74894 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Notices 

1See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

66909 (December 28, 1994) (Order). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review and Join Annual 

Inquiry Service List, 88 FR 83917 (December 1, 

2023). 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 89 FR 

8641, 8643 (February 8, 2024) (Initiation Notice). 

4See Memorandum, ‘‘Release of Customs Entry 

Data,’’ dated February 14, 2024. 

5See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Refiled Dixon’s 

Objection to Aloha Pencil Co.’s Request for 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic 

of China,’’ dated March 7, 2024. 

6See Initiation Notice, 89 FR at 8642 (‘‘Exporters 

and producers must file a timely Separate Rate 

Application or Certification if they want to be 

considered for individual examination.’’). 

7See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Extension for Separate 

Rate Application or Certification,’’ dated March 6, 

2024; ‘‘Extension for Separate Rate Application or 

Certification,’’ dated March 21, 2024; and 

‘‘Extension for Separate Rate Application or 

Certification,’’ dated April 3, 2024. 

8See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Standing 

Questionnaire,’’ dated March 13, 2024. 

9See Aloha’s Letter, ‘‘Standing Questionnaire 

Response,’’ dated March 25, 2024 (Standing 

Questionnaire Response). 

10See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Dixon’s Rebuttal to 

Aloha Pencil Co.’s Standing Questionnaire 

Responses,’’ dated March 29, 2024. 

11See Memorandum, ‘‘Aloha Pencil Company’s 

Standing to Request Review,’’ dated April 9, 2024 

(Standing Determination). 

12 Id. 

13See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Request for 

Administrative Review,’’ dated January 2, 2024. 

14See Aloha’s Letter, ‘‘Request for 

Reconsideration and Alternative Request to 

Expedite Final Decision on Domestic Party 

Standing and Publish Final Partial Rescission in the 

Federal Register,’’ dated May 2, 2024. 

15See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Dixon’s Response to 

Aloha Pencil Co.’s Request for Reconsideration,’’ 

dated May 9, 2024. 

and (3) the curing agent represents 5 to 40 

percent of the total weight of the product. 

Excluded from the scope are 

preimpregnated fabrics or fibers, often 

referred to as ‘‘pre-pregs,’’ which are 

composite materials consisting of fabrics or 

fibers (typically carbon or glass) impregnated 

with epoxy resin. 

This merchandise is currently classifiable 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) subheading 

3907.30.0000. Subject merchandise may also 

be entered under subheadings 3907.29.0000, 

3824.99.9397, 3214.10.0020, 2910.90.9100, 

2910.90.9000, 2910.90.2000, and 

1518.00.4000. The HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes only; the written description of the 

scope is dispositive. 

Appendix II 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Injury Test 

IV. Analysis of China’s Financial System 

V. Diversification of China’s Economy 

VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

Adverse Inferences 

VII. Critical Circumstances 

VIII. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2024–20888 Filed 9–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–827] 

Certain Cased Pencils From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2022–2023 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

cased pencils (pencils) from the 

People’s Republic of China (China) for 

the period of review (POR) December 1, 

2022, through November 30, 2023. 

DATES: Applicable September 13, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3642. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 28, 1994, Commerce 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on pencils from 

China.1 On December 1, 2023, 

Commerce published in the Federal 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

Order.2 Based on timely requests for 

review from Dixon Ticonderoga 

Company (the petitioner) and Aloha 

Pencil Co. (Aloha), in accordance with 

351.221(c)(1)(i) and section 751(a) of the 

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

Commerce published the initiation of 

this administrative review on February 

8, 2024, with respect to 17 companies.3

On February 14, 2024, Commerce 

released the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) data to all interested 

parties under an administrative 

protective order and requested 

comments regarding the data and 

respondent selection.4 We received no 

comments from interested parties on the 

CBP data. 

On March 7, 2024, the petitioner 

submitted an objection to Aloha’s 

request for administrative review 

alleging that Aloha did not qualify for 

producer, manufacturer, or wholesaler 

status during the POR.5 In the Initiation 

Notice, Commerce required that 

interested parties submit a separate rate 

application (SRA) or separate rate 

certification (SRC) within 30 days of 

publication of the Initiation Notice.6

Because of the petitioner’s objection to 

Aloha’s request for review, we extended 

the deadline for parties to file an SRA 

or SRC multiple times.7 However, no 

party submitted an SRA or SRC within 

the extended time frame. 

On March 13, 2024, Commerce issued 

a questionnaire to Aloha to assess its 

standing as a domestic producer, 

manufacturer, or wholesaler of pencils 

during the POR.8 On March 25, 2024, 

Aloha timely submitted its response.9

On March 29, 2024, the petitioner 

submitted rebuttal factual information 

regarding Aloha’s standing 

questionnaire response.10

On April 9, 2024, based on the 

information on the record, Commerce 

determined that Aloha was not a bona 

fide producer, manufacturer, or 

wholesaler of a domestic like product 

during the POR.11 As a result, 

Commerce declined to find that Aloha 

is a domestic interested party and stated 

that it was: (1) treating Aloha’s review 

request as void; and (2) preliminarily 

rescinding this administrative review 

with respect to any company for which 

Aloha was the sole requestor.12

Consequently, because Aloha’s request 

for review of 14 companies was void, 

and it was the sole party requesting a 

review of these companies, only three 

companies remained under review: (1) 

Shandong Wah Yuen Stationery Co. 

Ltd.; Wah Yuen Stationery Co. Ltd.; (2) 

Tianjin Tonghe Stationery Co., Ltd.; and 

(3) Ningbo Homey Union Co., Ltd.13

On May 2, 2024, we received 

comments from Aloha on the Standing 

Determination, arguing that Aloha had 

provided sufficient information to 

support its claims that it was a bona fide 

producer or manufacturer, and 

requesting that Commerce expedite its 

final decision.14 On May 9, 2024, the 

petitioner submitted rebuttal comments 

supporting the Standing Determination 

and requesting that Commerce reject 

Aloha’s request to expedite its final 

decision.15

On June 7, 2024, Commerce notified 

all interested parties of its intent to 

rescind this review in full because there 

were no reviewable, suspended entries 

of subject merchandise from the three 

remaining companies under review and 

invited comments from interested 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Notices 74895 

16See Memorandum, ‘‘Notice of Intent to Rescind 

Review,’’ dated June 7, 2024. 17See Aloha’s Letter, ‘‘Comments on Commerce 

Intent to Rescind,’’ dated June 14, 2024 (Aloha’s 

Reconsideration Request). 18See Memorandum, ‘‘Tolling of Deadlines for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings,’’ dated July 22, 2024. 19The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has 

noted that parties requesting standing pursuant to 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act must have a ‘‘stake’’ in 

the result of an investigation. See Brother Indus. 

(USA) v. United States, 801 F. Supp. 751, 757 (CIT 

1992) (‘‘The language in the legislative history is 

broad and unqualified. It contrasts industries 

suffering adverse affect with those having no stake: 

the former have standing; the latter do not.’’) (italics 

in original). 

20See Aloha’s Reconsideration Request at 2–7. 

21See Standing Determination. 

22 Id. at 3–4. 

23Aloha’s Reconsideration Request at 7–11. 

24See, generally, Standing Determination. 

25Aloha’s Reconsideration Request at 9, 10. 

26See Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United 

States, 766 F.3d 1378, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

27See Standing Questionnaire Response at 6–8, 

stating, e.g., that ‘‘Aloha Pencil incorporated as an 

LLC in the state of Hawai1i in November 2023, and 

does not have any business documents prior to that 

time.’’ The CIT has found that, where a party 

responding to a questionnaire states such 

documentation does not exist, Commerce need not 

issue a deficiency notice and an opportunity to 

remedy. See Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo & Wood 

Indus. Co. v. United States, 651 F. Supp. 1348, 1368 

(CIT 2023). 

28See Aloha’s Reconsideration Request, 

generally. 

29See, e.g., Dioctyl Terephthalate from the 

Republic of Korea: Rescission of Antidumping 

Administrative Review; 2021–2022, 88 FR 24758 

(April 24, 2023); see also Certain Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Cut- to Length Plate from the Federal Republic 

of Germany: Recission of Antidumping 

Administrative Review; 2020–2021, 88 FR 4157 

(January 24, 2023); and Lightweight Thermal Paper 

from Japan: Rescission of Antidumping 

Administrative Review; 2022–2023, 89 FR 18373 

(March 13, 2024). 

30See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

31See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). 

parties.16 On June 14, 2024, we received 

comments from Aloha, again arguing 

that Commerce should reconsider its 

standing as a domestic interested 

party.17

On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled 

certain deadlines in this administrative 

proceeding by seven days. The deadline 

for the preliminary results is now 

September 9, 2024.18

Aloha’s Reconsideration Request 

We continue to determine that Aloha 

is not a bona fide producer or 

manufacturer.19 Thus, we do not find 

that Aloha has the requisite standing to 

be considered a domestic interested 

party and, therefore, its review request 

continues to be void. We disagree with 

Aloha’s contention that Commerce 

overlooked record information and drew 

unsupported inferences in making its 

Standing Determination.20 We note that 

Aloha’s Reconsideration Request 

primarily summarizes information that 

Commerce already considered in its 

Standing Determination and Commerce 

reasonably drew its conclusions 

concerning Aloha’s standing based on 

that record information.21 Further, 

nothing in Aloha’s Reconsideration 

Request warrants a reversal of that 

decision. For instance, Aloha 

summarizes its corporate history, which 

Commerce already considered in its 

Standing Determination, and as 

explained in that determination, Aloha’s 

corporate history throughout the POR is 

extremely limited to an extent that 

undermines its bona fides claim.22

Aloha also contends that Commerce 

failed to seek clarification of any 

ambiguities in Aloha’s questionnaire 

response.23 However, Commerce did not 

find Aloha’s submission ambiguous or 

deficient, as there were no gaps in the 

record and the evidence Aloha 

submitted was adequate for Commerce 

to make a standing determination.24

Aloha itself also notes that a number of 

documents did not even exist at either 

the time it requested this administrative 

review or when it received the 

questionnaire, and indicates that Aloha 

possibly possessed additional 

documents that it chose not to submit.25

Aloha’s Reconsideration Request also 

does not specify where such supposed 

deficiencies exist. Ultimately, the 

burden of creating an adequate record 

lies with the interested party.26 Further, 

the requirements under section 782(d) 

of the Act concerning deficient 

submissions are not applicable here, as 

Aloha complied with Commerce’s 

requests for information, even stating 

where information and documentation 

Commerce requested simply did not 

exist.27 Commerce in its Standing 

Determination examined Aloha’s status 

as a domestic interested party during 

the POR. Aloha’s Reconsideration 

Request primarily refers to facts and 

documents that do not affect Aloha’s 

standing as an interested party during 

the POR.28 Lastly, each standing 

determination is a case-by-case, fact 

intensive analysis, and Commerce’s 

determination is consistent with its 

practice with respect to its prior 

standing determinations. 

Rescission of Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is 

Commerce’s practice to rescind an 

administrative review of an 

antidumping duty order when there are 

no reviewable entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

liquidation is suspended.29 Normally, 

upon completion of an administrative 

review, the suspended entries are 

liquidated at the antidumping duty 

assessment rate calculated for the 

review period.30 Therefore, for an 

administrative review to be conducted, 

there must be a reviewable, suspended 

entry that Commerce can instruct CBP 

to liquidate at the antidumping duty 

assessment rate calculated for the 

review period.31 As explained above, 

because Commerce declined to find that 

Aloha is a domestic interested party, its 

request for review of 14 companies is 

void and there were no reviewable, 

suspended entries of subject 

merchandise in the CBP data for the 

three companies remaining companies 

under review during the POR. 

Accordingly, in the absence of 

suspended entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR, we are 

hereby rescinding this administrative 

review, in its entirety, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). 

Assessment 

Commerce will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. 

Antidumping duties shall be assessed 

at rates equal to the cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties required 

at the time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP no 

earlier than 35 days after the date of 

publication of this rescission notice in 

the Federal Register. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to an 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition 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 subject to sanction. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: September 6, 2024. 

Scot Fullerton, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20798 Filed 9–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES