Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 15449 

POI. Because pre–shipment loans are 

not tied to exports of a particular 

product, or to particular markets, we 

calculated the subsidy rate for these 

loans by dividing the total benefit by the 

value of Triveni’s total exports during 

the POI, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(2). On this basis, we 

determine the countervailable subsidy 

from pre–shipment export financing to 

be 1.36 percent ad valorem for Triveni. 

Because post–shipment loans are 

normally tied to specific shipments of a 

particular product to a particular 

market, we normally divide the benefit 

from post–shipment loans tied to 

exports of subject merchandise to the 

United States by the value of total 

exports of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POI. See 19 

CFR 351.525(b)(4). Since the 

information on the record demonstrates 

that Triveni’s post–shipment loans were 

tied to a particular market, we have 

calculated the subsidy rate for these 

loans by dividing the benefit from the 

post–shipment loans by the value of 

Triveni’s total exports to the United 

States during the POI. On this basis, we 

determine the countervailable subsidy 

provided to Triveni from post–shipment 

export financing to be 1.14 percent ad 

valorem. 

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Be Not Used 

We preliminarily determine that 

Triveni did not apply for or receive 

benefits during the POI under the 

programs listed below. 

A. Export Oriented Unit Scheme 

1. Duty–Free Import of Capital Goods 

and Raw Materials 

2. Reimbursement of Central Sales 

Tax Paid on Goods Manufactured in 

India 

3. Duty Drawback on Fuel Procured 

from Domestic Oil Companies 

4. Exemption from Income Tax under 

Sections 10A and 10B of Income 

Tax Act 

B. Advance License Program 

C. Duty Free Import Authorisation 

Scheme 

Verification 

In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of 

the Act, we intend to verify the 

information submitted by the GOI and 

Triveni prior to making our final 

determination. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated 

an individual rate for Triveni, the only 

known producer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise during the POI. We 

preliminarily determine the total 

estimated net countervailable subsidy 

rate to be 11.23 percent ad valorem for 

Triveni. 

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of 

the Act state that, for companies not 

investigated, we will determine an all– 

others rate by weighting the individual 

company subsidy rate of each of the 

companies investigated by each 

company’s exports of subject 

merchandise to the United States. In 

this investigation, Triveni is the sole 

respondent and meets the criteria for the 

all–others rate. Therefore, we have 

assigned Triveni’s rate to all other 

producers and exporters. 

In accordance with sections 

703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we will 

direct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to suspend liquidation of all 

entries of commodity matchbooks from 

India that are entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of the publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register, and to 

require a cash deposit or bond for such 

entries of merchandise at the rates 

indicated above. 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

Notification 

In accordance with section 703(f) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all non– 

privileged and non–proprietary 

information relating to this 

investigation. We will allow the ITC 

access to all privileged and business 

proprietary information in our files, 

provided the ITC confirms that it will 

not disclose such information, either 

publicly or under an administrative 

protective order, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. In accordance 

with section 705(b)(2)(B) of the Act, if 

our final determination is affirmative, 

the ITC will make its final 

determination within 45 days after the 

Department makes its final 

determination. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), we will disclose to the 

parties the calculations for this 

preliminary determination within five 

days of its announcement. Unless 

otherwise notified by the Department, 

case briefs for this investigation must be 

submitted no later than 50 days after the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

determination. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) 

for a further discussion of case briefs. 

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, must 

be filed within five days after the 

deadline for submission of case briefs, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list 

of authorities relied upon, a table of 

contents, and an executive summary of 

issues should accompany any briefs 

submitted to the Department. Executive 

summaries should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. 

Section 774 of the Act provides that 

the Department will hold a public 

hearing to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs, 

provided that such a hearing is 

requested by an interested party. If a 

request for a hearing is made in this 

investigation, the hearing will 

tentatively be held two days after the 

deadline for submission of the rebuttal 

briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), at 

the Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the time, date, and 

place of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days of the publication of this notice, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain: (1) the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; and (3) a list of 

the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 703(f) 

and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: March 30, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–7694 Filed 4–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–894] 

Certain Tissue Paper Products From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 2007–2008 

Administrative Review and Intent Not 

To Revoke Order in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
15450 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 

1The petitioner is the Seaman Paper Company of 

Massachusetts, Inc. 

2These companies are as follows: (1) Max 

Fortune; (2) Guilin Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd. (Guilin 

Qifeng); (3) Vietnam Quijiang Paper Co., Ltd. 

(Qujiang); (4) Foshan Sansico Co., Ltd. (Foshan 

Sansico); (5) Sansico Asia Pacific Limited (Sansico 

Asia); (6) PT Grafitecindo Ciptaprima 

(Grafitecindo); (7) PT Printec Perkasa (Printec I); (8) 

PT Printec Perkasa II (Printec II); and (9) PT Sansico 

Utama (Sansico Utama). 

3See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Request for Surrogate Country Selection,’’ dated 

June 9, 2008. 

4See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic 

of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries,’’ dated August 7, 2008 (Policy 

Memorandum). 

5The seven companies claiming no shipments of 

subject merchandise during the POR are Quijiang, 

Foshan Sansico, Sansico Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec 

I, Printec II, and Sansico Utama. 

6The seven companies submitting separate rate 

certifications are Max Fortune, Foshan Sansico, 

Sansico Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec I, Printec II, and 

Sansico Utama. 

7The normal POR in this case is March 1, 2007 

through February 29, 2008. However, we expanded 

the POR with respect to Quijiang back to September 

5, 2006, in order to include Quijiang’s entries of 

tissue paper products covered by the Department’s 

preliminary determination in an anti-circumvention 

inquiry which was ongoing at that time. See Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s Republic 

of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 

Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order and 

Extension of Final Determination, 73 FR 21580 

(April 22, 2008). In that proceeding, the Department 

found that Quijiang had circumvented the order by 

exporting tissue paper products to the United States 

that were processed in Vietnam using PRC-origin 

jumbo rolls of tissue paper produced by its parent 

company (Guilin Qifeng). See Certain Tissue Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China: 

Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention 

of the Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 57591 

(October 3, 2008). 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is currently 

conducting the 2007–2008 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

tissue paper products from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). We 

preliminarily determine that sales have 

been made below normal value (NV) 

with respect to Max Fortune Industrial 

Limited and Max Fortune (FETDE) 

Paper Products Co., Ltd. (collectively, 

Max Fortune). Accordingly, we 

preliminarily find that Max Fortune 

does not qualify for revocation under 19 

CFR 351.222(b)(2). 

In addition, we are preliminarily 

rescinding the review with respect to six 

companies which reported they made 

no exports of subject merchandise 

during the period of review (POR), as 

confirmed by our review of import data 

from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP). 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, we will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise made 

during the period of review (POR). 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith or Brandon Custard, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482– 

1823, respectively. 

Case History 

On March 30, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

tissue paper products from the PRC. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 16223 (March 

30, 2005) (Tissue Paper Order). 

On March 3, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

tissue paper products from the PRC. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 11389 

(March 3, 2008). 

On March 31, 2008, the Department 

received a timely request for an 

administrative review of this 

antidumping duty order in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213 from Max Fortune. 

On March 31, 2008, the Department also 

received a timely request from the 

petitioner 1 for an administrative review 

of nine companies.2

On April 25, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of initiation of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain tissue paper products from 

the PRC for nine individually named 

firms covering the period March 1, 

2007, through February 29, 2008. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, FR 22337 (April 25, 2008) 

(Initiation Notice). 

On May 2, 2008, the Department 

placed on the record the CBP data for 

U.S. imports of subject merchandise 

from the PRC during the POR. In its May 

2, 2009 letter to the interested parties in 

this review, the Department stated that 

it intended to select respondents for 

individual review based on the CBP 

import data and provided parties with 

an opportunity to comment on the CBP 

import data and respondent selection. 

On May 9 and 12, 2008, Max Fortune 

and the petitioner, respectively, 

submitted comments to the Department 

on the respondent selection process. 

On June 9, 2008, we requested that 

the Import Administration’s Office of 

Policy (the Office of Policy) issue a 

surrogate-country memorandum for the 

selection of the appropriate surrogate 

country in this review.3

Based on the comments received from 

the parties regarding respondent 

selection, on June 10, 2008, the 

Department issued letters to each of the 

nine companies for which a review was 

initiated requesting that each: (1) 

Provide POR quantity and value data 

and complete a separate-rate 

certification or application; or (2) 

submit a no-shipment statement if 

applicable. 

On June 12, 2008, the Office of Policy 

provided us with a list of five countries 

at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC.4

On June 24, 2008, the Department 

received submissions from eight 

companies. One of those companies 

(i.e., Max Fortune) provided its quantity 

and value data. Seven companies 5

certified that they had no shipments of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

and one of these seven companies, 

Quijiang, requested that the Department 

rescind the review with respect to it 

based on its POR no-shipment claim. 

Also on June 24, 2008, seven of these 

eight companies submitted their 

separate-rate certifications in response 

to the Department’s request.6 On June 

27, 2008, the remaining company for 

which a review was requested, Guilin 

Qifeng, informed the Department that it 

would not be participating in this 

review. 

On July 2, 2008, we issued Max 

Fortune the antidumping duty 

questionnaire. On July 9, 2008, we also 

issued Quijiang the antidumping duty 

questionnaire and informed it, with 

respect to its sales reporting, that the 

POR had been expanded back to 

September 5, 2006.7 See July 9, 2008 

cover letter to questionnaire issued to 

Quijiang. 

On July 10, 2008, the Department 

invited interested parties participating 

in this review to submit comments on 

surrogate-country selection and to 

submit publicly available information as 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 15451 

8See the Department’s letter regarding, ‘‘2007– 

2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ requesting parties to provide 

comments on surrogate-country selection and 

provide surrogate factors of production values from 

the potential surrogate countries (i.e., India, 

Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia and 

Thailand). 

9See October 24, 2008, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Discontinuation of Certification Program for 

Quijiang.’’ 

10On January 30, 2007, at the direction of CBP, 

the Department added the following HTSUS 

classifications to the AD/CVD module for tissue 

paper: 4802.54.3100, 4802.54.6100, and 

4823.90.6700. However, we note that the six-digit 

classifications for these numbers were already listed 

in the scope. 

surrogate values (SVs) for purposes of 

calculating NV.8

On August 8, 2008, Quijiang informed 

the Department that it would not be 

responding to the Department’s 

antidumping duty questionnaire, 

arguing that it was prematurely issued 

pending the Department’s final 

determination in the anti-circumvention 

inquiry involving Quijiang. 

During August 2008, Max Fortune 

submitted its responses to the 

antidumping duty questionnaire. 

On August 14 and September 19, 

2008, the petitioner submitted 

surrogate-country comments and 

publicly available surrogate value 

information (PAI), respectively, in this 

administrative review. 

Upon the completion of the 

Department’s final circumvention 

determination involving Quijiang, on 

September 23, 2008, the Department 

provided Quijiang one final opportunity 

to respond to the antidumping 

questionnaire issued on July 9, 2008. On 

October 3, 2008, Quijiang submitted a 

letter stating that it had not issued any 

certifications pursuant to the 

certification procedures outlined in the 

Department’s affirmative preliminary 

and final determinations of 

circumvention involving Quijiang. As 

Quijiang’s letter lacked the necessary 

certifications, the Department informed 

Quijiang on October 8, 2008, that it 

needed to resubmit its October 3, 2009, 

letter with the required certifications. 

On October 9, 2008, Quijiang submitted 

another letter stating that it had closed 

its factory as of April 20, 2008, and 

would not be participating in this 

review. 

On October 24, 2009, the Department 

discontinued the certification program 

for Quijiang’s U.S. entries of tissue 

paper products based on its nonparticipation in this administrative 

review.9

On November 20, 2008, the 

Department postponed the preliminary 

results of this review until March 31, 

2009. See Certain Tissue Paper Products 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of 2007–2008 Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 70323 (November 20, 

2008). 

The Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Max 

Fortune on December 17, 2008, and 

received Max Fortune’s supplemental 

questionnaire response on January 5, 

2009. Max Fortune submitted additional 

information related to its January 5, 

2009, response on January 19, 2009. 

On January 29, 2009, the Department 

issued Max Fortune the verification 

outline. Pursuant to section 782(i) of the 

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

the Department conducted verification 

of the questionnaire responses 

submitted by Max Fortune in February 

2008. See Memorandum to The File 

from Case Analysts entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire 

Responses of Max Fortune Industrial 

Limited and Max Fortune (FETDE) 

Paper Products Co., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Tissue Paper Products 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated March 31, 2009 (Verification 

Report). The verification report is on file 

and available in the Central Records 

Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the 

Department’s main building. 

On March 13, 2009, the petitioner 

submitted additional PAI for 

consideration in the preliminary results. 

Period of Review 

The POR is March 1, 2007, through 

February 29, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The tissue paper products covered by 

this order are cut-to-length sheets of 

tissue paper having a basis weight not 

exceeding 29 grams per square meter. 

Tissue paper products subject to this 

order may or may not be bleached, dyecolored, surface-colored, glazed, surface 

decorated or printed, sequined, 

crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The 

tissue paper subject to this order is in 

the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue 

paper with a width equal to or greater 

than one-half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue 

paper may be flat or folded, and may be 

packaged by banding or wrapping with 

paper or film, by placing in plastic or 

film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for 

distribution and use by the ultimate 

consumer. Packages of tissue paper 

subject to this order may consist solely 

of tissue paper of one color and/or style, 

or may contain multiple colors and/or 

styles. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

does not have specific classification 

numbers assigned to them under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Subject 

merchandise may be under one or more 

of several different subheadings, 

including: 4802.30, 4802.54, 4802.61, 

4802.62, 4802.69, 4804.31.1000, 

4804.31.2000, 4804.31.4020, 

4804.31.4040, 4804.31.6000, 4804.39, 

4805.91.1090, 4805.91.5000, 

4805.91.7000, 4806.40, 4808.30, 

4808.90, 4811.90, 4823.90, 4802.50.00, 

4802.90.00, 4805.91.90, 9505.90.40. The 

tariff classifications are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive.10

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are the following tissue paper products: 

(1) Tissue paper products that are 

coated in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of 

a kind used in floral and food service 

applications; (2) tissue paper products 

that have been perforated, embossed, or 

die-cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., 

disposable sanitary covers for toilet 

seats; (3) toilet or facial tissue stock, 

towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind 

used for household or sanitary 

purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs 

of cellulose fibers (HTSUS 

4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00). 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-market 

economy (NME) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control, and thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate 

unless an exporter can affirmatively 

demonstrate an absence of government 

control, both in law (de jure) and in fact 

(de facto), with respect to its export 

activities. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991). In this 

review, in support of its claim for a 

separate rate, Max Fortune reported that 

it is a wholly foreign-owned company 

registered and located in Hong Kong. 

See August 1, 2008, Section A Response 

(Section A Response) at page 2. Our 

verification findings corroborated Max 

Fortune’s separate-rate claim. See 

Verification Report at pages 2–11. 

Consequently, no additional separaterate analysis is necessary for Max 

Fortune. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Bicycles From the People’s 

Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 

30, 1996). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
15452 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

For the reasons outlined below, we 

have preliminarily applied adverse facts 

available (AFA) to the PRC-wide entity 

which includes Guilin Qifeng and 

Quijiang. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, 

provides that, if an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified, the Department 

shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the Department ‘‘finds that 

an interested party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information from the administering 

authority * * *, the administering 

authority * * *, in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title, may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’ See also Statement 

of Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.Rep. No. 103–316 at 870 (1994) 

(SAA). It is the Department’s practice to 

make an adverse inference ‘‘to ensure 

that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ Id. An 

adverse inference may include reliance 

on information derived from the 

petition, the final determination in the 

investigation, any previous review, or 

any other information placed on the 

record. See section 776(b) of the Act. 

In this administrative review, Guilin 

Qifeng and Quijiang failed to respond to 

the Department’s questionnaires. 

Specifically, we issued a quantity and 

value questionnaire along with a 

separate-rates application and 

certification form to Guilin Qifeng and 

Quijiang for purposes of selecting the 

mandatory respondents in this review. 

See June 10, 2008, letters to Guilin 

Qifeng and Quijiang. However, Guilin 

Qifeng subsequently stated that it would 

not be participating in this review. See 

June 27, 2008, letter from Guilin Qifeng. 

Although Quijiang initially submitted a 

no-shipment response to the 

Department’s quantity and value 

questionnaire on June 24, 2008, we 

subsequently issued an antidumping 

duty questionnaire to Quijiang for 

purposes of reporting its sales tissue 

paper products exported from Vietnam 

which were produced with PRC-origin 

jumbo rolls during the period 

September 5, 2006, through February 

29, 2008. See July 9, 2008, letter to 

Quijiang. We gave Quijiang a second 

and final opportunity to respond to this 

questionnaire on September 23, 2008. 

See September 23, 2008, letter to 

Quijiang. In response, Quijiang stated 

that it had closed its factory and would 

no longer be participating in this 

review. See October 9, 2008, letter from 

Quijiang. 

Because Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang 

did not demonstrate that they qualify for 

separate-rate status, we consider both 

entities to be part of the PRC-wide entity 

for purposes of this review. In the 

Initiation Notice, the Department stated 

that if one of the companies on which 

we initiated a review does not qualify 

for a separate rate, all other exporters of 

tissue paper products from the PRC 

which have not qualified for a separate 

rate are deemed to be part of the single 

PRC-wide entity of which the named 

exporter is a part. See Initiation Notice, 

73 FR at 22338. Based upon the failure 

of Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang, as part of 

the PRC-wide entity, to submit 

responses to the Department’s 

questionnaires, the Department finds 

that the PRC-wide entity withheld 

requested information, failed to provide 

the information in a timely manner and 

in the form requested, and significantly 

impeded this proceeding, pursuant to 

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

Act. Therefore, the Department must 

rely on the facts otherwise available in 

order to determine a margin for the PRCwide entity, pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act. See 

Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 69546 

(December 1, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

Because the PRC-wide entity, 

including Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang, 

failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability in providing the requested 

information in this review, as discussed 

above, we find it necessary, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), as 

well as section 776(b), of the Act, to use 

total adverse facts available (AFA) as the 

basis for these preliminary results of 

review for the PRC-wide entity. See 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Preliminary Results of the First 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 

(March 9, 2007) (decision to apply total 

AFA to the NME-wide entity unchanged 

in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Final Results of the First Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and First 

New Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 

(September 12, 2007)). 

Selection of Adverse Facts Available 

Rate 

As discussed above, section 776(b) of 

the Act authorizes the Department to 

use, as AFA, information derived from 

the petition, the final determination in 

the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

investigation, any previous 

administrative review, or any 

information placed on the record. In 

selecting an AFA rate in reviews, the 

Department’s practice has been to assign 

the highest margin on the record of any 

segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 

(April 21, 2003). The Court of 

International Trade (CIT) and the 

Federal Circuit have consistently 

upheld the Department’s practice in this 

regard. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 

United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990) (Rhone Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. 

United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 

1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 

percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a LTFV 

investigation); see also Kompass Food 

Trading Int’l v. United States, 24 CIT 

678, 689 (July 31, 2000) (upholding a 

51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different, fully cooperative respondent); 

and Shanghai Taoen International 

Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 

F. Supp 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) 

(upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA 

rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different respondent in a 

previous administrative review). 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of 

the facts available rule to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See Static Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors from 

Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 

(February 23, 1998). The Department’s 

practice also ensures ‘‘that the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See SAA at 870; see 

also Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 15453 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 

2004), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 22. 

In choosing the appropriate balance 

between providing respondents with an 

incentive to respond accurately and 

imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondent’s prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins, because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190. 

Consistent with the statute, court 

precedent, and our normal practice, as 

AFA, we are assigning the PRC-wide 

entity, which includes Guilin Qifeng 

and Quijiang, the highest rate on the 

record of any segment of this 

proceeding, i.e., 112.64 percent. As 

discussed further below, this rate has 

been corroborated. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information Used as AFA 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that 

when the Department selects from 

among the facts otherwise available and 

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the 

Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

the Department’s disposal. To 

corroborate the information, the 

Department seeks to determine that the 

information used has probative value. 

See SAA at 870. The Department has 

determined that to have probative value, 

information must be reliable and 

relevant. See Certain Tissue Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Final 

Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

58642 (October 16, 2007), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

To be considered corroborated, 

information must be found to be both 

reliable and relevant. The AFA rate of 

112.64 percent that we are applying in 

the current review represents the 

highest rate from the petition in the 

LTFV investigation segment of this 

proceeding. See Tissue Paper Order. 

The Department corroborated the 

information used to calculate the 112.64 

percent rate in the LTFV investigation. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 7475 

(February 14, 2005). Furthermore, the 

AFA rate we are applying for the current 

review was applied in a review 

subsequent to the LTFV investigation, 

and no information has been presented 

in the current review that calls into 

question the reliability of this 

information. See Certain Tissue Paper 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary 

Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

17477, 17480–17481 (April 9, 2007) 

(unchanged in Certain Tissue Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Final 

Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72FR 

58642, 58644–58645 (October 16, 

2007)). Thus, the Department finds that 

the information is reliable. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the 

Department disregarded the highest 

margin in that case as adverse best 

information available (the predecessor 

to facts available) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense, 

resulting in an unusually high margin). 

Similarly, the Department does not 

apply a margin that has been 

discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. 

United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997) (finding that the Department 

cannot use a margin that has been 

judicially invalidated in its 

calculations). The AFA rate we are 

applying for the instant review was 

calculated based on export price 

information and production data from 

the petition, as well as the most 

appropriate surrogate value information 

available to the Department during the 

LTFV investigation. As there is no 

information on the record of this review 

that demonstrates this rate is not 

appropriate for use as AFA, we 

determine this rate has relevance. 

Because the AFA rate, 112.64 percent, 

is both reliable and relevant, we 

determine that it has probative value. As 

a result, we determine that the 112.64 

percent rate is corroborated to the extent 

practicable for the purposes of this 

administrative review, in accordance 

with section 776(c) of the Act, and may 

reasonably be applied to the exports of 

the subject merchandise by the PRCwide entity as AFA. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2007– 

2008 Administrative Review 

With respect to Foshan Sansico, 

Sansico Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec I, 

Printec II, and Sansico Utama, each of 

these companies informed the 

Department that it did not export the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. 

Based on the record of this review, 

including the CBP data provided to the 

parties on May 2, 2009, we conclude 

preliminarily that Foshan Sansico, 

Sansico Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec I, 

Printec II, and Sansico Utama did not 

export subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily 

rescinding this administrative review 

for Foshan Sansico, Sansico Asia, 

Grafitecindo, Printec I, Printec II, and 

Sansico Utama. 

Non-Market Economy Country 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as an NME country. 

Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the 

Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See, e.g., 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

58672 (October 7, 2005) (unchanged in 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 

(February 10, 2006)). None of the parties 

in this administrative review has 

contested such treatment. Accordingly, 

we calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Surrogate Country 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department to base NV on the NME 

producer’s factors of production (FOPs), 

valued in a surrogate market-economy 

(ME) country or countries considered to 

be appropriate by the Department. In 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, in valuing the FOPs, the 

Department shall use, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs 

in one or more ME countries that are: 

(1) At a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country; 

and (2) significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. The sources 

of the surrogate factor values are 

discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section below. See also the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
15454 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 

11See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2007–2008 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Tissue Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results Margin Calculation for Max 

Fortune Industrial Limited and Max Fortune 

(FETDE) Paper Products Co., Ltd. (collectively 

referred to as Max Fortune),’’ dated March 31, 2009 

(Max Fortune Calculation Memo). 

Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Preliminary Results of the 2007–2008 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China: Factor Valuation for 

the Preliminary Results,’’ dated March 

31, 2009 (Surrogate Value 

Memorandum). 

The Department determined that 

India, Indonesia, the Philippines, 

Colombia and Thailand are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development. See Policy 

Memorandum. Customarily, we select 

an appropriate surrogate country from 

the Policy Memorandum based on the 

availability and reliability of data from 

the countries that are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

In this case, we found that India is at a 

comparable level of economic 

development to the PRC; is a significant 

producer of the subject merchandise 

(i.e., tissue paper); and has publiclyavailable and reliable data. See March 

31, 2009, Memorandum to the File 

entitled ‘‘2007–2008 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of a 

Surrogate Country’’ (Surrogate Country 

Memorandum). 

Accordingly, we selected India as the 

primary surrogate country for purposes 

of valuing the FOPs in the calculation 

of NV because it meets the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate-country selection. 

See Surrogate Country Memorandum. 

We obtained and relied upon publiclyavailable information wherever 

possible. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in 

antidumping administrative reviews, 

interested parties may submit publiclyavailable information to value FOPs 

within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of the 

subject merchandise by Max Fortune to 

the United States were made at prices 

below NV, we compared Max Fortune’s 

export prices (EPs) to NV, as described 

in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice below, 

pursuant to section 773 of the Act. 

Export Price 

Because Max Fortune sold subject 

merchandise to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation into the United States and 

use of a constructed-export-price 

methodology was not otherwise 

indicated, we used EP in accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act. 

We calculated EP based on the 

reported terms of delivery to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price (gross 

unit price) for foreign inland freight and 

foreign brokerage and handling charges 

in the PRC pursuant to section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.11 Because 

foreign inland freight and foreign 

brokerage and handling fees were 

provided by PRC service providers or 

paid for in renminbi, we based those 

charges on surrogate rates from India. 

See ‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section below 

for further discussion of surrogate rates. 

In determining the most appropriate 

surrogate values (SVs) to use in a given 

case, the Department’s practice is to use 

review period-wide price averages, 

prices specific to the input in question, 

prices that are net of taxes and import 

duties, prices that are contemporaneous 

with the POR, and publicly-available 

data. See, e.g. Certain Cased Pencils 

from the People’s Republic of China; 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

The data we used for brokerage and 

handling expenses fulfill all of the 

foregoing criteria except that they are 

not specific to the subject merchandise. 

There is no information of that type on 

the record of this review. Therefore, the 

Department used three sources to 

calculate an SV for domestic brokerage 

expenses: (1) Data from Kejriwal Paper 

Ltd. (Kejriwal) for the period of 

investigation July 1, 2004, to June 30, 

2005 (see 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 Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at less 

Than Fair Value and Negative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India, 71 FR 45012 

(August 8, 2006)); (2) data from Essar 

Steel Limited (Essar) for the POR July 1, 

2004, through June 30, 2005 (see Certain 

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 2018, 2021 (January 12, 

2006) (unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 

(July 18, 2006)); and (3) data from Agro 

Dutch Industries Ltd. for the POR 

February 1, 2004, through January 31, 

2005 (see Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 10597 (March 4, 2005) 

(unchanged in Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From India: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005)). 

Because these values were not 

concurrent with the period of this 

administrative review, we adjusted 

them for inflation using the Wholesale 

Price Index (WPI) for India as published 

in the International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics, 

available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and 

then calculated a simple average of the 

three companies’ brokerage expense 

data. 

The Department valued inland truck 

freight expenses using a per-unit 

average rate calculated from data on the 

following Web site: http:// 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this Web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. Because this rate is not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated it using WPI data. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine NV using 

an FOP methodology if the merchandise 

is exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home market 

prices, third country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department will base NV 

on FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under our normal 

methodologies. Therefore, we calculated 

NV based on FOPs in accordance with 

sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.408(c). 

For purposes of calculating NV, we 

valued the PRC FOPs in accordance 

with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. The 

FOPs include: (1) Hours of labor 

required; (2) quantities of raw materials 

employed; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; and (4) 

representative capital costs, including 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 15455 

depreciation. We used the FOPs 

reported by Max Fortune for materials, 

energy, labor, and packing. See section 

773(c)(3) of the Act. 

In examining SVs, we selected, where 

possible, the publicly-available value, 

which was an average non-export value, 

representative of a range of prices 

within the POR or most 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, 

e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 

(December 16, 2004) (unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 24502 (May 

10, 2005)). For a detailed explanation of 

the methodology used to calculate SVs, 

see Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by Max Fortune for the 

POR. We relied on the factor-specific 

data submitted by Max Fortune for the 

production inputs in its questionnaire 

and supplemental questionnaire 

responses, where applicable, for 

purposes of selecting SVs. To calculate 

NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit 

factor consumption rates by publiclyavailable Indian SVs for all but two 

inputs. 

Max Fortune reported that it 

purchased two inputs (i.e., pulpboard 

and cartons), which it consumed in the 

production of the subject merchandise 

under review from a ME supplier and 

paid for in a market-economy currency. 

Section 773(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1) requires the Department to 

accept input prices to value the FOPs 

when the input is purchased from a ME 

supplier and paid for in a ME currency. 

Furthermore, consistent with the 

Department’s stated policy reflected in 

Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market 

Economy Wages, Duty Drawback: and 

Request for Comments, 71 FR 61716 

(October 19, 2006) (2006 Statement of 

Policy), when a sufficient proportion of 

an input is purchased from a ME, the 

Department will use the reported ME 

price to value the input if it was paid 

for in a ME currency. For purposes of 

the preliminary results, we have 

determined that Max Fortune’s reported 

ME purchases of the two inputs 

identified above accounted for a 

significant portion of its total purchases 

of these two inputs and, therefore, have 

used the reported purchase prices to 

value these two inputs in our NV 

calculation. See Max Fortune 

Calculation Memo for further discussion 

on the valuation of cartons. 

Normally, the Department prefers to 

use FOP data that accurately represent 

the quantity of inputs consumed on a 

control number (CONNUM)-specific 

basis. In this review, Max Fortune has 

indicated that it started maintaining 

records for dye and ink consumption in 

the paper-making and printing stages of 

production on a product-specific and 

color-specific basis in November 2007 

for purposes of reporting its FOP data in 

a manner consistent with the 

Department’s instructions in the prior 

review segment. See January 5, 2009, 

supplemental response at pages 11–14. 

Accordingly, for the last four months of 

the POR (November 2007 through 

February 2008), Max Fortune reported 

its paper-making dye consumption 

amounts and printing ink consumption 

amounts on a product-code-specific and 

color-specific basis. However, for the 

portion of the POR prior to the 

Department’s instruction (March 2007 

through February 2008), Max Fortune 

did not report these consumption 

amounts on a product-specific and 

color-specific basis. In addition, Max 

Fortune did not provide productspecific and color-specific printing dye 

consumption amounts for any portion of 

the POR. 

At verification, we examined Max 

Fortune’s ink and dye consumption 

records and confirmed that it started 

maintaining consumption records for 

dyes used for paper-making and inks 

used for printing on both a colorspecific and product-specific basis as of 

November 2007. However, Max Fortune 

did not maintain these records before 

that date. See Verification Report at 

pages 22–24. The Department finds such 

information necessary in order to 

accurately value the FOPs utilized in 

tissue paper production. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act, 

because necessary information relevant 

to the Department’s analysis is not on 

the record, the Department has 

determined it necessary to apply facts 

otherwise available to value Max 

Fortune’s dye and ink consumption 

factors which were not reported on a 

color-specific and product-specific 

basis. Consistent with the Department’s 

decisions in prior segments of this 

review, as facts available, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined it appropriate to rely on the 

aggregate, non-color-specific papermaking dye consumption factors 

reported by Max Fortune prior to 

November 2007. The Department valued 

such dye consumption using an average 

of Indian import values for different dye 

types commonly used in tissue-paper 

production. For dyes used in printing, 

as facts available, for the entire POR, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined it appropriate to accept Max 

Fortune’s aggregate, non-color specific 

print dye consumption factors. The 

Department valued print dye 

consumption using an average Indian 

import value for non-black printing 

dyes. For inks used for printing, while 

Max Fortune reported product-specific 

and color-specific ink consumption 

factors as of November 2007, the 

Department has been unable to obtain 

color-specific ink values. Thus, we have 

valued all ink consumption using a noncolor-specific average Indian import 

value. 

In selecting the SVs, consistent with 

our past practice, we considered the 

quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. See, e.g., 

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 

(December 11, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 9. As appropriate, we 

adjusted input prices by including 

freight costs to make them delivered 

prices. Specifically, we added to Indian 

import SVs a surrogate freight cost using 

the shorter of the reported distance from 

the domestic supplier to the factory or 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory, where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). See 

Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 

1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we 

used non-import surrogate values for 

factors sourced domestically by PRC 

suppliers (e.g., ME-purchased inputs), 

we based freight for these inputs on the 

actual distance from the input supplier 

to the site at which the input was 

consumed. Where necessary, we 

adjusted the SVs for inflation/deflation 

using the WPI as published in the 

International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics, 

available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf. 

We valued the raw material and 

packing material inputs, and the byproduct (i.e., paper scrap) using 

weighted-average unit import values 

derived from the Monthly Statistics of 

the Foreign Trade of India (MSFTI), as 

published by the Directorate General of 

Commercial Intelligence and Statistics 

of the Ministry of Commerce and 

Industry, Government of India, and 

compiled by the World Trade Atlas 

(WTA), available at http:www.gtis.com/ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
15456 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 

12See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Attachment 1. 

13The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, 

Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, PRC, 

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. 

14See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998–1999 

Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 

Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 

People’s Republic of China; Final Results of 1999– 

2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 

Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; and China National Machinery Imp. & 

Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 

1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal Circuit, 

104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 15Web site available at http://www.midcindia.org. 

16See Certain Tissue Paper Products from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 18497, 18502 (April 

4, 2008) (unchanged in Certain Tissue Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

58113 (October 6, 2008) (Tissue Paper AR2)). 

wta.htm. The Indian WTA import data 

are reported in rupees and are 

contemporaneous with the POR.12

Indian SVs denominated in Indian 

rupees were converted to U.S. dollars 

using the applicable daily exchange rate 

for India for the POR. See http:// 

www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html. Where appropriate, we 

converted the units of measure to 

kilograms. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Furthermore, with regard to the WTA 

Indian import-based SVs, we 

disregarded prices from NME 

countries 13 and those we have reason to 

believe or suspect may be subsidized, 

because we have found in other 

proceedings that these exporting 

countries maintain broadly available, 

non-industry-specific export subsidies 

and, therefore, there is reason to believe 

or suspect that all exports to all markets 

from such countries may be 

subsidized.14 We are also guided by the 

statute’s legislative history that explains 

that it is not necessary to conduct a 

formal investigation to ensure that such 

prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 

No. 576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 590–91 

(1988). Rather, the Department was 

instructed by Congress to base its 

decision on information that is available 

to it at the time it is making its 

determination. Therefore, we excluded 

export prices from Indonesia, South 

Korea, Thailand, and India when 

calculating the Indian import-based 

SVs. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Finally, we excluded imports that were 

labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country from the average 

Indian import values, because we could 

not be certain that they were not from 

either an NME or a country with general 

export subsidies. 

As discussed above, the Department 

valued surrogate truck freight cost by 

using a deflated per-unit average rate 

calculated from data on the following 

web site: http://www.infobanc.com/ 

logistics/logtruck.htm. See Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 52282, 52286 (September 

9, 2008) (and unchanged in 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 

(February 11, 2009); and Surrogate 

Value Memorandum at Attachment 8. 

We valued water using data from the 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation because it includes a wide 

range of industrial water tariffs. This 

source provides 378 industrial water 

rates within the Maharashtra province 

from July 2007; 189 for the ‘‘inside 

industrial areas’’ usage category; and 

189 for the ‘‘outside industrial areas’’ 

usage category.15

The Department calculated a simple 

average price for domestic coal using 

data obtained from Coal India Limited. 

Because these data were not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

adjusted the average value for inflation 

using WPI. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 6. 

To value electricity, the Department 

used July 2006 electricity price rates 

from Electricity Tariff & Duty and 

Average Rates of Electricity Supply in 

India, published by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India. Because these data were not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

adjusted the average value for inflation 

using WPI. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 5. 

For direct labor, indirect labor and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression-based wage rates reflective of 

the observed relationship between 

wages and national income in ME 

countries as reported on Import 

Administration’s Web site. See 

‘‘Expected Wages of Selected NME 

Countries’’ (revised January 2007) 

(available at http://www.trade.gov/ia/). 

For further details on the labor 

calculation, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 8. Because 

the regression-based wage rates do not 

separate the labor rates into different 

skill levels or types of labor, we applied 

the same wage rate to all skill levels and 

types of labor reported by Max Fortune. 

Max Fortune reported that during the 

manufacturing process, its subject 

merchandise was transported from its 

paper-making facility to its tissue paperprocessing facility. Using Max Fortune’s 

reported distance and the reported 

weight of its tissue paper products, we 

valued the other PRC distance (i.e., 

domestic inland freight cost of 

transporting paper from Max Fortune’s 

Putian facility to Max Fortune’s Mawei 

processing facility) with the surrogate 

truck rate discussed above. This 

additional freight value was added to 

the cost of manufacture (COM). See Max 

Fortune Calculation Memorandum. 

For factory overhead, selling, general, 

and administrative expenses (SG&A), 

and profit values, consistent with 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(4), we used the public 

information from the 2007–2008 annual 

report of Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills 

Ltd. (Pudumjee).16 From this 

information, we were able to determine 

factory overhead as a percentage of the 

total raw materials, labor, and energy 

(ML&E) costs; SG&A as a percentage of 

ML&E plus overhead (i.e., COM); and 

the profit rate as a percentage of the 

COM plus SG&A. Where appropriate, 

we did not include in the surrogate 

overhead and SG&A calculations the 

excise duty amount listed in the 

financial report. For a full discussion of 

the calculation of these ratios, see 

Surrogate Value Memorandum and its 

accompanying calculation worksheets at 

Attachment 7. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by Max Fortune for use in our 

preliminary results. We used standard 

verification procedures including an 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, and original source 

documents provided by Max Fortune. 

See Verification Report. 

Intent Not To Revoke Order In Part 

On March 31, 2008, Max Fortune 

requested, that pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2), the Department revoke it 

from the antidumping duty order on 

certain tissue paper products from the 

PRC at the conclusion of this 

administrative review. Max Fortune 

submitted along with its revocation 

request a certification stating that: (1) 

The company sold subject merchandise 

at not less than NV during the POR, and 

that in the future it would not sell such 

merchandise at less than NV (see 19 

CFR 351.222(e)(1)(i)); (2) the company 

has sold the subject merchandise to the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 15457 

17All entries of certain tissue paper products 

from Quijiang will be presumed to be of PRC origin 

regardless of whether they are declared to be of 

Vietnamese or Chinese origin. See October 24, 2008, 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Discontinuation of 

Certification Program for Quijiang.’’ 

United States in commercial quantities 

during each of the past three years (see 

19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii)); and (3) the 

company agrees to immediate 

reinstatement of the antidumping duty 

order, if the Department concludes that 

the company, subsequent to revocation, 

sold the subject merchandise at less 

than NV (see CFR 351.222(e)(1)(iii)). 

In determining whether or not to 

revoke an antidumping duty order with 

respect to a particular producer/exporter 

under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), the 

Department considers whether: (1) The 

producer/exporter has sold the subject 

merchandise at not less than NV for a 

period of at least three consecutive 

years; (2) the producer/exporter has 

agreed to immediate reinstatement of 

the order if the Department finds that it 

has resumed making sales at less than 

NV; and (3) the continued application of 

the order is not otherwise necessary to 

offset dumping. In this case, our 

preliminary margin calculation shows 

that Max Fortune sold the subject 

merchandise at less than NV during the 

current review period. See ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of the Review’’ section below. 

Therefore, we preliminarily find that 

Max Fortune does not qualify for 

revocation from the order, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

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

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. See http:// 

www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following margins exist for the period 

March 1, 2007, through February 29, 

2008: 

CERTAIN TISSUE PAPER PRODUCTS

FROM THE PRC 

Individually reviewed exporter 

2007–2008 administrative review 

Weightedaverage 

percent 

margin 

(percent) 

Max Fortune ............................... 4.13 

PRC-Wide Rate Margin 

(percent) 

PRC-Wide Rate (including Guilin 

Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd. and 

Vietnam Quijiang Paper Co., 

Ltd.) ......................................... 112.64 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results and 

may submit case briefs and/or written 

comments within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to 

issues raised in the case briefs, will be 

due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit case or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each argument 

(1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument. Parties 

are requested to provide a summary of 

the arguments not to exceed five pages 

and a table of statutes, regulations, and 

cases cited. Additionally, parties are 

requested to provide their case brief and 

rebuttal briefs in electronic format (e.g., 

Microsoft Word, pdf, etc.). Interested 

parties who wish to request a hearing or 

to participate if one is requested, must 

submit a written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues 

raised in the hearing will be limited to 

those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any such written briefs or at the hearing, 

if held, not later than 120 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this review. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Max 

Fortune, we calculated importer (or 

customer)-specific assessment rates for 

the merchandise subject to this review. 

Because we do not have entered values 

on the record for Max Fortune’s sales, 

we calculated a per-unit assessment rate 

by aggregating the antidumping duties 

due for all U.S. sales to each importer 

(or customer) and dividing this amount 

by the total quantity sold to that 

importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the 

duty assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

calculated importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem ratios based on the 

estimated entered value. Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

appropriate entries without regard to 

antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2). 

With respect to the PRC-wide entity 

(including Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang), 

we will instruct CBP to liquidate 

appropriate entries at the PRC-wide rate 

of 112.64 percent.17

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the notice of final results 

of the administrative review for all 

shipments of certain tissue paper 

products from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) A cash 

deposit rate of 4.13 percent will be 

required for certain tissue paper 

products from the PRC exported by Max 

Fortune; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise, which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be PRC-wide rate of 112.64 percent; and 

(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter that supplied that non-PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
15458 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

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

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: March 31, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–7688 Filed 4–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Basic 

Requirements for Special Exemption 

Permits and Authorizations To Take, 

Import, and Export Marine Mammals, 

Threatened and Endangered Species, 

and for Maintaining a Captive Marine 

Mammal Inventory Under the Marine 

Mammal Protection, the Fur Seal, and 

the Endangered Species Acts 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before June 5, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 7845, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Amy Sloan, (301) 713–2289 

or Amy.Sloan@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; MMPA), Fur 

Seal Act (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.; FSA), 

and Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.; ESA) prohibit certain 

actions affecting marine mammals and 

endangered and threatened species, 

with exceptions. Permits can be 

obtained for scientific research and 

enhancing the survival or recovery of a 

species or stock of marine mammals or 

threatened or endangered species; 

commercial and educational 

photography of marine mammals; and 

import and capture of marine mammals 

for public display. Letters of 

Confirmation can be obtained under the 

General Authorization (GA) for 

scientific research that involves 

minimal disturbance to marine 

mammals. The applicants desiring a 

permit or authorization must provide 

certain information for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to 

determine whether a proposed activity 

is consistent with the purposes, 

policies, and requirements of the 

applicable laws, and that the activity is 

in the best interest of the protected 

species and the public. Permit holders 

and authorized researchers must report 

on activities conducted to ensure 

compliance with permit conditions and 

protection of the animals. Holders of 

captive marine mammals must report 

changes to their animal inventory. 

This information collection applies to 

protected species for which NMFS is 

responsible, including the marine 

mammal species of cetaceans (whales, 

dolphins and porpoises) and pinnipeds 

(seals and sea lions) and threatened and 

endangered species including sea turtles 

(in water), white abalone, black abalone, 

smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, 

and elkhorn and staghorn corals. The 

regulations implementing permit, 

authorization, and inventory 

requirements under the MMPA and FSA 

are at 50 CFR part 216; the regulations 

for permit requirements under the ESA 

are at 50 CFR part 222. 

Respondents will be researchers, 

photographers, and other members of 

the public seeking exceptions to 

prohibited activities on marine 

mammals and endangered and 

threatened species through permits or 

authorizations for purposes described 

above; and holders of marine mammals 

in captivity. 

II. Method of Collection 

Permit and authorization application 

materials and reports are available in 

paper and electronic versions, and are 

written to respond to a required format. 

Inventory materials and reports are 

paper forms. Methods of submission 

include mail, facsimile transmission, 

and electronic submission via e-mail or 

through an on-line application system 

known as Authorizations and Permits 

for Protected Species (APPS). 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0084. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; not-for-profit institutions; 

business or other for-profit 

organizations; Federal Government; and 

State, Local, or Tribal Government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

514. 

Estimated Time per Response: 50 

hours for an application for a scientific 

research or enhancement permit; 30 

hours for an application for a public 

display permit; 10 hours for an 

application for a photography permit or 

GA Letter of Confirmation; 35 hours for 

a major amendment or modification to 

a permit; 3 hours for a minor 

amendment or modification to a permit 

or for a change to a GA Letter of 

Confirmation; 12 hours for a scientific 

research or enhancement permit report; 

8 hours for a GA Letter of Confirmation 

report; 2 hours for a public display or 

photography permit report; request to 

retain or transfer a rehabilitated marine 

mammal, or a marine mammal 

inventory (1 hour for a transport 

notification; 30 minutes each for a data 

sheet and a person/holder/facility 

sheet); and 2 hours for recordkeeping. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 7,716. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $2,000. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: April 1, 2009. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–7676 Filed 4–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES