51558 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 

1On September 29, 2008, the Department 

received a timely request for an administrative 

review filed on behalf of Kejriwal Paper Limited 

and a timely request for an administrative review 

filed on behalf of Navneet. On September 30, 2008, 

the Department received a timely request for an 

administrative review of the following 25 

companies, filed on behalf of the Association of 

American School Paper Suppliers (the Association 

or Petitioner), a domestic interested party: Agility 

Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Blue Bird, Ceal Shipping 

Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Cello International Pvt. Ltd., 

Corporate Stationary Pvt. Ltd., Creative Divya, Exel 

India Pvt. Ltd., FFI International, Global Art India 

Inc., International Greetings Pvt. Ltd., Karim 

General Handmade Paper DIAR, Kejriwal Exports, 

M/S Super ImpEx., Magic International, Marigold 

ExIm Pvt. Ltd., Marisa International, Navneet 

Publications (India) Ltd., Pentagon Waterlines Pvt. 

Ltd., Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd., Rajvansh 

International, Riddhi Enterprises, SAB 

International, TKS Overseas, Unlimited Accessories 

Worldwide, and V. Joshi Co. 

We inadvertently listed Kejriwal Paper Limited 

and Kejriwal Exports separately in our notice of 

initiation of this review. However, in Kejriwal 

Paper Limited’s response to the Department’s 

questionnaire, Kejriwal Exports was identified as a 

the November 2009 Pacific Council 

meeting. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may 

come before the SAS for discussion, 

those issues may not be the subject of 

formal SAS action during this meeting. 

SAS action will be restricted to those 

issues specifically listed in this notice 

and any issues arising after publication 

of this notice that require emergency 

action under section 305(c) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the SAS’s intent to take final action to 

address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

The public listening station is 

physically accessible to people with 

disabilities. Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter 

at (503) 820–2280 at least 5 days prior 

to the meeting date. 

Dated: October 2, 2009. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–24193 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–955] 

Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Czajkowski or Justin Neuman, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1395 and (202) 

482–0486, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 18, 2009, the Department 

of Commerce (the Department) initiated 

the countervailing duty investigation of 

certain magnesia carbon bricks from the 

People’s Republic of China. See Certain 

Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 

42858 (August 25, 2009). Currently, the 

preliminary determination is due no 

later than October 22, 2009. 

Postponement of Due Date for the 

Preliminary Determination 

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), requires the 

Department to issue the preliminary 

determination in a countervailing duty 

investigation within 65 days after the 

date on which the Department initiated 

the investigation. However, the 

Department may postpone making the 

preliminary determination until no later 

than 130 days after the date on which 

the administering authority initiated the 

investigation if the petitioner makes a 

timely request for an extension pursuant 

to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act. In the 

instant investigation, the petitioner 

made a timely request on September 25, 

2009, requesting a postponement until 

120 days from the initiation date. See 19 

CFR 351.205(e) and the petitioner’s 

September 25, 2009 letter requesting 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination. Therefore, pursuant to 

the discretion afforded the Department 

under 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 

because the Department does not find 

any compelling reason to deny the 

request, we are extending the due date 

until 120 days after the Department’s 

initiation for the preliminary 

determination. Therefore, the deadline 

for the completion of the preliminary 

determination is now December 16, 

2009. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act. 

Dated: October 1, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–24213 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–843] 

Certain Lined Paper Products From 

India: Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain lined 

paper products (CLPP) from India. For 

the period September 1, 2007, through 

August 31, 2008, we have preliminarily 

determined that U.S. sales have been 

made below normal value (NV) by 

Navneet Publications (India) Limited 

(Navneet) and Blue Bird India Ltd. (Blue 

Bird). Because Blue Bird is a selected 

mandatory respondent and was not 

responsive to the Department’s requests 

for information, we have preliminarily 

assigned to Blue Bird a margin based on 

adverse facts available (AFA). If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess antidumping duties based on the 

difference between the export price (EP) 

and NV. See ‘‘Preliminary Results of 

Review’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 7, 2009 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Moore or Cindy Robinson, 

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– 

3797, respectively. 

Background 

On September 2, 2008, the 

Department issued a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of this order for the period of 

review (POR) of September 1, 2007, 

through August 31, 2008. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation: Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 51272 

(September 2, 2008). 

Pursuant to requests from interested 

parties,1 the Department published in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 51559 

division of Kejriwal Paper Limited, and not as a 

separate company. Therefore, Kejriwal Exports 

should not be assigned a separate rate. Accordingly, 

the Department’s initiation is on Kejriwal Paper 

Limited and Kejriwal Exports, (collectively Kejriwal 

Paper Limited). See Initiation Notice. 

2See also Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 

70964 (November 24, 2008) at footnote 1, in which 

the Department states, ‘‘{w}e note that the 

Department erred by inadvertently including the 

manufacturer/exporter name: ‘‘Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd.’’ 

in the prior initiation notice under case number A– 

533–843 for the period of review: 9/1/07–8/31/08.’’ 

See 73 FR 64305 (October 29, 2008). The 

Department did not receive a timely request to 

review Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. for case number A–533– 

843, therefore, the Department retracts its initiation 

of an administrative review of the antidumping 

order with respect to Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. for the 

POR. 

3On January 9, 2009, in response to Blue Bird’s 

January 8, 2009, letter requesting a five-week 

extension until February 16, 2009, to file a response 

to the Department’s original questionnaire, the 

Department, due to time constraints, granted a 

three-week extension until February 3, 2009 

(Extension 1). Subsequently, on January 29, 2009, 

in response to Blue Bird’s January 23, 2009, letter 

requesting a two-week extension until February 16, 

2009, to file a response to Sections B through D of 

the Department’s original questionnaire, the 

Department granted a full extension to Blue Bird to 

respond to Sections B through D until February 16, 

2009 (Extension 2). 

the Federal Register the notice of 

initiation of this antidumping duty 

administrative review with respect to 25 

companies, including Navneet, Kejriwal 

Paper Limited (Kejriwal) and Blue Bird 

for the period September 1, 2007, 

through August 31, 2008. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Deferral of Administrative Review, 73 

FR 64305 (October 29, 2008) (Initiation 

Notice).2 On November 25, 2008, the 

Department selected Kejriwal and Blue 

Bird as companies to be individually 

examined in this, the second 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on CLPP from 

India. See Memorandum to Melissa 

Skinner from George McMahon titled 

‘‘Certain Lined Paper Products from 

India: Selection of Respondents for 

Individual Review’’ (Respondent 

Selection Memo), dated November 25, 

2008. On December 4, 2008, the 

Department issued an antidumping 

questionnaire (original questionnaire) to 

Kejriwal and Blue Bird with a due date 

of January 12, 2009. 

After two extension requests 3 to file 

its response to the original 

questionnaire, Blue Bird submitted its 

Section A questionnaire response on 

February 3, 2009. On February 10, 2009, 

Blue Bird requested a 13-week 

extension of time from February 16 to 

May 18, 2009, to respond to the Sections 

B, C, and D of the Department’s original 

questionnaire. In light of the fact that 

the Department had previously granted 

two extensions and that the requested 

due date by Blue Bird, May 18, 2009, 

was only 15 days before the scheduled 

date of the preliminary results for this 

review, the Department granted Blue 

Bird a two-week extension until March 

3, 2009. Nonetheless, Blue Bird failed to 

respond to the Department’s Sections B 

through D questionnaire and had no 

further communication with the 

Department. See the Department’s letter 

to Blue Bird dated February 13, 2009 

(Extension 3). See also the ‘‘Application 

of Facts Available’’ section below for 

further details. 

On December 22, 2008, both Kejriwal 

and petitioner timely withdrew their 

requests for a review of Kejriwal. On 

January 2, 2009, petitioner requested 

that, because Kejriwal was no longer a 

mandatory respondent, the Department 

select a second mandatory respondent. 

On January 9, 2009, after we determined 

that we would rescind the review with 

respect to Kejriwal, we selected Navneet 

as a mandatory respondent because we 

determined that it was practicable to 

individually examine two respondents, 

and issued a questionnaire to Navneet. 

Navneet submitted its Section A 

questionnaire response on March 3, 

2009; its Sections B and C response on 

March 20, 2009; and its Section D 

response on March 31, 2009. The 

Department issued its first and second 

supplemental questionnaires to Navneet 

on April 30, 2009, and June 19, 2009, 

respectively. Navneet submitted its first 

and second supplemental questionnaire 

responses on May 26, 2009, and July 1, 

2009, respectively. 

On March 4, 2009, and March 24, 

2009, petitioner submitted its comments 

on Blue Bird and Navneet’s Section A 

responses, respectively. On April 21, 

2009, petitioner submitted its comments 

on Navneet’s Sections B and C 

responses. On June 11, 2009, petitioner 

submitted its comments on Navneet’s 

Sections A through C supplemental 

responses. On July 11, 2009, petitioner 

submitted pre-verification comments. 

On March 9, 2009, petitioner 

requested that the Department select 

another mandatory respondent in this 

review. On April 14, 2009, the 

Department declined to select another 

mandatory respondent because it was 

too late in the proceeding. See 

Memorandum to File from James 

Terpstra titled ‘‘Non-selection of 

addition respondent’’ dated April 14, 

2009. 

On May 4, 2009, petitioner made a 

submission requesting that the 

Department modify its model match 

methodology. On May 14, 2009, 

Navneet submitted a letter arguing that 

this change was submitted too late to be 

considered and that the proposed 

change was unwarranted. On May 19, 

2009, petitioner submitted a letter 

arguing that it was not too late to 

propose this change and that the change 

was warranted. 

On May 11, 2009, the Department 

published a notice of partial rescission 

with respect to Kejriwal and extended 

the time limit for issuing the 

preliminary results of this review by 120 

days to September 30, 2009. See Certain 

Lined Paper Products from India: Notice 

of Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and 

Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

21781 (May 11, 2009) (Rescission and 

Preliminary Extension Notice). 

The Department conducted the cost 

verification from June 29, 2009, through 

July 3, 2009, and the sales verification 

from July 13, 2009, through July 17, 

2009, in Mumbai, India. On July 27, 

2009, the Department requested that 

Navneet provide an updated sales file to 

reflect the minor corrections presented 

to the sales verification team. On August 

10, 2009, Navneet provided a revised 

U.S. sales file. 

Period of Review 

The POR is September 1, 2007, 

through August 31, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain lined paper products, typically 

school supplies (for purposes of this 

scope definition, the actual use of or 

labeling these products as school 

supplies or non-school supplies is not a 

defining characteristic) composed of or 

including paper that incorporates 

straight horizontal and/or vertical lines 

on ten or more paper sheets (there shall 

be no minimum page requirement for 

loose leaf filler paper) including but not 

limited to such products as single- and 

multi-subject notebooks, composition 

books, wireless notebooks, loose leaf or 

glued filler paper, graph paper, and 

laboratory notebooks, and with the 

smaller dimension of the paper 

measuring 6 inches to 15 inches 

(inclusive) and the larger dimension of 

the paper measuring 83⁄4 inches to 15 

inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are 

measured size (not advertised, stated, or 

‘‘tear-out’’ size), and are measured as 

they appear in the product (i.e., stitched 

and folded pages in a notebook are 

measured by the size of the page as it 

appears in the notebook page, not the 

size of the unfolded paper). However, 

for measurement purposes, pages with 

tapered or rounded edges shall be 

measured at their longest and widest 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
51560 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 

points. Subject lined paper products 

may be loose, packaged or bound using 

any binding method (other than case 

bound through the inclusion of binders 

board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). 

Subject merchandise may or may not 

contain any combination of a front 

cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of 

any composition, regardless of the 

inclusion of images or graphics on the 

cover, backing, or paper. Subject 

merchandise is within the scope of this 

order whether or not the lined paper 

and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, 

perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject 

merchandise may contain accessory or 

informational items including but not 

limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, 

closure devices, index cards, stencils, 

protractors, writing implements, 

reference materials such as 

mathematical tables, or printed items 

such as sticker sheets or miniature 

calendars, if such items are physically 

incorporated, included with, or attached 

to the product, cover and/or backing 

thereto. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of this order are: 

• Unlined copy machine paper; 

• Writing pads with a backing 

(including but not limited to products 

commonly known as ‘‘tablets,’’ ‘‘note 

pads,’’ ‘‘legal pads,’’ and ‘‘quadrille 

pads’’), provided that they do not have 

a front cover (whether permanent or 

removable). This exclusion does not 

apply to such writing pads if they 

consist of hole-punched or drilled filler 

paper; 

• Three-ring or multiple-ring binders, 

or notebook organizers incorporating 

such a ring binder provided that they do 

not include subject paper; 

• Index cards; 

• Printed books and other books that 

are case bound through the inclusion of 

binders board, a spine strip, and cover 

wrap; 

• Newspapers; 

• Pictures and photographs; 

• Desk and wall calendars and 

organizers (including but not limited to 

such products generally known as 

‘‘office planners,’’ ‘‘time books,’’ and 

‘‘appointment books’’); 

• Telephone logs; 

• Address books; 

• Columnar pads & tablets, with or 

without covers, primarily suited for the 

recording of written numerical business 

data; 

• Lined business or office forms, 

including but not limited to: pre-printed 

business forms, lined invoice pads and 

paper, mailing and address labels, 

manifests, and shipping log books; 

• Lined continuous computer paper; 

• Boxed or packaged writing 

stationary (including but not limited to 

products commonly known as ‘‘fine 

business paper,’’ ‘‘parchment paper,’’ 

and ‘‘letterhead’’), whether or not 

containing a lined header or decorative 

lines; 

• Stenographic pads (‘‘steno pads’’), 

Gregg ruled (‘‘Gregg ruling’’ consists of 

a single- or double-margin vertical 

ruling line down the center of the page. 

For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic 

pad, the ruling would be located 

approximately three inches from the left 

of the book), measuring 6 inches by 9 

inches; 

Also excluded from the scope of this 

order are the following trademarked 

products: 

• FlyTM lined paper products: A 

notebook, notebook organizer, loose or 

glued note paper, with papers that are 

printed with infrared reflective inks and 

readable only by a FlyTM pen-top 

computer. The product must bear the 

valid trademark FlyTM (products found 

to be bearing an invalidly licensed or 

used trademark are not excluded from 

the scope). 

• ZwipesTM: A notebook or notebook 

organizer made with a blended 

polyolefin writing surface as the cover 

and pocket surfaces of the notebook, 

suitable for writing using a speciallydeveloped permanent marker and erase 

system (known as a ZwipesTM pen). 

This system allows the marker portion 

to mark the writing surface with a 

permanent ink. The eraser portion of the 

marker dispenses a solvent capable of 

solubilizing the permanent ink allowing 

the ink to be removed. The product 

must bear the valid trademark ZwipesTM

(products found to be bearing an 

invalidly licensed or used trademark are 

not excluded from the scope). 

• FiveStar®AdvanceTM: A notebook 

or notebook organizer bound by a 

continuous spiral, or helical, wire and 

with plastic front and rear covers made 

of a blended polyolefin plastic material 

joined by 300 denier polyester, coated 

on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl 

chloride) coating, and extending the 

entire length of the spiral or helical 

wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are 

of specific thickness; front cover is 

0.019 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances) and rear 

cover is 0.028 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances). Integral with 

the stitching that attaches the polyester 

spine covering, is captured both ends of 

a 1’’ wide elastic fabric band. This band 

is located 23⁄8’’ from the top of the front 

plastic cover and provides pen or pencil 

storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are 

cut and then bent backwards to overlap 

with the previous coil but specifically 

outside the coil diameter but inside the 

polyester covering. During construction, 

the polyester covering is sewn to the 

front and rear covers face to face 

(outside to outside) so that when the 

book is closed, the stitching is 

concealed from the outside. Both free 

ends (the ends not sewn to the cover 

and back) are stitched with a turned 

edge construction. The flexible 

polyester material forms a covering over 

the spiral wire to protect it and provide 

a comfortable grip on the product. The 

product must bear the valid trademarks 

FiveStar®AdvanceTM (products found to 

be bearing an invalidly licensed or used 

trademark are not excluded from the 

scope). 

• FiveStar FlexTM: A notebook, a 

notebook organizer, or binder with 

plastic polyolefin front and rear covers 

joined by 300 denier polyester spine 

cover extending the entire length of the 

spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic 

fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are 

of a specific thickness; front cover is 

0.019 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances) and rear 

cover is 0.028 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances). During 

construction, the polyester covering is 

sewn to the front cover face to face 

(outside to outside) so that when the 

book is closed, the stitching is 

concealed from the outside. During 

construction, the polyester cover is 

sewn to the back cover with the outside 

of the polyester spine cover to the inside 

back cover. Both free ends (the ends not 

sewn to the cover and back) are stitched 

with a turned edge construction. Each 

ring within the fixture is comprised of 

a flexible strap portion that snaps into 

a stationary post which forms a closed 

binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted 

with six metal rivets and sewn to the 

back plastic cover and is specifically 

positioned on the outside back cover. 

The product must bear the valid 

trademark FiveStar FlexTM (products 

found to be bearing an invalidly 

licensed or used trademark are not 

excluded from the scope). 

Merchandise subject to this order is 

typically imported under headings 

4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 

4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 

4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 

4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050, 

4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS 

headings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes; however, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 51561 

4See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: 

Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 

19706 (April 17, 2006), unchanged in the Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

and Negative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from 

India (India Lined Paper Investigation Final), 71 FR 

45012 (August 8, 2006). 

5See Certain Lined Paper Products from India: 

Preliminary Results of the First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 58548 (October 7, 

2008), unchanged in the Notice of Final Results of 

the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 

(India Lined Paper AR1 Final) 74 FR 17149 (April 

14, 2009). 

6See also Honey From Argentina: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 

30283 (May 27, 2004), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15 

(declining to address arguments for changing the 

model matching methodology raised for the first 

time in the case brief); Certain Small Diameter 

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and 

Pressure Pipe From Romania: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Final Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 

70 FR 7237 (Feb. 11, 2005), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10 

(stating that arguments on the model matching 

methodology should be presented early in the case). 

7Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 6837 (Feb. 9, 2005), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1 (noting that parties were invited to 

comment prior to the issuance of questionnaires in 

the third administrative review on model matching 

changes which initially had been raised too late in 

the second administrative review). 

8This process often takes a significant amount of 

time, and may span more than one review period 

before being implemented. See, e.g., Antifriction 

Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, 

Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in 

Part, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part 

(Ball Bearings), 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 2004), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. The Department 

declined to consider the issue of making a 

fundamental change to the model match 

methodology when it was first raised in the 2002– 

2003 administrative review. Instead the Department 

decided to allow further time for comment and 

analysis of the issue in the context of the next 

administrative review and to ensure that all parties 

in the companion bearings cases were provided 

ample opportunity to consider and provide 

comment on the proposed change to the model 

match methodology. See the accompanying 

memorandum titled ‘‘Ball Bearings (and Parts 

Thereof) From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 

Singapore, and the United Kingdom—Model-Match 

Methodology’’ to James J. Jochum, Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, from Jeffrey A. 

May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated December 3, 2003, which is 

being placed on the record of this segment of the 

proceeding in the Central Records Unit (CRU) in 

room 1117 of the Department’s main building. See 

also Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Twelfth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review (Pasta from Italy) 74 FR 

39285 (August 6, 2009), and the accompanying 

memorandum, titled ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Pasta from Italy: 

Preliminary Model Match Clarification on Pasta 

Wheat Code Classifications’’ to John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, through Melissa 

Skinner, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations 3, 

from James Terpstra, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations 3 for Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Operations, dated July 31, 2009, which is 

being placed on the record of this segment of the 

proceeding. 

Model Match Methodology 

On May 4, 2009, petitioner requested 

that the Department modify its model 

match methodology. We determine that 

it would be inappropriate to make such 

a substantial change in the model match 

methodology at this late stage in the 

administrative review. The physical 

characteristics used in the model 

matching hierarchy were established 

during the LTFV investigation in this 

proceeding by the Department, in 

consultation with all parties.4 The 

Department continued to use this model 

match methodology in the first review 

of this proceeding.5 In order to modify 

the model match methodology, 

according to section 782(g) of the Tariff 

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

Department must allow ‘‘reasonable 

opportunity’’ for interested parties to 

comment. See Koyo Seiko, 516 F. Supp. 

2d 1323 at 1333 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007); 

see also Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final 

Results of Administrative Review, and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4 (Shrimp 

from India), 74 FR 33409 (July 13, 

2009). It is the Department’s practice to 

allow sufficient time to solicit 

comments from all parties, consider the 

merits of the proposed revisions, 

including an opportunity for the 

Department to clarify aspects of the 

party’s proposal and the information 

and basis that supports the proposal.6 In 

the past, the Department has revised 

model match characteristics prior to the 

issuance of questionnaires.7

In this case, petitioner submitted its 

request for a change in model match 

methodology on May 4, 2009, which 

was six months after the initiation of 

this review and 29 days before the 

scheduled date of the preliminary 

results for this review. At the time of the 

request, the Department had already 

issued the original and first 

supplemental questionnaires to 

respondents based on the same modelmatch methodology established in the 

original investigation and the first 

administrative review. Even with a 

subsequent extension of the deadline for 

completing the preliminary results, the 

timing of the request did not allow the 

Department sufficient time to solicit 

comments from all interested parties, to 

finalize the specifics of the model match 

changes, and to issue a revised 

questionnaire to respondents in time for 

the preliminary results. Moreover, 

parties have already committed 

significant resources to preparing their 

questionnaire responses, and petitioner 

has commented on same, using the 

original model match methodology. To 

change the methodology at this time 

would require the collection of 

additional information and place an 

increased burden on respondents.8

Therefore, consistent with the 

Department’s practice, the Department 

agrees, in part, with Navneet that 

petitioner’s request for changing the 

model match methodology in this 

review was submitted too late to be 

considered. For purposes of these 

preliminary results of this review, we 

have continued to rely on our 

established model matching 

methodology in this case. The 

Department will consider the 

petitioner’s arguments if raised at an 

early date in the next proceeding. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we have verified information 

provided by Navneet in the 

administrative review of the order on 

subject merchandise from India using 

standard verification procedures, 

including the examination of relevant 

sales and cost information, financial 

records, and the selection and review of 

original documentation containing 

relevant information. Our verification 

results are outlined in the public 

version of our verification report dated 

August 17, 2009, which is on file in the 

CRU. 

During the sales verification, Navneet 

reported four minor corrections which 

the Department has accepted. In 

addition, the Department made findings 

with respect to bonus pack sales, retail 

merchandising, and market research 

selling activity in the United States. See 

the Department’s Verification of Sales 

Responses of Navneet Publications 

(India) Ltd., in the Antidumping Review 

of Certain Lined Paper Products from 

India (Sales Verification Report), dated 

August 17, 2009, at page 2 for a full 

discussion. 

Application of Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department will apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not available 

on the record or an interested party: (1) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (2) fails to 

provide such information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form or 

manner requested by the Department, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
51562 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 

9 In its letter to Blue Bird dated February 13, 

2009, the Department further stated that it could 

only grant a two-week extension rather than a 13- 

week extension because ‘‘prior to issuing the 

preliminary results, the Department must have 

complete, reliable, and accurate sales and costs 

information submitted by Blue Bird. In addition, 

the Department must have adequate time to review 

and analyze such sales and costs information and 

issue and analyze responses to any necessary 

supplemental questionnaires prior to issuance of 

the preliminary results. Further, because Blue Bird 

has not been reviewed previously, the Department 

planned to conduct verification in this segment of 

the proceeding. Therefore, it is impracticable for the 

Department to grant Blue Bird a three-month 

extension until May 18, 2009, which comes 15 days 

before the scheduled date for issuance of the 

preliminary results.’’ 

subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 

section 782 of the Act; (3) significantly 

impedes a proceeding; or (4) provides 

such information, but the information 

cannot be verified. 

As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’ 

section above, on November 25, 2008, 

the Department selected Kejriwal and 

Blue Bird as companies to be 

individually examined in this review, 

and on December 4, 2008, the 

Department issued its original 

questionnaire to Kejriwal and Blue Bird. 

See the Respondent Selection Memo 

and the Department’s December 4, 2008, 

Letter to Kejriwal and Blue Bird. The 

review of Kejriwal has since been 

rescinded. See Rescission and 

Preliminary Extension Notice. 

With respect to Blue Bird, the due 

date for the original questionnaire 

response was January 12, 2009. As 

noted in footnote 3 and in the 

‘‘Background’’ section, above, Blue Bird 

made three extension requests (fiveweeks, two-weeks, and 13-weeks, 

respectively) to respond to the original 

questionnaire. The Department granted 

a three-week and a two-week extension, 

respectively, in response to Blue Bird’s 

first and second extension requests. In 

response to Blue Bird’s third request for 

a 13-week extension, however, the 

Department determined that it could 

only grant a maximum extension of two 

additional weeks because (1) the 

Department had previously granted Blue 

Bird two extensions for a total of five 

weeks; and (2) Blue Bird’s third 

extension request was impractical 

because the requested due date, May 18, 

2009, was only 15 days before the 

original scheduled date of the 

preliminary results for this review.9 The 

revised deadline for Blue Bird to 

respond to the Department’s Sections B 

through D questionnaire was March 3, 

2009. However, despite multiple 

extensions, Blue Bird never submitted 

any responses to the Department’s 

Sections B through D questionnaire. By 

failing to respond to the Department’s 

requests, Blue Bird withheld requested 

information and significantly impeded 

the proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 

the Department preliminarily finds that 

the use of facts available for Blue Bird 

is appropriate. 

According to section 776(b) of the 

Act, if the Department finds that an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information, the 

Department may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from the facts otherwise 

available. See also India Lined Paper 

AR1 Final; Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 

70 FR 54023, 54025–26 (September 13, 

2005); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 

Circumstances: Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 

55792, 55794–96 (August 30, 2002). 

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to 

ensure that the party does not obtain a 

more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 

103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (SAA), 

reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 

4198–99. Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative 

evidence of bad faith on the part of a 

respondent is not required before the 

Department may make an adverse 

inference.’’ See Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also 

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 

F.3d 1373, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 

(Nippon). 

In this case, the Department granted 

Blue Bird three extensions for a total of 

seven weeks. Despite the clear 

explanation in the Department’s 

February 13, 2009, letter concerning its 

antidumping procedures and time limits 

imposed by the statute, and despite 

multiple extensions granted by the 

Department, Blue Bird never responded 

to the Department’s Section B through D 

questionnaires. Not only did it not take 

the opportunity to respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire, Blue Bird 

ceased to communicate with the 

Department after its third extension 

request. Therefore, we preliminarily 

find that Blue Bird did not act to the 

best of its ability in this proceeding, 

within the meaning of section 776(b) of 

the Act, because it failed to respond to 

the Department’s requests for 

information and failed to provide any 

additional information. Thus, an 

adverse inference is warranted in 

selecting from the facts otherwise 

available with respect to Blue Bird. See 

Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382–83. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use as AFA 

information derived from: (1) The 

petition; (2) the final determination in 

the investigation; (3) any previous 

review; or (4) any other information 

placed on the record. The Department’s 

practice, when selecting an AFA rate 

from among the possible sources of 

information, has been to ensure that the 

margin is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to 

effectuate the statutory purposes of the 

adverse facts available rule to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See, e.g., Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 

Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 

(November 7, 2006). 

In order to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse so as to induce 

cooperation, we have preliminarily 

assigned a rate of 72.96 percent, which 

is the highest transaction-specific rate 

calculated for a respondent in this 

review. Since this is not secondary 

information, we do not have to 

corroborate this rate pursuant to section 

776(c) of the Act. The Department finds 

that this rate is sufficiently high to 

ensure that the respondent does not 

benefit from its failure to cooperate and 

to encourage participation in future 

segments of this proceeding in 

accordance with section 776(b) of the 

Act. When the Department selects a 

transaction-specific margin to use as 

AFA it analyzes the underlying 

transaction to ensure that it is not 

aberrational. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal 

From the Russian Federation: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 39919 (August 10, 2009). 

For example, if the highest margin 

involves a transaction with an 

unusually small quantity, or involves an 

unusual product, the Department may 

reject it as aberrational. However, none 

of these factors are present for the 

margins in this review. See Selection of 

AFA Margin for Blue Bird for our 

analysis of the relevant transactions. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, all products produced by 

Navneet covered by the description in 

the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section above 

and sold in India during the POR are 

considered to be foreign like products 

for purposes of determining appropriate 

product comparisons to U.S. sales. We 

have relied on eight criteria to match 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 51563 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 

comparison market sales of the foreign 

like product: (1) Form, (2) paper 

volume, (3) brightness, (4) binding type, 

(5) cover material, (6) back material, (7) 

number of inserts, and (8) insert 

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 the 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. 

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of CLPP 

from Navneet to the United States were 

made at less than NV, we compared EP 

to the NV, as described in the ‘‘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. We used the 

information provide by Navneet, 

including certain minor changes from 

verification. See Sales Verification 

Report at page 2. 

Export Price 

For all U.S. sales made by Navneet, 

we used the EP methodology, in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, because the subject merchandise 

was sold directly to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation and constructed export 

price methodology was not warranted 

based on the facts of record. We based 

EP on packed prices to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Navneet reported that it did not 

offer any discounts or rebates in the U.S. 

market; therefore, the EP prices were not 

reduced to reflect discounts or rebates. 

In accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made 

deductions, where appropriate, for 

movement expenses including foreign 

inland freight from plant/warehouse to 

the port of exportation, foreign 

brokerage and handling, and foreign bill 

of lading charges. In addition, we 

deducted the costs for the sales of nonsubject merchandise that were included 

in the value pack sales, where 

appropriate. We also increased EP by an 

amount equal to the countervailing duty 

(CVD) rate attributed to export subsidies 

in the most recently completed 

countervailing duty administrative 

review of CLPP from India, in 

accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of 

the Act. 

Normal Value 

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 Navneet’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 sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Navneet 

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. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

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

practicable, the Department determines 

NV based on sales in the comparison 

market at the same level of trade (LOT) 

as the EP or CEP transactions. In order 

to perform the LOT analysis, we 

examine the selling functions provided 

to different customer categories to 

evaluate the LOT in a particular market. 

Specifically, we compare the selling 

functions performed for home market 

sales with those performed with respect 

to the EP or CEP transactions, after 

deductions for economic activities 

occurring in the United States, pursuant 

to section 772(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.412, to determine if the home 

market LOT constituted a different LOT 

than the EP or CEP LOT. 

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.412, to 

determine whether comparison market 

sales were at a different LOT, we 

examined stages in the marketing 

process and selling functions along the 

chain of distribution between the 

producer and the unaffiliated (or arm’slength) customers. If the comparison 

market sales were at a different LOT and 

the differences affect 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 will make 

an LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

Navneet reported that it has five 

channels of distribution or five LOTs in 

the home market (i.e., distributors with 

merchandising—full service; 

distributors with no merchandising— 

limited service; retail chain stores; 

institutional end-users who purchase 

materials for their own use; and schools 

that purchase customized products for 

their own use and for selling to 

students). 

Section 351.412(c)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that 

the Department will determine that 

sales are made at different LOTs if they 

are made at different marketing stages 

(or their equivalent). Substantial 

differences in selling activities are a 

necessary, but not a sufficient, condition 

for determining that there is a difference 

in the stage of marketing. Some overlap 

in selling activities will not preclude a 

determination that sales are at different 

stages of marketing. 

We disagree with Navneet that there 

are five LOTs in the home market. Our 

analysis of the selling activities for 

Navneet shows that Navneet performs 

similar selling activities for different 

customer categories, although some of 

the activities were at different levels of 

intensity. Moreover, some selling 

activities within the claimed LOT1 are 

at a higher level of intensity than the 

same selling activities in the claimed 

LOT2 through LOT5. In addition, there 

is overlap among the channels of 

distribution for the different customer 

categories between LOT1 and LOT2 

through LOT5 customers. Although 

there are differences in intensity of 

selling activities among LOT2 through 

LOT5 customers, this, in and of itself, 

does not show a substantial difference 

in selling activities that would form the 

basis for finding distinct LOTs. See, e.g., 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Ecuador: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

52070 (September 12, 2007), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. The 

differences in Navneet’s selling 

activities chart indicate that there are 

two LOTs in the home market: (1) LOT1 

and (2) a combined LOT2, which is 

comprised of Navneet’s reported LOT2 

through LOT5. The selling activities in 

the combined LOT2 in the home market 

are comparable to the selling activities 

in the LOT in the U. S. market. Due to 

the proprietary nature of this issue, 

please refer to Navneet’s Preliminary 

Calculation Memorandum for further 

discussion, dated September 30, 2009. 

In the U.S. market, Navneet reported 

that its sales were made through one 

channel of distribution to one customer 

category, and therefore, at one LOT. The 

Department has determined that 

Navneet’s home market sales in the 

combined LOT2 are at the same stage of 

marketing as the U.S. sales. We only 

compared home market sales in the 

combined LOT2 to the U.S. sales and 

determined that no LOT adjustment for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
51564 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 

Navneet’s sales to the United States was 

necessary. 

Cost of Production Analysis 

A ‘‘sales-below-cost’’ analysis was 

conducted in the investigation with 

respect to Navneet, pursuant to section 

773(b) of the Act, because there were 

reasonable grounds to ‘‘believe or 

suspect’’ that sales of the foreign like 

product have been made below the cost 

of production (COP). However, in the 

investigation, the Department found that 

Navneet failed to provide the required 

information in the manner requested 

and therefore determined that Navneet 

did not act to the best of its ability. 

Consequently, in selecting from among 

the facts otherwise available, the 

Department found that the use of AFA 

was warranted under section 776(a)(2) 

of the Act. See India Lined Paper 

Investigation Final. In the first 

administrative review, Navneet was a 

non-selected company. See India Lined 

Paper AR1 Final. 

Because Navneet failed to act to the 

best of its ability in the only proceeding 

in which it was individually examined 

by the Department, we therefore have 

reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect, pursuant to section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that sales of 

the foreign like product under 

consideration for the determination of 

NV in this review may have been made 

at prices below COP. Thus, pursuant to 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 

examined whether sales from Navneet 

in the home market were made at prices 

below the COP. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated a weightedaverage COP based on the sum of the 

cost of materials and fabrication for the 

foreign like product, plus amounts for 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses (SG&A) and packing expenses. 

For these preliminary results, we have 

adjusted Navneet’s reported cost of 

manufacturing to include common 

production costs not allocated to 

divisions and other common production 

costs of the stationery division not 

allocated to subdivisions. We have 

calculated the G&A expense for each 

control number (CONNUM) based on 

the G&A ratio submitted by Navneet in 

its May 26, 2009, COP/constructed 

value (CV) file. As Navneet did not 

incur net financial expense during fiscal 

year 2008, we excluded the interest 

expense (INTEX) field from the 

calculation of COP for each CONNUM. 

We calculated the COP and CV of all 

CONNUMs sold in the home market to 

exclude the central excise tax on raw 

material inputs. For further details, see 

the Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, through 

Michael P. Martin, Lead Accountant, 

from Robert B. Greger, Senior 

Accountant, titled ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Lined 

Paper Products from India: Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Navneet 

Publications (India) Ltd.,’’ dated 

September 30, 2009. 

Test of Comparison Market 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, 

discounts, rebates, direct and indirect 

selling expenses and packing expenses 

which were excluded from COP for 

comparison purposes. In addition, we 

made an adjustment for excise taxes that 

were paid on certain inputs that were 

included in the price. See also excise 

tax discussion below. 

Results of COP Test 

Pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 

(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 

percent of sales of a given product 

during the POR were at prices less than 

the COP, we did not disregard any 

below-cost sales of that product because 

we determined that the below-cost sales 

were not made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities’’ within an extended period 

of time. Where 20 percent or more of 

Navneet’s sales of a given product 

during the POR were at prices less than 

the COP, we determined such sales to 

have been made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ See sections 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act. Further, such sales 

were made within an extended period of 

time, in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, 

because we compared prices to PORaverage costs, we also determined that 

such sales were not made at prices 

which would permit recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time, 

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) 

of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of 

this administrative review, we 

disregarded below-cost sales of a given 

product and used the remaining sales as 

the basis for determining NV, in 

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

Act. 

Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Comparison Market Prices 

We based home market prices on 

packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers 

in India. Where appropriate, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of 

the Act, we deducted from the starting 

price inland freight. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.401(c), we deducted rebates and 

discounts. In accordance with sections 

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we 

added U.S. packing costs and deducted 

comparison market packing, 

respectively. We also made adjustments 

for Navneet, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses 

incurred in the home market or the 

United States where commissions were 

granted on sales in one market but not 

in the other, the (‘‘commission offset’’). 

Specifically, where commissions are 

incurred in one market, but not in the 

other, we will limit the amount of such 

allowance to the amount of either the 

selling expenses incurred in the one 

market or the commissions allowed in 

the other market, whichever is less. 

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 and 19 CFR 

351.410(b) by deducting direct selling 

expenses incurred for home market 

sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. 

direct selling expenses (credit, bank 

charges, and commissions directly 

linked to sales transactions). In 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 

of the Act, we based NV on LOTH2 

sales. See the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section 

above. 

Finally, consistent with section 

773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act, we made an 

adjustment for central excise taxes that 

Navneet paid on raw material inputs 

used to produce merchandise that was 

sold in the home market that were not 

paid on the same inputs used to 

produce merchandise that was exported 

from India. Under Indian law, Navneet 

was prohibited from charging this excise 

tax on sales of school supplies. In 

addition, the excise tax that Navneet 

paid on inputs into school supplies was 

not refunded and was not otherwise 

recovered by Navneet. Therefore, we 

find the tax is included in the price and 

adjustment is warranted. For products 

other than school supplies, Navneet 

reported home market selling prices net 

of the excise tax. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 51565 

773A(a) of the Act based on exchange 

rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. 

sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve 

Bank. 

Non-Selected Rate 

The statute and the Department’s 

regulations do not directly address the 

establishment of rates to be applied to 

companies not selected for individual 

examination where the Department 

limited its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. However, 

the Department normally determines the 

rates for non-selected companies in 

reviews in a manner that is consistent 

with section 735(c)(5) of the Act. 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs 

the Department to calculate an all-others 

rate using the weighted average of the 

dumping margins established for the 

producers/exporters individually 

examined, excluding any zero or de 

minimis margins or any margins based 

on total facts available. 

In this review, Navneet is the only 

respondent for which the Department 

has calculated a company-specific rate 

that is based on the average of the 

margins calculated during the review, 

other than those which were zero, de 

minimis, or based on total facts 

available. Therefore, for purposes of 

these preliminary results, the 22 

remaining non-selected companies 

subject to this review will receive the 

rate calculated for Navneet in this 

review. See also the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section, below. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the respondents for the period 

September 1, 2007, through August 31, 

2008, as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Navneet Publications (India) 

Ltd. ........................................ 2.08 

Blue Bird ................................... 72.96 

Review-Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the 22 Non-Selected 

Companies Subject to This Review: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd. .......... 2.08 

Ceal Shipping Logistics Pvt. 

Ltd. ........................................ 2.08 

Cello International Pvt. Ltd. ...... 2.08 

Corporate Stationary Pvt. Ltd. .. 2.08 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Creative Divya .......................... 2.08 

Exel India Pvt. Ltd. ................... 2.08 

FFI International ....................... 2.08 

Global Art India Inc. .................. 2.08 

International Greetings Pvt. Ltd. 2.08 

Karim General Handmade 

Paper DIAR ........................... 2.08 

M/S Super ImpEx. .................... 2.08 

Magic International ................... 2.08 

Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd. ............ 2.08 

Marisa International .................. 2.08 

Pentagon Waterlines Pvt. Ltd. .. 2.08 

Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd. ..... 2.08 

Rajvansh International .............. 2.08 

Riddhi Enterprises .................... 2.08 

SAB International ...................... 2.08 

TKS Overseas .......................... 2.08 

Unlimited Accessories Worldwide ....................................... 2.08 

V. Joshi Co. .............................. 2.08 

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 

no later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(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 

Navneet, we divided its total dumping 

margin by the total net value of its sales 

during the review period. For the 

responsive companies which were not 

selected for individual review, we have 

calculated a cash deposit rate based on 

the simple average of the cash deposit 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
51566 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 

10See Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China; 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined 

Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the 

People’s Republic of China; and Notice of 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 

(September 28, 2006) (Lined Paper Orders). 

rates calculated for the companies 

selected for individual review. In this 

instance, there is only one non-AFA rate 

which we applied. 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of CLPP from India 

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-fair-value (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 or any previous review 

conducted by the Department, the cash 

deposit rate will be 3.91 percent, the allothers rate established in the LTFV 

investigation. See Lined Paper Orders.10

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: September 30, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–24210 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–863] 

Seventh Administrative Review of 

Honey From the People’s Republic of 

China: Second Extension of Time Limit 

for the Preliminary Results 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Bertrand, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone- (202) 482–3207. 

Background 

On February 2, 2009, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published 

a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of honey from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), 

covering the period December 1, 2007 

through November 30, 2008. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 74 FR 5821 (February 2, 2009). On 

March 6, 2009, after receiving comments 

on U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

data, the Department selected Anhui 

Native Produce Import & Export Corp. 

(‘‘Anhui Native’’) and Qinhuangdao 

Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘QMD’’) as the mandatory respondents 

for this review. 

The Department sent its antidumping 

questionnaire to Anhui Native and QMD 

on March 9, 2009. The Department was 

unable to deliver its questionnaire to 

QMD due to incorrect addresses. See 

Memorandum to the File from Blaine 

Wiltse, Case Analyst, RE: Seventh 

Administrative Review of Honey from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): 

Incorrect Addresses for QMD, dated 

March 27, 2009. On March 30, 2009, 

Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Dongtai Peak’’) requested treatment as 

a voluntary respondent, and submitted 

its Section A response to the 

Department. 

On April 13, 2009, the Department 

selected Dongtai Peak as a voluntary 

respondent for this review. On April 14, 

2009, Dongtai Peak submitted its 

Sections C and D response to the 

Department. On April 15, 2009, Anhui 

Native withdrew its participation from 

the current review. 

On June 8, 2009, and June 16, 2009, 

the Department sent its Supplemental 

Sections A, C, and D Questionnaire and 

its Importer Specific Supplemental 

Questionnaire to Dongtai Peak. On July 

8, 2009, and July 13, 2009, Dongtai Peak 

submitted its response to the 

Department’s Importer Specific 

Supplemental Questionnaire and 

Supplemental Sections A, C, and D 

Questionnaire. The Department 

previously extended this review by 60 

days. See Seventh Administrative 

Review of Honey from the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for the Preliminary Results, 74 FR 

41679 (August 18, 2009). The 

preliminary results of this 

administrative review are currently due 

on November 2, 2009. 

Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results 

The Department determines that 

completion of the preliminary results of 

this review by November 2, 2009 is not 

practicable. The Department requires 

more time to gather and analyze 

surrogate value information pertaining 

to this company. Additionally, the 

Department intends to provide 

additional time for interested parties to 

provide comments on supplemental 

questionnaires and suggested surrogate 

values. Lastly, the Department requires 

additional time to analyze the 

supplemental questionnaire that was 

already issued. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), we are 

extending the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results of review by 45 

days until December 16, 2009. The final 

results continue to be due 120 days after 

the publication of the preliminary 

results. 

This notice is published pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

Dated: September 30, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–24239 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES