section A–C Supplemental 

Questionnaire response, dated April 15, 

2010, at Exhibit S–14. In some 

instances, the rebate percentages were 

adjusted after certain shipments were 

made. However, it is clear the Koehler 

and its customers had a long-standing 

understanding that rebates would be 

applied. Therefore, based on the 

evidence on the record of this review, 

we preliminarily find Koehler’s rebates 

to be bona fide, and we will allow the 

rebates as reported in Koehler’s sales 

databases. 

Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

For the price to the United States, we 

used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in 

accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) 

of the Act. Pursuant to section 772(a) of 

the Act, we used the EP methodology 

when the merchandise was first sold by 

the producer or exporter outside the 

United States directly to the unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation and when CEP was not 

otherwise warranted based on the facts 

on the record. We calculated CEP for 

those sales where a person in the United 

States, affiliated with the foreign 

exporter or acting for the account of the 

exporter, made the first sale to the 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States of the subject merchandise. See 

section 772(b) of the Act. We based EP 

and CEP on the packed prices charged 

to the first unaffiliated customer in the 

United States and the applicable terms 

of sale. When appropriate, we adjusted 

prices to reflect billing adjustments, 

rebates, and early payment discounts, 

and commissions. 

In accordance with section 772(c)(2) 

of the Act, we made deductions, where 

appropriate, for movement expenses 

including U.S. warehouse expense, 

inland freight, inland insurance, 

brokerage & handling, international 

freight, marine insurance, freight rebate 

revenue, and U.S. customs duties. 

For CEP, in accordance with section 

772(d)(1) of the Act, when appropriate, 

we deducted from the starting price 

those selling expenses that were 

incurred in selling the subject 

merchandise in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (cost 

of credit, warranty, and other direct 

selling expenses). These expenses also 

include certain indirect selling expenses 

incurred by affiliated U.S. distributors. 

See Preliminary Results Calculations 

Memo. We also deducted from CEP an 

amount for profit in accordance with 

sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act. 

Normal Value 

A. Selection of Comparison Market 

To determine whether there was a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV, we compared Koehler’s 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of its 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 

Act, because Koehler had an aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product that was greater 

than five percent of its aggregate volume 

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, 

we determined that the home market 

was viable. 

B. Arm’s-Length Test 

Because Koehler reported that its 

sales of the foreign like product were 

made to unaffiliated customers, the 

arm’s-length test is not applicable. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

The Department did not disregard any 

sales below the cost of production 

(‘‘COP’’) in the underlying 

investigation.21 As a result, the 

Department did not initially issue a 

Section D questionnaire with the 

Section A–C questionnaire sent to 

Koehler on December 23, 2009. The 

petitioner subsequently submitted a 

sales below cost allegation and the 

Department initiated a ‘‘sales-belowcost’’ investigation because the 

Department determined that the 

petitioner provided a reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that Koehler is selling 

lightweight thermal paper in Germany 

at prices below the COP. See Sales 

Below Cost Memo. 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated Koehler’s COP 

based on the sum of its costs of 

materials and conversion for the foreign 

like product, plus amounts for general 

and administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expenses 

and interest expenses (see the Test of 

Comparison Market Sales Prices section 

below for the treatment of home market 

selling expenses). The Department 

relied on the COP data submitted by 

Koehler and its Section D supplemental 

questionnaire responses for the COP 

calculation. Based on the review of 

record evidence, Koehler did not appear 

to experience significant changes in the 

cost of manufacturing during the period 

of review. Therefore, we followed our 

normal methodology of calculating an 

annual weighted-average cost. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

As required under section 773(b)(2) of 

the Act, we compared the weightedaverage COP to the per-unit price of the 

comparison market sales of the foreign 

like product, to determine whether 

these sales were made at prices below 

the COP within an extended period of 

time in substantial quantities, and 

whether such prices were sufficient to 

permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time. We 

determined the net comparison market 

prices for the below-cost test by 

subtracting from the gross unit price any 

applicable movement charges, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 77837 

discounts, rebates, direct and indirect 

selling expenses (also subtracted from 

the COP), and packing expenses which 

were excluded from COP for 

comparison purposes. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

After calculating the COP and in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act, we tested whether home-market 

sales of the foreign like product were 

made at prices below the COP within an 

extended period of time in substantial 

quantities and whether such prices 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. See 

section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We 

compared the COPs of the models 

represented by control numbers to the 

reported home-market prices less any 

applicable movement charges, 

discounts, and rebates. 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, when less than 20 percent of 

Koehler’s sales of a given product were 

at prices less than the COP, we did not 

disregard any below-cost sales of that 

product because the below-cost sales 

were not made in substantial quantities 

within an extended period of time. 

When 20 percent or more of Koehler’s 

sales of a given product during the POR 

were at prices less than the COP, we 

disregarded the below-cost sales 

because they were made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act and because, based on 

comparisons of prices to weightedaverage COPs for the POR, we 

determined that these sales were at 

prices which would not permit recovery 

of all costs within a reasonable period 

of time in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this 

test, we only disregarded below-cost 

sales that amounted to 20 percent or 

more of Koehler’s sales of a given 

product. All other sales that were below 

cost but did not meet the 20-percent 

threshold were included in our 

calculation of normal value. See 

Preliminary Results Calculations Memo. 

Our preliminary findings show that 

we did not find that more than 20 

percent of Koehler’s sales were at prices 

less than the COP. Therefore, we used 

all of Koehler’s remaining home market 

sales as the basis for determining NV. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We based home market prices on 

packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers 

in Germany. The Department excluded 

certain sales transactions reported as 

samples by Koehler. We adjusted the 

starting price for billing adjustments, 

early payment discounts, rebates, 

warehouse expenses, and inland freight 

where appropriate, pursuant to section 

773(a)(6) of the Act. In addition, for 

comparisons made to EP sales, we made 

adjustments for differences in 

circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) pursuant 

to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We 

made COS adjustments by deducting 

direct selling expenses incurred for 

home market sales (credit expense, 

warranty directly linked to sales 

transactions, royalties, and other direct 

selling expenses) and adding U.S. direct 

selling expenses (credit, commissions, 

warranty directly linked to sales 

transactions, and other direct selling 

expenses), where appropriate. See 19 

CFR 351.410. 

When comparing U.S. sales with 

comparison market sales of similar, but 

not identical, merchandise, we also 

made adjustments for physical 

differences in the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We 

based this adjustment on the difference 

in the VCOM for the foreign like 

product and subject merchandise, using 

weighted-average costs. See 19 CFR 

351.411(b). 

E. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP or 

CEP sales. In identifying LOTs for EP 

and comparison market sales (i.e., NV 

based on home market), we consider the 

starting prices before any adjustments. 

For CEP sales, we consider only the 

selling activities reflected in the price 

after the deduction of expenses and 

profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 

See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 

States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Federal 

Circuit 2001). 

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.412, to 

determine whether comparison market 

sales were at a different LOT than EP or 

CEP transactions, we examine stages in 

the marketing process and selling 

functions along the chain of distribution 

between the producer and the 

unaffiliated customer. If the comparison 

market sales are at a different LOT and 

the difference affects price 

comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which NV is based 

and comparison market sales at the LOT 

of the export transaction, we make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if 

the NV level is more remote from the 

factory than the CEP level and there is 

no basis for determining whether the 

difference in the levels between NV and 

CEP affects price comparability, we will 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from South 

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732–33 

(November 19, 1997). 

Koehler reported its sales in the home 

market and the U.S. market at the same 

single LOT. In the home market, 

Koehler reported that its sales were 

made through two channels of 

distribution: (1) Direct sales and (2) 

consignment sales. In the U.S. market, 

Koehler reported that its sales were 

made through three channels of 

distribution: (1) Market direct-shipment 

sales through its U.S. affiliated 

distributor, Koehler America, Inc. (i.e., 

CEP sales), (2) warehouse sales made 

through Koehler America, Inc. (i.e., CEP 

sales), (3) and direct sales from Koehler 

AG to the customer (i.e., EP sales). 

Based on our analysis, we found that 

Koehler’s sales to the U.S. and home 

market were made at the same LOT, and 

as a result, no LOT adjustment was 

warranted. Furthermore, our analysis 

shows that Koehler’s home market sales 

were not made at a more advanced LOT 

than Koehler’s U.S. sales. Accordingly, 

we have not made a CEP offset to NV. 

See 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. 

For a detailed description of our LOT 

methodology and a summary of 

company-specific LOT findings for 

these preliminary results, see our 

analysis contained in the Preliminary 

Results Sales Calculation Memo. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the official 

exchange rates published by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted-average percentage 

margin exists for the following 

respondents for the period November 

20, 2008, through October 31, 2010. 

Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average 

margin (percent) 

Papierfabrik August 

Koehler AG.

0.03 (de minimis). 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

to the parties to this proceeding in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
77838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 

no later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 

Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs and may be 

filed no later than five days after the 

time limit for filing the case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and (3) a 

table of authorities, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Further, parties 

submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs 

are requested to provide the Department 

with an additional electronic copy of 

the public version of any such 

comments on a computer diskette. Case 

and rebuttal briefs must be served on 

interested parties in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.303(f). 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 

ordinarily will be held two days after 

the due date of the rebuttal briefs in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, or at a hearing, if requested, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, unless extended. 

See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 

19 CFR 351.213(h). 

Assessment Rate 

Upon completion of the final results 

of this administrative review, the 

Department shall determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), the Department will 

calculate importer-specific assessment 

rates for each respondent based on the 

ratio of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of those sales. 

Where the respondent did not report the 

entered value for U.S. sales, we have 

calculated importer-specific assessment 

rates for the merchandise in question by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity of those sales. To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates were de minimis, in accordance 

with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importerspecific ad valorem rates based on the 

estimated entered value. Where the 

assessment rate is above de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of the final results of this review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the respondents subject to 

this review for which the reviewed 

companies did not know that the 

merchandise which it sold to an 

intermediary (e.g. a reseller, trading 

company, or exporter) was destined for 

the United States. In such instances, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the all-others rate 

if there is no rate for the intermediary 

involved in the transaction. For a full 

discussion of this clarification, see id. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

To calculate the cash deposit rate for 

Koehler, we divided its total dumping 

margin by the total net value of its sales 

during the review period. 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of lightweight thermal 

paper from Germany entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) 

of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 

companies subject to this review will be 

the rate established in the final results 

of this review, except if the rate is less 

than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de 

minimis, no cash deposit will be 

required; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent final results for a review 

in which that manufacturer or exporter 

participated; (3) if the exporter is not a 

firm covered in this review, a prior 

review, or the original less-than-fairvalue (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent final results for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this review, the cash 

deposit rate will be 6.50 percent, the allothers rate established in the LTFV 

investigation. See Antidumping Duty 

Orders: Lightweight Thermal Paper from 

Germany and the People’s Republic of 

China, 73 FR 70959 (November 24, 

2008). These cash deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: December 7, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31370 Filed 12–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–809] 

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 

From the Republic of Korea: 

Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on circular 

welded non-alloy steel pipe (‘‘CWP’’) 

from the Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’). 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is 

November 1, 2008, through October 31, 

2009. This review covers multiple 

exporters/producers, three of which are 

being individually reviewed as 

mandatory respondents. We 

preliminarily determine the mandatory 

respondents made sales of the subject 

merchandise at prices below normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). We have assigned the 

remaining respondents the weightedaverage of the margins calculated for the 

mandatory respondents. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES