[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74894-74895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20798]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Cased Pencils from the 
People's Republic of China, 59 FR 66909 (December 28, 1994) (Order).
    \2\ See 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).
    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 89 FR 8641, 8643 (February 8, 2024) 
(Initiation Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum, ``Release of Customs Entry Data,'' dated 
February 14, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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.
    \6\ See 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.'').
    \7\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Standing Questionnaire,'' dated 
March 13, 2024.
    \9\ See Aloha's Letter, ``Standing Questionnaire Response,'' 
dated March 25, 2024 (Standing Questionnaire Response).
    \10\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Dixon's Rebuttal to Aloha Pencil 
Co.'s Standing Questionnaire Responses,'' dated March 29, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Memorandum, ``Aloha Pencil Company's Standing to 
Request Review,'' dated April 9, 2024 (Standing Determination).
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Request for Administrative 
Review,'' dated January 2, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 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.
    \15\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Dixon's Response to Aloha Pencil 
Co.'s Request for Reconsideration,'' dated May 9, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 74895]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Memorandum, ``Notice of Intent to Rescind Review,'' 
dated June 7, 2024.
    \17\ See Aloha's Letter, ``Comments on Commerce Intent to 
Rescind,'' dated June 14, 2024 (Aloha's Reconsideration Request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings,'' dated July 22, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The 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).
    \20\ See Aloha's Reconsideration Request at 2-7.
    \21\ See Standing Determination.
    \22\ Id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Aloha's Reconsideration Request at 7-11.
    \24\ See, generally, Standing Determination.
    \25\ Aloha's Reconsideration Request at 9, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 
1378, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
    \27\ See Standing Questionnaire Response at 6-8, stating, e.g., 
that ``Aloha Pencil incorporated as an LLC in the state of 
Hawai[revaps]i 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).
    \28\ See Aloha's Reconsideration Request, generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See, 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).
    \30\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    \31\ See 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