17160 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 

61621 (October 31, 2007). 

2On April 11, 2008, Lian Li submitted similar 

reconciliation information for itself, Sentian, and 

MPF. 

3See Certain Lined Paper Products from the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limits for Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 80366 (December 31, 

2008). 

4See Memorandum to the File, regarding 

Verification of the sales and Factors of Production 

Responses of Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. in the 

First Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China, dated 

February 26, 2008 (Lian Li Verification Report). See 

also Memorandum to the File, regarding 

Verification of the Factors of Production Responses 

of MPF in the First Administrative Review of 

Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated February 26, 2008 (MPF 

Verification Report). See also Memorandum to the 

File, regarding Verification of the Factors of 

Production Responses of Sentian in the First 

Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China, dated 

February 26, 2008 (Sentian Verification Report). 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our 

practice, we preliminarily determine to 

rescind this review. See, e.g., Stainless 

Steel Bar from India; Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review, and Partial Rescission 

of Administrative Review, 65 FR 12209 

(March 8, 2000); Persulfates From the 

People’s Republic of China; Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 

FR 18963 (April 10, 2000). 

Public Comment 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this preliminary notice. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held 44 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary notice, 

or the first working day thereafter. 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

no later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary notice. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in such 

briefs, may be filed no later than five 

days after the time limit for filing the 

case brief 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit arguments are requested to 

submit with the argument (1) a 

statement of the issue, (2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and (3) a 

table of authorities. Further, parties 

submitting written comments should 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of the public version of 

any such comments on diskette. The 

Department will issue the final notice, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, or at a hearing, if requested, 

within 120 days of publication of this 

preliminary notice. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

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

351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: April 8, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–8497 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–901 

Certain Lined Paper Products from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 7, 2008, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the first administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

certain lined paper products (CLPP) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC). See Certain Lined Paper Products 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Notice of Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 58540 (October 7, 2008) 

(Preliminary Results). We invited parties 

to comment on the Preliminary Results. 

This review covers the following 

exporters and/or producer/exporters: (1) 

Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., 

Ltd. (Lian Li); (2) Hwa Fuh Plastics Co. 

Ltd./Li Teng Plastics (Shenzhen) Co., 

Ltd. (H.F. Plastics/ L.T. Plastics); (3) 

Leo’s Quality Products Co., Ltd./ 

Denmax Plastic Stationery Factory 

(Denmax/Leo’s Products); and (4) the 

Watanabe Group (which consists of the 

following three companies: Watanabe 

Paper Products (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. 

(Watanabe Shanghai); Watanabe Paper 

Products (Linqing) Co. Ltd. (Watanabe 

Linqing); and Hotrock Stationery 

(Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. (Hotrock 

Shenzhen)).1 We find that certain 

exporters and producers/exporters sold 

subject merchandise at prices below 

normal value (NV) during the period of 

review (POR) of April 17, 2006, through 

August 31, 2007. Based on our analysis 

of the comments received and 

verification findings, we have made 

changes to certain surrogate values and 

to Lian Li’s margin. Therefore, the final 

results differ from the Preliminary 

Results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Victoria Cho or Cindy Lai Robinson, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5075 or (202) 482– 

3797, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

We published the preliminary results 

of the first administrative review on 

October 7, 2008, in the Federal Register. 

See Preliminary Results. Since the 

Preliminary Results, the following 

events have occurred: 

On October 2 and November 6, 2008, 

the Department issued two additional 

supplemental questionnaires to Lian Li. 

Lian Li submitted its responses on 

October 16 and November 25, 2008, 

respectively. In its November 25, 2008, 

response, Lian Li provided its sales 

reconciliation and the factors of 

production reconciliations for all three 

companies: Lian Li, Sentian Paper 

Product Co., Ltd. (Sentian), and 

Shanghai Miaopanfang Paper Product 

Co., Ltd. (MPF).2 On October 27 and 

December 17, 2008, the Association of 

American School Paper Suppliers, the 

petitioner, submitted comments on Lian 

Li’s October 16 and November 25, 2008, 

responses, respectively. On November 6, 

2008, Lian Li requested a hearing. The 

petitioner also requested a hearing on 

March 6, 2009. 

On December 31, 2008, the 

Department extended the time limit for 

the final results of this proceeding.3 On 

January 9, 2009, the petitioner 

submitted pre–verification comments 

regarding Lian Li. From January 12 

through 16, 2009, the Department 

conducted verification on Lian Li’s 

reported sales information and on the 

reported factors of production (FOP) 

information submitted by Lian Li and its 

two suppliers of subject merchandise in 

Shanghai: Sentian and MPF. On 

February 26, 2009, the Department 

issued three verification reports with 

respect to Lian Li and its two suppliers.4

On March 6, 2009, Lian Li and the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 17161 

petitioner filed their case briefs. On 

March 13, 2009, the Watanabe Group 

submitted its case brief. The petitioner 

and Lian Li submitted their rebuttal 

briefs on March 16, 2009. The 

Department conducted a hearing on 

March 18, 2009. 

Scope of the Antidumping Duty 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 

looseleaf filler paper) including but not 

limited to such products as single- and 

multi–subject notebooks, composition 

books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf 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 

17162 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 

5See 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); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 

337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon 

Steel). 

6See Lian Li’s April 11, 2008, response at page 

12. See also the earlier quoted statement in this 

section above. 

FiveStar®AdvanceTM (products 

found to be bearing an invalidly 

licensed or used trademark are not 

excluded from the scope). 

• FiveStar FlexTM: A notebook, a 

notebook organizer, or binder with 

plastic polyolefin front and rear 

covers joined by 300 denier 

polyester spine cover extending the 

entire length of the spine and 

bound by a 3–ring plastic fixture. 

The polyolefin plastic covers are of 

a specific thickness; front cover is 

0.019 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances) and rear 

cover is 0.028 inches (within 

normal manufacturing tolerances). 

During construction, the polyester 

covering is sewn to the front cover 

face to face (outside to outside) so 

that when the book is closed, the 

stitching is concealed from the 

outside. During construction, the 

polyester cover is sewn to the back 

cover with the outside of the 

polyester spine cover to the inside 

back cover. Both free ends (the ends 

not sewn to the cover and back) are 

stitched with a turned edge 

construction. Each ring within the 

fixture is comprised of a flexible 

strap portion that snaps into a 

stationary post which forms a 

closed binding ring. The ring fixture 

is riveted with six metal rivets and 

sewn to the back plastic cover and 

is specifically positioned on the 

outside back cover. 

The product must bear the valid 

trademark FiveStar FlexTM (products 

found to be bearing an invalidly 

licensed or used trademark are not 

excluded from the scope). Merchandise 

subject to this order is typically 

imported under headings 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 this 

order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the briefs are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, regarding the Final 

Results of the First Administrative 

Review of Certain Lined Paper Products 

from the People’s Republic of China, 

dated April 6, 2009 (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues raised, all of which are in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, is 

attached to this notice as Appendix I. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in the briefs and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 

1117 of the Department of Commerce. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on the Internet at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Use of FOP Data submitted by Sentian 

and MPF 

At the Preliminary Results, the 

Department found that Lian Li’s two 

suppliers, Sentian and MPF, did not 

provide accurate and FOP data, and that 

they did not act to the best of their 

ability in this review. This finding was 

based largely on statements made by 

these companies which lead the 

Department to conclude that costs 

recorded at the individual companies 

(Sentian and MPF) were not reliable. 

Specifically, Lian Li stated that: 

‘‘{d}uring year 2006, Sentian and 

MPF had two different production 

sites and the accountant just 

arbitrarily assigned distributed the 

sales and manufacturing costs to the 

two companies’ accounting books. 

As a result, either one company’s 

cost accounts are not complete and 

the calculations for usage rates 

based on one company’s books are 

not accurate.’’ 

See Lian Li’s April 11, 2008, 

supplemental response at page 12. 

Therefore, to be consistent with its 

practice in similar situations,5 the 

Department applied adverse facts 

available (AFA) in the Preliminary 

Results by assigning the highest NV for 

any single matching control number 

(CONNUM) from the three producers at 

issue in this review, Lian Li, Sentian, 

and MPF, to all subject merchandise 

produced by Sentian and MPF. See 

Preliminary Results. This was consistent 

with the Department’s decision in the 

original investigation, where the 

Department concluded that Sentian and 

MPF did not cooperate to the best of 

their ability with respect to a particular 

FOP, mixed–pulp paper consumption, 

and applied facts available (FA) with an 

adverse inference to Sentian’s and 

MPF’s paper consumption. See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, and Affirmative 

Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain 

Lined Paper Products from People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 

(September 8, 2006) (PRC Lined Paper 

Investigation Final). 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department indicated that it would seek 

additional clarification from these 

companies regarding their accounting 

records. On October 16, 2009, Lian Li, 

Sentian and MPF made a submission in 

an effort to explain their accounting 

records. In the submission, Lian Li 

stated that the previous statements6

mischaracterized their accounting 

records; they explained that because the 

two companies were under common 

ownership and control, the owners 

operated them on a consolidated basis. 

In addition, because one of the two 

firms, MPF, had a lower tax rate, the 

companies would sometimes transfer 

sales and costs between the two firms to 

lower the overall tax burden. Based on 

this explanation we asked Lian Li to 

resubmit a reconciliation between the 

submitted FOP data and the financial 

statements; this was received on 

November 25, 2008. Based upon the 

explanation and information provided 

in the November 25, 2008, submission, 

the Department decided to proceed to 

verification. In January 2009 the 

Department conducted sales and FOP 

verification on the information 

submitted by Lian Li, Sentian and MPF 

in Shanghai, PRC. See Lian Li 

Verification Report, MPF Verification 

Report, and Sentian Verification Report, 

respectively. 

As stated in the Sentian and MPF 

Verification Reports, although the 

Department finds that the methodology 

adopted by Sentian and MPF adequately 

accounted for the consumption of the 

material inputs, the Department finds 

that the methodology did not accurately 

account for the consumption of labor 

and electricity. Specifically, for material 

transfers, the Department has concluded 

that Sentian and MPF’s accounting 

books properly captured the transfers 

when the transfers took place. 

Accordingly, we have concluded that 

the acutal consumption in Sentian’s and 

MPF’s factory was accurately recorded 

in the company–specific accounting 

books, which, in turn, was accurately 

reported in their submitted FOP 

databases. See id. However, at 

verification, we found that MPF and 

Sentian derived their reported 

consumption for labor and electricity by 

dividing the company–specific labor 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 17163 

7See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and 

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 

8273 (February 13, 2008) (PRC Wooden Bedroom 

Furniture Preliminary Results). (Unchanged in the 

final results Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008) 

(PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture Final Results). 

8See Lian Li’s April 11, 2008, supplemental 

questionnaire response at page 12 where it stated 

that as a result of the accountant arbitrarily 

distributing the sales and manufacturing costs to 

the two companies’ accounting book, there are 

discrepancies with respect to labor and electricity. 

and electricity usage by the post– 

transferred production quantity, rather 

than the actual company–specific 

production quantity. Because the post– 

transferred production quantity differs 

from the actual production quantity for 

each company, the mismatch of using 

post–transferred production quantity 

and the actual usage of these two factors 

resulted in misreporting of consumption 

for labor and electricity. 

Based on Lian Li’s two latest 

responses and the Department’s findings 

at verification, for purposes of these 

final results, with the exception of labor 

and electricity consumption (see 

Application of Partial Adverse Facts 

Available below), the Department has 

relied on Sentian and MPF’s reported 

FOP databases submitted on October 16, 

2008. 

Application of Partial Adverse Facts 

Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department will apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not available 

on the record or an interested party: A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; B) 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; C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding; or D) provides 

such information, but the information 

cannot be verified. 

It is the Department’s practice to rely 

on accurate information submitted by 

respondents to calculate dumping 

margins in an antidumping duty 

proceeding. See PRC Wooden Bedroom 

Furniture.7 When the Department finds 

that a respondent’s reported information 

is not reliable, the Department will 

resort to FA. Id. Specifically, in the 

Department’s recent decision in PRC 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture Final 

Results, the Department concluded that 

a respondent’s submitted data are not 

reliable when the data cannot be tied to 

reliable financial statements or a reliable 

financial recording system. In this case, 

Sentian’s and MPF’s reported labor and 

electricity usage rate cannot be tied to 

the books and records of the respective 

companies. 

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 may be 

employed ‘‘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. 

In this case, Sentian and MPF were 

aware of their skewed usage rates 

reported for labor and electricity in their 

April 11, 2008, response.8 After they 

received a partial AFA rate at the 

Preliminary Results because of their 

inaccurately reported FOP, the 

Department issued two more 

supplemental questionnaires. Although 

respondent clarified some of the 

reporting issues, it never attempted to 

correct the skewed usage rates for labor 

and electricity. At verification, the 

Department found that Sentian and MPF 

kept warehouse records which could be 

used to derive the actual production 

quantity for each company. Had Sentian 

and MPF calculated the actual, 

company–specific production quantity, 

they could have accurately calculated 

the labor and electricity consumption 

and provided it in their October 16 and 

November 25, 2008, responses. 

Therefore, the Department finds that 

Sentian and MPF did not act to the best 

of their ability with respect to its labor 

and electricity consumption 

information. Therefore, the Department 

finds applying FA with an adverse 

inference is warranted with respect to 

the labor and electricity consumption 

for these final results. See Nippon Steel, 

337 F.3d at 1382–83. 

In Nippon Steel, the Court set out two 

requirements for drawing an adverse 

inference under section 776(b) of the 

Act. First, the Department ‘‘must make 

an objective showing that a reasonable 

and responsible importer would have 

known that the requested information 

was required to be kept and maintained 

under the applicable statutes, rules, and 

regulations.’’ Next the Department must 

‘‘make a subjective showing that the 

respondent . . . has failed to promptly 

produce the requested information’’ and 

that ‘‘failure to fully respond is the 

result of the respondent’s lack of 

cooperation in either: (a) failing to keep 

and maintain all required records, or (b) 

failing to put forth its maximum efforts 

to investigate and obtain the requested 

information from its records.’’ The Court 

clarifies further that ‘‘{a}n adverse 

inference may not be drawn merely 

from a failure to respond, but only 

under circumstances in which it is 

reasonable for Commerce to expect that 

more forthcoming responses should 

have been made.’’ See Nippon, at 1382– 

83. 

As noted above, Sentian and MPF had 

received a partial AFA in the 

Preliminary Results and in the original 

investigation and, accordingly, they 

should have known that they were 

responsible for demonstrating the 

reliability of their own data. The 

Department requested this information 

on numerous occasions, and Sentian 

and MPF were aware of the problems 

with the reported data but did not 

attempt to remedy their data. Because 

the Department found both Sentian and 

MPF were unable to substantiate their 

reported consumption for labor and 

electricity, the Department concluded 

that Sentian and MPF did not cooperate 

to the best of their ability with respect 

to their consumption for the reported 

labor and electricity. See Nippon Steel 

and PRC Lined Paper Investigation 

Final. 

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 

17164 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 

9See PRC Lined Paper Investigation Final; see 

also Nippon Steel. 

10See PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture 

Preliminary Results. See also PRC Wooden Bedroom 

Furniture Final Results. 

adverse facts available rule to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See 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) (quoting Carbon 

and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at LTFV and Final Negative 

Circumstances, 67 FR 55792 (August 30, 

2002)). 

In order to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse so as to induce 

cooperation, the Department has 

applied the highest monthly 

consumption rate of labor and 

electricity reported by each company in 

this review to all subject merchandise 

produced by Sentian and MPF. This is 

consistent with the Department’s 

practice in similar situations.9

Corroboration of Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the 

Department to corroborate, to the extent 

practicable, secondary information used 

as FA. Secondary information is 

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 

SAA at 870; see also 19 CFR 351.308(c) 

and (d). The SAA clarifies that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

‘‘secondary information to be used has 

probative value.’’ Id. The SAA and the 

Department’s regulations state 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 or review. See SAA at 870; 

19 CFR 351.308(d). To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used. See Universal Polybag 

Co. v. United States, 577F.Supp. 2d 

1284 (CIT 2008); see also section 776(c) 

of the Act. 

As stated above, the Department 

calculated partial AFA based on 

information reported by the 

respondents, and thus did not rely upon 

secondary information for purposes of 

labor and electricity. Therefore, 

corroboration is not necessary in this 

review in accordance with section 

776(c) of the Act. 

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. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

From the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

From the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994), and 19 CFR 

351.107(d). 

In the Preliminary Results, we stated 

that Lian Li demonstrated its eligibility 

for separate–rate status. For these final 

results, we continue to find that 

evidence placed on the record of this 

review demonstrates that Lian Li 

provided information that shows both a 

de jure and de facto absence of 

government control with respect to its 

respective exports of the merchandise 

under review, and, thus is eligible for 

separate–rate status. See Preliminary 

Results at 58545. 

With respect to the three companies 

not selected for individual examination 

in this review: H.F. Plastics/ L.T. 

Plastics; Denmax/Leo’s Products; and 

the Watanabe Group (non–selected 

companies), we continue to grant a 

separate rate to these companies 

because they are wholly owned by 

individuals or companies located in a 

market economy. As wholly foreign– 

owned companies, we have no evidence 

indicating that they are under the 

control of the PRC. Therefore, a 

separate–rate analysis is not necessary 

to determine whether these companies 

are independent from government 

control. See Preliminary Results. See 

also Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine 

Monohydrate from the People’s 

Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71104– 

05 (December 20, 1999) (where the 

respondent was wholly foreign–owned 

and, thus, qualified for a separate rate). 

For these three non–selected 

companies, the Department continues to 

apply the calculated weighted–average 

margin based on an average of the rates 

it calculated for the mandatory 

respondents, excluding any rates that 

are zero, de minimis, or based entirely 

on AFA, pursuant to section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.10 In this 

proceeding, there is one mandatory 

respondent. Accordingly, for these final 

results, we continue to apply the rate 

calculated for Lian Li, 22.35 percent, to 

non–selected separate entities. Entities 

receiving this rate are identified by 

name in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ 

section of this notice. 

Changes since the Preliminary Results 

Based on comments received from the 

interested parties and findings at 

verification, we have made the 

following company–specific changes to 

Lian Li’s margin calculation: 1) for Lian 

Li, the Department relied on Lian Li’s 

FOP database submitted on October 16, 

2008, to calculate the dumping margin; 

2) for Sentian and MPF, the Department 

relied on the companies’ FOP databases 

to derive the dumping margin with 

respect to material inputs, but as 

described above, the Department 

applied the highest monthly 

consumption rate of labor and 

electricity reported by each company in 

this review to all subject merchandise 

produced by Sentian and MPF with 

respect to the usage rates of labor and 

electricity; 3) for creamwove paper and 

black paperboard, the Department used 

the actual distance provided by Lian 

Li’s suppliers for these two material 

inputs, and thus did not apply the 

Sigma cap distance as the Department 

did in the Preliminary Results; and 4) 

for labor rate, the Department applied 

the latest labor rate issued by the Office 

of Policy. See ‘‘Expected Wages of 

Selected NME Countries,’’ available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

weighted–average antidumping duty 

percentage margins exist for the POR: 

Exporter 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products 

Co., Ltd. .................................. 22.35 

Hwa Fuh Plastics Co., Ltd./ Li 

Teng Plastics (Shenzhen)Co., 

Ltd. .......................................... 22.35 

Leo’s Quality Products Co., Ltd./ 

Denmax Plastic Stationery 

Factory .................................... 22.35 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 17165 

Exporter 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

The Watanabe Group (consisting 

of the following companies) 

Watanabe Paper Product 

(Shenghai) Co., Ltd. 

Watanabe Paper Product 

(Linqing) Co., Ltd. Hotrock 

Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., 

Ltd. .......................................... 22.35 

For details on the calculation of the 

antidumping duty weighted–average 

margin for Lian Li, see Lian Li’s 

Analysis Memo. A public version of this 

memorandum is on file in the CRU. 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and United 

States Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of these final results 

of review. For assessment purposes, 

where possible, we calculated importer– 

specific assessment rates for CLPP from 

the PRC via ad valorem duty assessment 

rates based on the ratio of the total 

amount of the dumping margins 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those same sales, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212 (b). 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the 

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be equivalent to the company– 

specific weighted–average margin 

established in this review; (2) for PRC 

exporters who received a separate rate 

in a prior segment of the proceeding, but 

were not reviewed in this review, the 

cash deposit rate will continue to be the 

rate assigned in that segment of the 

proceeding; (3) for all PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise that have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

including those companies for which 

this review has been rescinded, the cash 

deposit rate will be the PRC–wide rate 

of 258.21 percent; and (4) for all non– 

PRC exporters of subject merchandise 

which have not received their own rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporters that 

supplied that non–PRC exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as the final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this review period. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in the Secretary’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and in the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return/destruction or conversion to 

judicial protective order of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are published 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: Whether to Apply Adverse 

Facts Available (AFA) in Calculating 

Normal Value 

Comment 2: Whether to Apply Partial 

AFA for The Labor and Electricity Data 

Submitted by Sentian and MPF 

Comment 3: Whether to Revise Certain 

Surrogate Values to Incorporate More 

Accurate Values and Whether to Apply 

Adverse Inferences with Respect to 

Other Values for the Final Results 

Comment 4: Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 5: Inland Freight and Sigma 

Cap 

Comment 6: The Inclusion of Graph 

Paper in the Review 

Comment 7: Selection of Single 

Mandatory Respondent 

Comment 8: Application of a Partial 

AFA Margin to Watanabe 

Comment 9: Whether Or Not Watanabe 

Was Deprived of Its Full Opportunity to 

Participate in the Review 

[FR Doc. E9–8395 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF22 

Marine Mammals; File No. 775–1875 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application 

for permit amendment. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center (NEFSC), Woods Hole, MA, has 

applied for an amendment to Scientific 

Research Permit No. 775–1875. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

May 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species (APPS) home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting 

File No. 775–1875 from the list of 

available applications. 

These documents are also available 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; and 

Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; 

phone (978)281–9300; fax (978)281– 

9333. 

Written comments or requests for a 

public hearing on this application 

should be submitted to the Chief, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. Those individuals requesting 

a hearing should set forth the specific 

reasons why a hearing on this particular 

application would be appropriate. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile at (301)427–2521, provided 

the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy 

submitted by mail and postmarked no 

later than the closing date of the 

comment period.