Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 17149 

1See Certain Lined Paper Products From India: 

Preliminary Results of the First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 58548 (October 7, 

2008) (Preliminary Results). 

2See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 

61621 (October 31, 2007). The respondents include: 

Blue Bird India Ltd.; Creative Divya; Exel India Pvt. 

Ltd.; FFI International; Global Art India Inc.; 

Kejriwal Exports and Kejriwal Paper Limited; M/S 

Super ImpEx.; Magic International; Marigold ExIm 

Pvt. Ltd.; Marisa International; Navneet 

Publications (India) Ltd. (Navneet); Pioneer 

Stationery Pvt. Ltd.; Rajvansh International; Ria 

ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. (Ria); Riddhi Enterprises; SAB 

International; TKS Overseas; Unlimited Accessories 

Worldwide; and V. Joshi Co. 

activities; truck transportation; courier 

and messengers; warehousing and 

storage; rental and leasing services; arts, 

entertainment, and recreation; and other 

services except public administration. 

Data are collected from all of the 

largest firms and from a sample of 

small- and medium-sized businesses 

selected using a stratified sampling 

procedure. Each quarter the sample is 

updated to reflect the addition of new 

business births and firms and 

organizations that have gone out-ofbusiness. 

The Bureau of Economic Analysis 

uses data gathered in this survey in 

developing its quarterly Gross Domestic 

Product (GDP) and GDP by industry 

estimates. The data provide the Federal 

Reserve Board and Council of Economic 

advisors with timely information to 

assess current economic performance. 

Other government and private 

stakeholders also benefit from a better 

understanding of important cyclical 

components of our economy. 

We are expanding the industry 

coverage of the QSS to include utilities; 

air transportation; water transportation; 

transit and ground passenger 

transportation; pipeline transportation; 

scenic and sightseeing transportation; 

support activities for transportation; 

monetary authorities-central bank; 

insurance carriers and related services; 

real estate; lessors of nonfinancial 

intangible assets (except copyrighted 

works); and educational services. For 

expanded industries, the survey will 

produce estimates of total operating 

revenue and operating expenses from 

the tax-exempt firms in industries that 

have a large not-for-profit component. 

II. Method of Collection 

The Census Bureau will collect this 

information by mail, fax, Internet, and a 

telephone follow-up. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0607–0907. 

Form Number: QSS–1(A), QSS–1(E), 

QSS–2(A), QSS–2(E), QSS–3(A), QSS– 

3(E), QSS–4(A), QSS–4(E), QSS–5(A), 

QSS–5(E), QSS–1A–PEO, QSS–1E–PEO. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit organizations, not-for-profit 

institutions, and government hospitals. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

15,400. 

Estimated Time per Response: QSS– 

1(A), QSS–1(E), QSS–2(A), QSS–2(E), 

QSS–3(A), QSS–3(E), QSS–5(A), QSS– 

5(E), QSS–1A–PEO, QSS–1E–PEO: 15 

minutes, QSS–4(A), QSS–4(E): 10 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 13,500. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: 

$370,305. 

Respondents Obligation: Voluntary. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. 

Section 182. 

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 8, 2009. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–8403 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–843] 

Certain Lined Paper Products from 

India: Notice of Final Results of the 

First Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 7, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the antidumping duty 

administrative review for certain lined 

paper products (CLPP) from the India.1

This review covers two mandatory 

respondents, Kejriwal Exports and 

Kejriwal Paper Limited (Kejriwal), and 

Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. (Ria), and 17 other 

manufacturers and exporters of the 

subject merchandise (collectively, 

respondents).2 The period of review 

(POR) is April 17, 2006, through August 

31, 2007. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes to Kejriwal’s margin. For these 

final results, we find that Kejriwal sold 

subject merchandise at prices below 

normal value (NV) during the POR. 

Because it is above de minimis, we are 

applying the calculated weighted– 

average margin for Kejriwal from this 

review to those companies that were 

covered by this review but were not 

selected for individual examination 

(non–selected respondents). Therefore, 

the final results differ from the 

Preliminary Results with respect to 

Kejriwal and the non–selected 

respondents. However, we continue to 

apply an adverse facts available rate of 

23.17 percent to Ria. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Lai Robinson or George 

McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

3, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3797 or 

(202) 482–1167, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 7, 2008, the Department 

published the Preliminary Results. On 

February 2, 2009, the Department 

extended the time limits for the final 

results of this review until no later than 

April 6, 2009. See Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India: Extension of Time 

Limits for Final of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 5817 

(February 2, 2009). 

We invited parties to comment on our 

Preliminary Results. On November 14, 

2008, the Association of American 

School Paper Suppliers and its 

individual members (the petitioner) and 

Kejriwal submitted their case briefs. On 

November 25, 2008, the petitioner, 

Kejriwal, and Navneet submitted their 

rebuttal briefs. 

17150 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain lined paper products, typically 

school supplies (for purposes of this 

scope definition, the actual use of or 

labeling these products as school 

supplies or non–school supplies is not 

a defining characteristic) composed of 

or including paper that incorporates 

straight horizontal and/or vertical lines 

on ten or more paper sheets (there shall 

be no minimum page requirement for 

loose leaf filler paper) including but not 

limited to such products as single- and 

multi–subject notebooks, composition 

books, wireless notebooks, loose leaf or 

glued filler paper, graph paper, and 

laboratory notebooks, and with the 

smaller dimension of the paper 

measuring 6 inches to 15 inches 

(inclusive) and the larger dimension of 

the paper measuring 8–3/4 inches to 15 

inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are 

measured size (not advertised, stated, or 

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

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

and folded pages in a notebook are 

measured by the size of the page as it 

appears in the notebook page, not the 

size of the unfolded paper). However, 

for measurement purposes, pages with 

tapered or rounded edges shall be 

measured at their longest and widest 

points. Subject lined paper products 

may be loose, packaged or bound using 

any binding method (other than case 

bound through the inclusion of binders 

board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). 

Subject merchandise may or may not 

contain any combination of a front 

cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of 

any composition, regardless of the 

inclusion of images or graphics on the 

cover, backing, or paper. Subject 

merchandise is within the scope of this 

order whether or not the lined paper 

and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, 

perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject 

merchandise may contain accessory or 

informational items including but not 

limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, 

closure devices, index cards, stencils, 

protractors, writing implements, 

reference materials such as 

mathematical tables, or printed items 

such as sticker sheets or miniature 

calendars, if such items are physically 

incorporated , included with, or 

attached to the product, cover and/or 

backing thereto. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of this order are: 

• unlined copy machine paper; 

• writing pads with a backing 

(including but not limited to 

products commonly known as 

‘‘tablets,’’ ‘‘note pads,’’ ‘‘legal 

pads,’’ and ‘‘quadrille pads’’), 

provided that they do not have a 

front cover (whether permanent or 

removable). This exclusion does not 

apply to such writing pads if they 

consist of hole–punched or drilled 

filler paper; 

• three–ring or multiple–ring binders, 

or notebook organizers 

incorporating such a ring binder 

provided that they do not include 

subject paper; 

• index cards; 

• printed books and other books that 

are case bound through the 

inclusion of binders board, a spine 

strip, and cover wrap; 

• newspapers; 

• pictures and photographs; 

• desk and wall calendars and 

organizers (including but not 

limited to such products generally 

known as ‘‘office planners,’’ ‘‘time 

books,’’ and ‘‘appointment books’’); 

• telephone logs; 

• address books; 

• columnar pads & tablets, with or 

without covers, primarily suited for 

the recording of written numerical 

business data; 

• lined business or office forms, 

including but not limited to: pre– 

printed business forms, lined 

invoice pads and paper, mailing 

and address labels, manifests, and 

shipping log books; 

• lined continuous computer paper; 

• boxed or packaged writing 

stationary (including but not 

limited to products commonly 

known as ‘‘fine business paper,’’ 

‘‘parchment paper,’’ and 

‘‘letterhead’’), whether or not 

containing a lined header or 

decorative lines; 

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

Gregg ruled (‘‘Gregg ruling’’ consists 

of a single- or double–margin 

vertical ruling line down the center 

of the page. For a six–inch by nine– 

inch stenographic pad, the ruling 

would be located approximately 

three inches from the left of the 

book), measuring 6 inches by 9 

inches; 

Also excluded from the scope of this 

order are the following trademarked 

products: 

• FlyTM lined paper products: A 

notebook, notebook organizer, loose 

or glued note paper, with papers 

that are printed with infrared 

reflective inks and readable only by 

a FlyTM pen–top computer. The 

product must bear the valid 

trademark FlyTM (products found to 

be bearing an invalidly licensed or 

used trademark are not excluded 

from the scope). 

• ZwipesTM: A notebook or notebook 

organizer made with a blended 

polyolefin writing surface as the 

cover and pocket surfaces of the 

notebook, suitable for writing using 

a specially–developed permanent 

marker and erase system (known as 

a ZwipesTM pen). This system 

allows the marker portion to mark 

the writing surface with a 

permanent ink. The eraser portion 

of the marker dispenses a solvent 

capable of solubilizing the 

permanent ink allowing the ink to 

be removed. The product must bear 

the valid trademark ZwipesTM

(products found to be bearing an 

invalidly licensed or used 

trademark are not excluded from 

the scope). 

• FiveStar®AdvanceTM: A notebook or 

notebook organizer bound by a 

continuous spiral, or helical, wire 

and with plastic front and rear 

covers made of a blended polyolefin 

plastic material joined by 300 

denier polyester, coated on the 

backside with PVC (poly vinyl 

chloride) coating, and extending the 

entire length of the spiral or helical 

wire. The polyolefin plastic covers 

are of specific thickness; front cover 

is 0.019 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances) and rear 

cover is 0.028 inches (within 

normal manufacturing tolerances). 

Integral with the stitching that 

attaches the polyester spine 

covering, is captured both ends of a 

1’’ wide elastic fabric band. This 

band is located 2–3/8’’ from the top 

of the front plastic cover and 

provides pen or pencil storage. Both 

ends of the spiral wire are cut and 

then bent backwards to overlap 

with the previous coil but 

specifically outside the coil 

diameter but inside the polyester 

covering. During construction, the 

polyester covering is sewn to the 

front and rear covers face to face 

(outside to outside) so that when 

the book is closed, the stitching is 

concealed from the outside. Both 

free ends (the ends not sewn to the 

cover and back) are stitched with a 

turned edge construction. The 

flexible polyester material forms a 

covering over the spiral wire to 

protect it and provide a comfortable 

grip on the product. The product 

must bear the valid trademarks 

FiveStar®AdvanceTM (products 

found to be bearing an invalidly 

licensed or used trademark are not 

excluded from the scope). 

• FiveStar FlexTM: A notebook, a 

notebook organizer, or binder with 

plastic polyolefin front and rear 

covers joined by 300 denier 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 17151 

polyester spine cover extending the 

entire length of the spine and 

bound by a 3–ring plastic fixture. 

The polyolefin plastic covers are of 

a specific thickness; front cover is 

0.019 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances) and rear 

cover is 0.028 inches (within 

normal manufacturing tolerances). 

During construction, the polyester 

covering is sewn to the front cover 

face to face (outside to outside) so 

that when the book is closed, the 

stitching is concealed from the 

outside. During construction, the 

polyester cover is sewn to the back 

cover with the outside of the 

polyester spine cover to the inside 

back cover. Both free ends (the ends 

not sewn to the cover and back) are 

stitched with a turned edge 

construction. Each ring within the 

fixture is comprised of a flexible 

strap portion that snaps into a 

stationary post which forms a 

closed binding ring. The ring fixture 

is riveted with six metal rivets and 

sewn to the back plastic cover and 

is specifically positioned on the 

outside back cover. The product 

must bear the valid trademark 

FiveStar FlexTM (products found to 

be bearing an invalidly licensed or 

used trademark are not excluded 

from the scope). 

Merchandise subject to this order is 

typically imported under headings 

4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 

4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 

4820.10.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

The HTSUS headings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties in this review 

are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’ from John M. 

Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

dated April 6, 2009, (Issues and 

Decisions Memorandum) which is 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues which parties have raised, and to 

which we have responded in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum, is attached 

to this notice as an Appendix. Parties 

can find a complete discussion of the 

issues raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 

1117 of the main Commerce Building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on the world wide 

web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ 

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes to Kejriwal’s margin. 

Specifically, we recalculated Kejriwal’s 

general and administrative (G&A) 

expenses ratio. See Memorandum to 

Neal M. Halper from Robert B. Greger, 

Re: Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Final Results - 

Kejriwal Paper Limited, dated April 6, 

2009. 

Kejriwal Paper Limited (Kejriwal). As 

a result of this change, the calculated 

margin for Kejriwal is no longer a de 

minimis rate, and is assigned to the 

non–selected companies covered in this 

review. 

Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), provides 

that the Department will apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not available 

on the record or an interested party: 1) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; 2) fails to 

provide such information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form or 

manner requested by the Department, 

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

section 782 of the Act; 3) significantly 

impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides 

such information, but the information 

cannot be verified. 

As discussed in the Preliminary 

Results, Ria is one of the mandatory 

respondents for this review, but Ria did 

not submit any questionnaire responses 

to the Department, nor did it request 

any further extension after it improperly 

filed an extension request. By failing to 

respond to the Department’s requests, 

Ria withheld requested information and 

significantly impeded the proceeding. 

Therefore, pursuant to sections 

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

Department finds that the use of total 

facts available for Ria is appropriate. 

According to section 776(b) of the 

Act, if the Department finds that an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information, the 

Department may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from the facts otherwise 

available. See also Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025–26 

(September 13, 2005); and Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Final Negative 

Critical Circumstances: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (August 

30, 2002). Adverse inferences are 

appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 

(1994) (SAA), reprinted in 1994 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198–99. 

Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of 

bad faith on the part of a respondent is 

not required before the Department may 

make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 

(May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel 

Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 

1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). In 

this case, despite an improperly filed 

extension request, the Department 

granted Ria an opportunity to refile the 

extension request and a two-week 

extension to respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire. Ria never 

responded, refiled, or made an 

additional request for a further 

extension. The Department finds that 

Ria did not act to the best of its ability 

in this proceeding, within the meaning 

of section 776(b) of the Act, because it 

could have responded to the 

Department’s requests for information, 

but failed to do so. Therefore, an 

adverse inference is warranted in 

selecting from the facts otherwise 

available with respect to Ria. See 

Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382–83. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use as AFA 

information derived from: 1) the 

petition; 2) the final determination in 

the investigation; 3) any previous 

review; or 4) any other information 

placed on the record. 

The Department’s practice, when 

selecting an AFA rate from among the 

possible sources of information, has 

been to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the 

statutory purposes of the adverse facts 

available rule to induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See, e.g., Certain Steel 

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; 

Final Results and Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 

(November 7, 2006). 

17152 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 

3The dumping margin of 23.17 percent is the 

AFA rate for Navneet in the original investigation, 

which was based on a calculated rate for Kejriwal. 

See the Memorandum to File through James 

Terpstra, Program Manager, from Cindy Lai 

Robinson, Case Analyst, entitled ‘‘Analysis 

Memorandum for Kejriwal Paper, Re: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from 

India,’’ dated September 29, 2008. 

4For the reasons discussed above, this rate is 

based on the average of the margins, other than 

those which were zero, de minimis, or based on 

total facts available, calculated during the review. 

In order to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse so as to induce 

cooperation, the Department has 

assigned a rate of 23.17 percent, which 

is the highest rate on the record of the 

proceeding which can be corroborated. 

See Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, and Negative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India (India Lined Paper 

Investigation Final), 71 FR 45012 

(August 8, 2006). As stated in the India 

Lined Paper Investigation Final, this 

rate was assigned as AFA to two 

companies, which failed to cooperate to 

the best of their ability, and is based on 

Kejriwal’s data submitted in the 

investigation. Id. The Department finds 

that this rate is sufficiently high as to 

effectuate the purpose of the facts 

available rule (i.e., we find that this rate 

is high enough to prevent parties from 

benefitting from non–cooperation in 

accordance with section 776(b) of the 

Act). 

Corroboration of Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the 

Department to corroborate, to the extent 

practicable, secondary information used 

as facts available. Secondary 

information is defined as ‘‘information 

derived from the petition that gave rise 

to the investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning the subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’ See 19 CFR 

351.308(c) and (d); see also the SAA at 

870. The SAA clarifies that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See the SAA at 870. 

The SAA also states that independent 

sources used to corroborate such 

evidence may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. Id. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used. 

To corroborate secondary information, 

to the extent practicable, the 

Department normally examines the 

reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used. Unlike other 

types of information such as input costs 

or selling expenses, however, there are 

no independent sources for calculated 

dumping margins. The only source for 

margins is administrative 

determinations. Thus, with respect to an 

administrative review, if the Department 

chooses as facts available a calculated 

dumping margin from a prior segment of 

the proceeding, it is not necessary to 

question the reliability of the margin for 

that time period. See Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 52012 

(September 8, 2008) (Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India); see also 

Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof 

from France, et al.: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent 

to Rescind Administrative Reviews, and 

Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part, 

69 FR 5949, 5953 (February 9, 2004), 

unchanged in Antifriction Bearings and 

Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Rescission of 

Administrative Reviews in Part, and 

Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 

69 FR 55574, 55576–77 (September 15, 

2004). 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, however, 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. For example, in 

Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (February 22, 1996), 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 

or judicially invalidated. See D & L 

Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 

1220, 1221 (CAFC 1997). 

None of these unusual circumstances 

is present here. The Department 

considers the dumping margin of 23.17 

percent relevant for use as AFA for this 

review because this margin is based on 

information from the investigation and 

is within the range of transaction– 

specific margins calculated for a 

mandatory respondent in the original 

investigation.3 Moreover, there is no 

information on the record of this review 

that demonstrates that 23.17 percent is 

not an appropriate AFA rate for Ria. The 

Department finds that use of the rate of 

23.17 percent as an AFA rate is 

sufficiently high to ensure that Ria does 

not benefit from failing to cooperate in 

our review by refusing to respond to our 

questionnaire. See Certain Cut–toLength Carbon–Quality Steel Plate 

Products from the Republic of Korea: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Rescission 

of Administrative Review in Part, 73 FR 

15132, 15133 (March 21, 2008); see also 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India. 

Final Results of Review: 

We determine that the following 

weighted–average margins exist: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average 

Margin (percent) 

Kejriwal Exports and 

Kejriwal Paper Limited ............................ 1.22 

Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. ...... 23.17 

Review–Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the Non–Selected 

Companies Subject to this Review:4

Blue Bird India Ltd. ....... 1.22 

Creative Divya .............. 1.22 

Exel India Pvt. Ltd. ....... 1.22 

FFI International ........... 1.22 

Global Art India Inc. ...... 1.22 

M/S Super ImpEx ......... 1.22 

Magic International ....... 1.22 

Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd. 1.22 

Marisa International ...... 1.22 

Navneet Publications 

(India) Ltd. ................. 1.22 

Pioneer Stationery Pvt. 

Ltd. ............................ 1.22 

Rajvansh International .. 1.22 

Riddhi Enterprises ........ 1.22 

SAB International .......... 1.22 

TKS Overseas .............. 1.22 

Unlimited Accessories 

Worldwide ................. 1.22 

V. Joshi Co. .................. 1.22 

Assessment 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department 

calculated importer–specific duty 

assessment rates on the basis of the ratio 

of the total antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of the examined 

sales for that importer. For all other 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 17153 

5As stated above, Ria will receive an AFA rate 

of 23.17 percent. 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and 

Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 

68545 (July 24, 1996). 

2See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Pasta from 

Turkey, 74 FR 681 (January 7, 2009). 

companies5 subject to this review which 

were not selected for individual 

examination, we calculated an 

assessment rate based on the cash 

deposit rate calculated for Kejriwal in 

this review. 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of these final results of review. The 

Department clarified its ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’’ regulation on May 6, 2003 

(68 FR 23954). This clarification applies 

to POR entries of subject merchandise 

produced by companies examined in 

this review (i.e., companies for which a 

dumping margin was calculated) where 

the companies did not know that their 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all–others rate if there is 

no rate for the intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction. For a full discussion of this 

clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

final results of this administrative 

review for all shipments of certain lined 

paper products from India entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of these final results, as provided 

by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) for 

companies covered by this review, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate listed 

above; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies other than those 

covered by this review, the cash deposit 

rate will be the company–specific rate 

established for the most recent period; 

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 

in this review, a prior review, or the 

less–than-fair–value investigation, but 

the producer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the subject merchandise; and (4) if 

neither the exporter nor the producer is 

a firm covered in this review, a prior 

review, or the investigation, the cash 

deposit rate will be 3.91 percent, the 

all–others rate established in the less– 

than-fair–value investigation. These 

deposit requirements shall remain in 

effect until further notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties occurred and the 

subsequent increase in antidumping 

duties by the amount of antidumping 

and/or countervailing duties 

reimbursed. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also is the only reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: April 6, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX I 

List of Comments in the Accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1: Appropriate Rate for Non– 

Selected Respondents 

Comment 2: Whether to Assign a Higher 

Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Rate to 

Ria 

Comment 3: General and Administrative 

Expense Ratio 

Comment 4: Financial Expense Ratio 

Comment 5: Capitalized Expenses 

[FR Doc. E9–8495 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–489–805] 

Certain Pasta from Turkey: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 7, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order of 

certain pasta from Turkey as requested 

by Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticret A.S. 

(‘‘Marsan’’). After receiving additional 

information on the operations of 

Marsan, we preliminarily determine that 

Marsan is the successor–in-interest to 

Gidasa Sabanci Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret 

A.S. (‘‘Gidasa’’), and should be accorded 

the same antidumping duty treatment 

accorded Gidasa with respect to the 

antidumping duty order on certain pasta 

from Turkey. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Hargett, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4161. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 24, 1996, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain pasta 

from Turkey.1 On December 3, 2008, 

Marsan requested that the Department 

initiate and conduct an expedited 

changed circumstances review to 

determine that, for purposes of the 

antidumping law, Marsan is the 

successor–in-interest to Gidasa. See 

December 3, 2008, letter from Marsan to 

the Secretary of Commerce. On January 

7, 2009, the Department published a 

notice of initiation of a changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping order.2 On February 23, 

2009, the Department requested 

additional information from Marsan 

regarding its operations in Turkey. See 

February 23, 2009, changed 

circumstances review questionnaire 

from the Department to Marsan. On 

March 16, 2009, Marsan replied to the 

Department’s questionnaire. See March 

16, 2009, letter from Marsan to the 

Secretary of Commerce. 

Scope of Review 

Imports covered by this review are 

shipments of certain non–egg dry pasta 

in packages of five pounds (2.27 

kilograms) or less, whether or not