Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24885 

1The petitioners include the following 

companies: Appleton Coated LLC, NewPage 

Corporation, S.D. Warren Company d/b/a/ Sappi 

Fine Paper North America, and the United Steel, 

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, 

Allied Industrial and Service Workers International 

Union. 

Assessment 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess countervailing duties on all 

appropriate entries. For Zhongce and 

TUTRIC, countervailing duties shall be 

assessed at rates equal to the cash 

deposit or bonding rate of the estimated 

countervailing duties required at the 

time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of this notice. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. 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 terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

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 29, 2010. 

Edward C. Yang, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10707 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–560–823] 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 6, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) preliminarily 

determines that certain coated paper 

suitable for high-quality print graphics 

using sheet-fed presses (coated paper) 

from Indonesia is being, or is likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 

733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The estimated 

dumping margins are listed in the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. Interested parties are invited 

to comment on this preliminary 

determination. Pursuant to requests 

from interested parties, we are 

postponing for 60 days the final 

determination and extending 

provisional measures from a four-month 

period to not more than six months. 

Accordingly, we will make our final 

determination not later than 135 days 

after publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gemal Brangman or Brian Smith, 

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) 482–3773 and (202) 

482–1766, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In its initiation of this investigation 

(see Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia and 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 74 FR 53710 (October 20, 

2009) (Initiation Notice)), the 

Department stated that it had selected 

PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk. (TK) 

and PT. Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper (PD) 

as the mandatory respondents in this 

investigation. See Initiation Notice, 74 

FR 53714. Since the Initiation Notice, 

the following events have occurred. 

The Department set aside a period of 

time for parties to raise issues regarding 

product coverage and encouraged all 

parties to submit comments within 20 

calendar days of publication of the 

Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 

74 FR at 53710; see also Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997). We received several scope 

comment submissions from interested 

parties during the period November 

2009 through April 2010. For further 

details, see ‘‘Scope Comments’’ section 

of this notice. The Department also set 

aside a time for parties to comment on 

product characteristics for use in the 

antidumping questionnaire. We 

received such comments from the 

respondents on November 2, 2009, and 

from the petitioners1 on November 10, 

2009. 

On November 17, 2009, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of 

coated paper from Indonesia are 

materially injuring the U.S. industry 

and notified the Department of its 

findings. See Certain Coated Paper 

Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics 

Using Sheet-Fed Presses from China and 

Indonesia, Investigation Nos. 701–TA– 

470–471 and 731–TA–1169–1170 

(Preliminary), 74 FR 61174 (November 

23, 2009). 

On November 20, 2009, we issued PD 

and TK the antidumping duty 

questionnaire. 

On December 16, 2009, we issued a 

memorandum detailing the reasons why 

it would not be practicable in this 

investigation to examine individually 

more than the two Indonesian 

producers/exporters of coated paper 

named in the Initiation Notice. See 

Memorandum from James Maeder, 

Office Director, to John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

entitled, ‘‘Certain Coated Paper Suitable 

for High-Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia: 

Selection of Respondents,’’ dated 

December 16, 2009 (Respondent 

Selection Memo). 

On December 22, 2009, PD and TK 

submitted a consolidated response to 

section A (i.e., the section covering 

general information about the company) 

of the antidumping duty questionnaire. 

In this submission, PD and TK indicated 

that not only are they affiliated with 

each other, but they are also affiliated 

with a third company that produces 

coated paper in Indonesia, PT Indah 

Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk. (IK). Based on 

an analysis of the facts of record, as 

discussed in the ‘‘Collapsing’’ section of 

this notice below, we find that it is 

appropriate to treat these companies as 

a single entity, hereafter referred to as 

PD/TK/IK. 

On January 12, 2010, PD and TK 

submitted their responses to sections B 

(i.e., the section covering comparisonmarket sales) and C (i.e., the section 

covering U.S. sales) of the antidumping 

duty questionnaire). On January 19, 

2010, PD and TK submitted their 

response to section D (i.e., the section 

covering cost of production (COP) and 

constructed value (CV)) of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24886 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

2 ‘‘ ‘Paperboard’ refers to Certain Coated Paper that 

is heavier, thicker and more rigid than coated paper 

which otherwise meets the product description. In 

the context of Certain Coated Paper, paperboard 

typically is referred to as ‘cover,’ to distinguish it 

from ‘text.’ ’’ 

3One of the key measurements of any grade of 

paper is brightness. Generally speaking, the brighter 

the paper the better the contrast between the paper 

and the ink. Brightness is measured using a GE 

Reflectance Scale, which measures the reflection of 

light off of a grade of paper. One is the lowest 

reflection, or what would be given to a totally black 

grade, and 100 is the brightest measured grade. 

antidumping duty questionnaire. These 

responses did not include sales and cost 

data for multi-ply coated paper products 

the respondents produced and sold 

during the POI. Therefore, on January 

25, 2010, we requested that PD/TK/IK 

provide such data, if the multi-ply 

coated paper they produced and sold 

during the POI met the description of 

the merchandise in the scope, pending 

the Department’s ruling on the matter. 

PD/TK/IK provided the requisite data on 

multi-ply coated paper on February 16, 

2010. 

On January 22, 2010, the petitioners 

made a timely request pursuant to 

section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.205(e) for a 50-day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, on 

February 4, 2010, the Department 

postponed the preliminary 

determination of this investigation until 

April 21, 2010. See Certain Coated 

Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print 

Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From 

Indonesia and the People’s Republic of 

China: Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 75 FR 7447 (February 19, 

2010). As explained in the 

memorandum from the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, the Department has 

exercised its discretion to toll deadlines 

for the duration of the closure of the 

Federal Government from February 5, 

through February 12, 2010. Thus, all 

deadlines in this proceeding have been 

extended by seven days. The revised 

deadline for the preliminary 

determination of this investigation is 

now April 28, 2010. See Memorandum 

to the file regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 

2010. 

On March 2, 2010, the Department 

issued PD/TK/IK a supplemental 

questionnaire concerning its responses 

to sections A, B, and C of the 

antidumping questionnaire, and 

received PD/TK/IK’s responses to this 

supplemental questionnaire during 

March and April 2010. On March 12, 

2010, the Department issued PD/TK/IK 

a section D supplemental questionnaire 

and received a response to this 

questionnaire on April 2 and 9, 2010. 

The Department requested additional 

information from PD/TK/IK regarding 

its responses to sections A through D of 

the questionnaire in March and April 

2010. PD/TK/IK provided the requested 

information pertaining to sections A 

through C of the questionnaire, and 

some of the requested information 

pertaining to section D of the 

questionnaire during the same months. 

The Department expects to receive the 

remaining information requested with 

respect to section D in May 2010. 

On March 12, 2010, the petitioners 

filed an allegation of targeted dumping 

by PD/TK/IK. See the ‘‘Targeted 

Dumping Allegation’’ section below. 

On April 6, 2010, the petitioners 

submitted comments for consideration 

with respect to the preliminary 

determination. 

On April 13, 2010, PD/TK/TK 

requested that in the event of an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in this investigation, the Department: (1) 

Postpone its final determination by 60 

days in accordance with 735(a)(2)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii); 

and 2) extend the application of the 

provisional measures prescribed under 

19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month 

period to a six-month period. 

Similarly, on April 16, 2010, the 

petitioners requested that in the event of 

a negative preliminary determination in 

this investigation, the Department 

postpone its final determination by 60 

days in accordance with 735(a)(2)(B) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i). For 

further discussion, see the 

‘‘Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures’’ 

section of this notice, below. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. This 

period corresponds to the four most 

recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 

of the filing of the petition. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation includes certain coated 

paper and paperboard 2 in sheets 

suitable for high quality print graphics 

using sheet-fed presses; coated on one 

or both sides with kaolin (China or other 

clay), calcium carbonate, titanium 

dioxide, and/or other inorganic 

substances; with or without a binder; 

having a GE brightness level of 80 or 

higher; 3 weighing not more than 340 

grams per square meter; whether gloss 

grade, satin grade, matte grade, dull 

grade, or any other grade of finish; 

whether or not surface-colored, surfacedecorated, printed (except as described 

below), embossed, or perforated; and 

irrespective of dimensions (‘‘Certain 

Coated Paper’’). 

Certain Coated Paper includes (a) 

coated free sheet paper and paperboard 

that meets this scope definition; (b) 

coated groundwood paper and 

paperboard produced from bleached 

chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp 

(‘‘BCTMP’’) that meets this scope 

definition; and (c) any other coated 

paper and paperboard that meets this 

scope definition. 

Certain Coated Paper is typically (but 

not exclusively) used for printing multicolored graphics for catalogues, books, 

magazines, envelopes, labels and wraps, 

greeting cards, and other commercial 

printing applications requiring high 

quality print graphics. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

are imports of paper and paperboard 

printed with final content printed text 

or graphics. 

As of 2009, imports of the subject 

merchandise are provided for under the 

following categories of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’): 4810.14.11, 4810.14.1900, 

4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 

4810.14.5000, 4810.14.6000, 4810.14.70, 

4810.19.1100, 4810.19.1900, 

4810.19.2010, 4810.19.2090, 

4810.22.1000, 4810.22.50, 4810.22.6000, 

4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000, 

4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70. While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations, we set aside a period for 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19, 1997). The Department 

encouraged all interested parties to 

submit such comments within 20 

calendar days of signature of the 

Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 

74 FR at 31692. As we stated in Certain 

Coated Paper Suitable For High-Quality 

Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Alignment of 

Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination with Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination, 75 FR 10774 

(March 9, 2010) (PRC Coated Paper CVD 

Prelim) and Certain Coated Paper from 

Indonesia: Preliminary Affirmative 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24887 

4See ‘‘Scope Comments: Coated Paper Suitable 

For High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses from China and Indonesia,’’ dated 

November 6, 2009. 

5See ‘‘Certain Coated Paper Suitable For HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 

(‘‘Certain Coated Paper’’) from Indonesia and the 

People’s Republic of China: Petitioners’ Rebuttal 

Comments on Scope,’’ dated November 16, 2009. 

6See ‘‘Request to Re-Examine the Department’s 

Industry Support Calculation Coated Paper Suitable 

For High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses from China,’’ dated December 16, 2009. 

7See ‘‘Certain Coated Paper Suitable For HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 

from Indonesia and the People’s Republic of China: 

Petitioners’ Response to Chinese and Indonesian 

Respondents’ Request to Re-examine the 

Department’s Industry Support Calculation,’’ dated 

December 28, 2009. 

8See ‘‘Ex Parte Meeting Regarding Scope: Records 

Documents, Certain Coated Paper Suitable For 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses from Indonesia and the People’s Republic 

of China,’’ originally dated February 23, 2010, 

resubmitted on March 12, 2010. 

9See ‘‘Additional Scope Comments: Certain 

Coated Paper Suitable For High-Quality Print 

Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from China and 

Indonesia,’’ dated March 29, 2010. 

10See ‘‘Certain Coated Paper Suitable For HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 

(Certain Coated Paper) from Indonesia and the 

People’s Republic of China: Petitioners’ Rebuttal 

Comments on Scope,’’ dated April 8, 2010. 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination with Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination, 75 FR 10761 

(March 9, 2010) (Indonesia Coated 

Paper CVD Prelim), the Department 

received scope comments from 

interested parties on November 6, 

2009,4 November 16, 2009,5 December 

16, 2009,6 December 28, 2009,7 and 

March 12, 2010,8 with respect to 

whether multi-ply coated paper 

products are covered by the scope of the 

AD/CVD investigations of certain coated 

paper from the PRC and Indonesia. As 

the Department stated in the PRC 

Coated Paper CVD Prelim and Indonesia 

Coated Paper CVD Prelim, based on our 

review of the scope, we find that the 

number of plies is not among the 

specific physical characteristics (e.g., 

brightness, coating, weight, etc.) 

defining the subject merchandise. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily find that 

multi-ply coated paper is covered by the 

scope of these investigations, to the 

extent that it meets the description of 

the merchandise in the scope. 

On February 25, 2010, the petitioners 

filed additional comments rebutting 

certain documents filed by the PRC and 

Indonesian respondents which 

contained scope comments and restating 

their prior claims. In response to a 

question the Department posed during 

an ex parte meeting, the petitioners 

stated that the phrase ‘‘suitable for high 

quality print graphics’’ could be stricken 

from the description of the subject 

merchandise without altering the scope 

of these investigations. In the PRC 

Coated Paper CVD Prelim and Indonesia 

Coated Paper CVD Prelim, the 

Department invited interested parties to 

comment within 20 calendar days of 

publication of the PRC Coated Paper 

CVD Prelim and Indonesia Coated Paper 

CVD Prelim with respect to whether 

striking the language ‘‘suitable for high 

quality print graphics’’ from the 

description of the subject merchandise 

would alter the scope of these 

investigations. We received comments 

from interested parties on March 29, 

2010,9 and April 8, 2010.10 Based on the 

information contained in these 

submissions, on April 23, 2010, the 

Department requested additional 

information from the petitioners with 

respect to this scope issue. The 

submission of this information is due 

May 3, 2010. Therefore, we intend to 

address this issue for the final 

determination in these coated paper 

AD/CVD investigations. 

In their February 25, 2010, 

submission, the petitioners also stated 

that the phrase in the scope, ‘‘(c) any 

other coated paper that meets the scope 

definition’’ should also include the word 

‘‘paperboard.’’ As the Department stated 

in the PRC Coated Paper CVD Prelim 

and Indonesia Coated Paper CVD 

Prelim, we agree that the word 

‘‘paperboard’’ was inadvertently omitted 

(e.g., it is already explicitly included in 

the first sentence of the scope language 

and in ‘‘(b)’’ of the second paragraph) 

and have corrected the scope language 

to read ‘‘(c) any other coated paper and 

paperboard that meets this scope 

definition.’’ 

Collapsing 

On December 22, 2009, PD and TK 

submitted a consolidated questionnaire 

response, based on a claim that they are 

producers of subject merchandise in 

Indonesia that are affiliated via common 

ownership and membership in the 

companies’ Boards of Directors. In this 

response, PD and TK claimed that they 

are also affiliated with an additional 

producer of certain coated paper in 

Indonesia, IK, by reason of a common 

parent company, as well as certain 

common board members. 

In their March 26, 2010, response to 

the Department’s section A 

supplemental questionnaire, PD, TK and 

IK provided additional information 

regarding their relationship during the 

POI. After an analysis of this 

information, we preliminarily determine 

that, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(f), it is appropriate to collapse 

these entities for purposes of this 

investigation because: (1) These entities 

are affiliated pursuant to section 

771(33)(F) of the Act because they are 

under the control of a common parent 

company, PT. Purinusa Ekapersada 

(Purinusa), which owns a majority of 

the shares in each company; (2) PD, TK 

and IK have the facilities to produce 

identical or similar products, such that 

substantial retooling would not be 

required to restructure manufacturing 

priorities; and (3) we find that there 

exists a significant potential for 

manipulation of price or production if 

PD, TK and IK do not receive the same 

antidumping duty rate. With respect to 

the significant potential for 

manipulation, we find, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2), that: (1) 

There is common ownership through 

the shared parent, Purinusa; (2) PD, TK 

and IK share members on their Boards 

of Directors and other employees; and 

(3) these companies have intertwined 

operations. For further discussion, see 

Memorandum to John M. Andersen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from the Team entitled, 

‘‘Whether to Treat Respondents as a 

Single Entity for Margin Calculation 

Purposes in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Coated Paper 

Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics 

Using Sheet-Fed Presses From 

Indonesia,’’ dated April 21, 2010 

(Collapsing Memo). 

Targeted Dumping Allegation 

The statute allows the Department to 

employ the average-to-transaction 

margin-calculation methodology under 

the following circumstances: (1) There 

is a pattern of export prices that differ 

significantly among purchasers, regions, 

or periods of time; (2) the Department 

explains why such differences cannot be 

taken into account using the average-toaverage or transaction-to-transaction 

methodology. See section 777A(d)(1)(B) 

of the Act. 

On March 12, 2010, the petitioners 

submitted allegations of targeted 

dumping with respect to PD/TK/IK and 

asserted that the Department should 

apply the average-to-transaction 

methodology in calculating the margin 

for this entity. In their allegations, the 

petitioners assert that there are patterns 

of export prices (EPs) (or constructed 

export prices (CEPs)) for comparable 

merchandise that differ significantly 

among purchasers, regions, and time 

periods. The petitioners relied on the 

Department’s targeted-dumping test in 

Certain Steel Nails from the United 

Arab Emirates: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Not Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008), 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24888 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

11 In addition to a targeted dumping analysis 

based on the methodology established in Nails, the 

petitioners provided an alternative analysis based 

on two elements which they maintain are 

permissible options for the Department to consider 

in addressing targeted dumping under the statute: 

(1) Identification of product-specific weightedaverage prices to a targeted entity that are two 

percent below the weighted-average prices of those 

products to non-targeted entities (a methodology 

rejected by the Department in recent prior 

investigations such as Nails and PRCBs from 

Taiwan); and (2) identification of any sales to a 

targeted entity that are below cost (a methodology 

which is not price-based and, therefore, not relevant 

to addressing targeted dumping under the 

Department’s current practice). See Petitioners’ 

Submission of Targeted Dumping Allegations dated 

March 12, 2010, at pages 8–12. 

and Certain Steel Nails from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 

2008) (collectively Nails), as applied in 

more recent investigations such as 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan, 75 FR 

14569 (March 26, 2010) (PRCBs from 

Taiwan).11 See Petitioners’ Submission 

of Targeted Dumping Allegations dated 

March 12, 2010, at pages 3–8. 

On April 6, 2010, the petitioners filed 

additional comments urging the 

Department to follow the practice it 

recently adopted in PRCBs from 

Taiwan, and make average-totransaction price comparisons for all of 

PD/TK/IK’s U.S. sales if it finds any 

targeted dumping by PD/TK/IK. Given 

the Department’s current practice in 

investigations of allowing the dumped 

U.S. sales to be offset by non-dumped 

U.S. sales, the petitioners maintain that 

the only way for the Department to 

ensure that targeted dumping is 

captured in its final determination in 

this investigation without being offset 

by any non-dumped sales is to employ 

the alternative (average-to-transaction) 

price comparison methodology to all of 

PD/TK/IK’S U.S. sales. 

A. Targeted-Dumping Test 

We conducted customer, regional, and 

time-period targeted-dumping analyses 

for PD/TK/IK using the methodology we 

adopted in Nails and most recently 

articulated in PRCBs from Taiwan and 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 16431 

(April 1, 2010), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1 (PRCBs from Indonesia) 

(collectively PRCBs); and Certain Oil 

Country Tubular Goods from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Final Determination of Targeted 

Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2 (OCTG). 

The methodology we employed 

involves a two-stage test; the first stage 

addresses the pattern requirement and 

the second stage addresses the 

significant-difference requirement. See 

section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, 

Nails, PRCBs, and OCTG. In this test we 

made all price comparisons on the basis 

of identical merchandise (i.e., by control 

number or CONNUM). The test 

procedures are the same for the 

customer, region, and time-period 

targeted-dumping allegations. We based 

all of our targeted-dumping calculations 

on the U.S. net price which we 

determined for U.S. sales by PD/TK/IK 

in our standard margin calculations. For 

further discussion of the test and 

results, see the Department’s 

memorandum entitled, ‘‘Calculations 

Performed for PT. Pindo Deli Pulp and 

Paper Mills (‘‘PD’’), PT. Pabrik Kertas 

Tjiwi Kimia Tbk (‘‘TK’’), and PT Indah 

Kiat Pulp & Paper Tbk (‘‘IK’’) for the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses from Indonesia,’’ dated April 28, 

2010 (Calculation Memo). As a result of 

our analysis, we preliminarily 

determine that there is a pattern of EPs 

for comparable merchandise that differ 

significantly among certain customers, 

regions and time periods for PD/TK/IK 

in accordance with section 

777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and our 

current practice as discussed in Nails, 

PRCBs, and OCTG. 

B. Price-Comparison Method 

Section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act 

states that the Department may compare 

the weighted average of the normal 

value (NV) to EPs (or CEPs) of 

individual transactions for comparable 

merchandise if the Department explains 

why differences in the patterns of EPs 

(or CEPs) cannot be taken into account 

using the average-to-average 

methodology. As described above, we 

preliminarily determine that, with 

respect to sales by PD/TK/IK for certain 

customers, regions and time periods, 

there was a pattern of prices that 

differed significantly. We find that these 

differences can be taken into account 

using the average-to-average 

methodology because the average-toaverage methodology does not conceal 

differences in the patterns of prices 

between the targeted and non-targeted 

groups by averaging low-priced sales to 

the targeted group with high-priced 

sales to the non-targeted group. 

Therefore, for the preliminary 

determination, we find that the standard 

average-to-average methodology takes 

into account the price differences 

because the alternative average-totransaction methodology yields no 

difference in the margin or yields a 

difference in the margin that is so 

insignificant relative to the size of the 

resulting margin as to be immaterial. 

Accordingly, for this preliminary 

determination we have applied the 

standard average-to-average 

methodology to all U.S. sales. See 

Calculation Memo for further 

discussion. 

Product Comparisons 

We have taken into account the 

comments that were submitted by the 

interested parties concerning productcomparison criteria. In accordance with 

section 771(16) of the Act, we 

considered all products produced by 

PD/TK/IK that fit the description in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section of this 

notice, and sold in Indonesia during the 

POI, to be foreign like products for 

purposes of determining appropriate 

product comparisons to U.S. sales. In 

making the product comparisons, we 

matched U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise to home market sales of 

the foreign like product based on the 

physical characteristics reported by PD/ 

TK/IK in the following order of 

importance: cast coating, coating sides, 

basis weight, brightness, finish, opacity, 

and sheet size. 

Where there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the home market made 

in the ordinary course of trade and 

produced by PD/TK/IK to compare to 

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to 

sales of the next most similar foreign 

like product on the basis of the 

characteristics listed above, which were 

made in the ordinary course of trade. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of coated 

paper from Indonesia to the United 

States made by PD/TK/IK were made at 

LTFV, we compared, where appropriate, 

the EP to the NV, as described in the 

‘‘Export Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice, below. In 

accordance with section 

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 

compared POI weighted-average EPs to 

POI weighted-average NVs. See 

discussion below. 

Export Price 

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP 

as the price at which the subject 

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24889 

12The remaining trading company involved in 

this channel of distribution also made sales of 

subject merchandise to unaffiliated customers in 

the United States out of its inventory. PD/TK/IK’s 

claim of affiliation with this company is discussed 

in the context of the third channel of distribution 

below. 

sold) before the date of importation by 

the producer or exporter outside of the 

United States to an unaffiliated 

purchaser for exportation to the United 

States, as adjusted under subsection (c). 

During the POI, PD/TK/IK’s U.S. sales 

were made through the following 

general channels of distribution: (1) 

Sales directly to unaffiliated customers 

in the United States; (2) sales to 

unaffiliated customers in the United 

States via affiliated trading companies 

located in countries other than 

Indonesia and the United States, but 

shipped directly from the producer; and 

(3) sales to unaffiliated customers in the 

United States via an affiliated trading 

company located in a country other than 

Indonesia and the United States, 

shipped out of that company’s 

inventory. In accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act, we have applied the 

EP methodology for sales made through 

the first channel of distribution noted 

above because they were made by the 

respondent and exported from 

Indonesia to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation. 

Regarding the second channel of 

distribution noted above, PD/TK/IK 

claimed that it was affiliated with all 

but one of the trading companies used 

in this distribution channel 12 because 

it: (1) Was involved in agreements 

legally binding the trading companies to 

buy all products they sell from PD/TK/ 

IK and its affiliates; and (2) exercised 

almost total control of the trading 

companies’ day-to-day operations, 

including establishing all prices and 

sales agreements with the U.S. 

customers. We have analyzed the 

information on the record with respect 

to this affiliation claim and 

preliminarily find that the trading 

companies are affiliated with PD/TK/IK 

pursuant to section 771(33)(G) of the 

Act given that there is, in essence, an 

agent relationship in which PD/TK/IK 

controls each trading company used in 

this second channel of distribution. 

Evidence on the record indicates that, 

among other things, PD/TK/IK 

establishes all prices and sales 

agreements with the U.S. customer, the 

affiliated trading companies do not 

inventory subject merchandise, and the 

merchandise is shipped directly from 

the respondent to the U.S. customer. See 

e.g., Coated Free Sheet Paper from 

Indonesia: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 72 FR 30753, 30755 

(June 4, 2007) (unchanged in Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 

Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 60636 

(October 25, 2007)) (CFS from 

Indonesia). Accordingly, we have 

applied EP methodology for sales made 

through this second channel of 

distribution because they were made by 

the producer’s affiliate outside the 

United States to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation. We intend to examine each 

trading company’s involvement in the 

U.S. sales process and the affiliation 

claim further at verification. 

Regarding the third channel of 

distribution noted above, PD/TK/IK 

claimed that it was affiliated with the 

trading company involved in this 

distribution channel by reason of a 

common parent company (Purinusa), 

which owns a majority of the shares in 

each company, as well as certain 

common board members. Based on the 

record evidence, we find that PD/TK/IK 

is affiliated with this company pursuant 

to section 771(33)(F) of the Act because 

they are under the common control of 

Purinusa. Accordingly, we have applied 

EP methodology for sales made through 

this third channel of distribution 

because they were made by the 

producer’s affiliate outside the United 

States to the first unaffiliated purchaser 

in the United States prior to 

importation. 

PD/TK/IK claimed that a portion of its 

U.S. sales through affiliated trading 

companies during the POI involved an 

affiliated U.S. company. PD/TK/IK 

reported these sales as CEP sales. 

According to PD/TK/IK, the U.S. 

company at issue was affiliated by 

reason of an exclusive selling agent 

arrangement with PD/TK/IK during the 

POI. After analyzing the information on 

the record with respect to this affiliation 

claim, we preliminarily find that the 

U.S. company is not affiliated with PD/ 

TK/IK because the written agreement 

between PD/TK/IK and this company 

does not establish the exclusive nature 

of the relationship. The U.S. company is 

not precluded from selling merchandise 

produced by other manufacturers, and 

there is no evidence that PD/TK/IK 

otherwise has the ability to control this 

company. See, e.g., CFS from Indonesia, 

at 72 FR 30755; and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod from Mexico, 67 FR 

55800 (August 30, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1c. 

Accordingly, we have applied EP 

methodology (vs. CEP methodology) to 

these sales for purposes of the 

preliminary determination. We intend 

to examine the U.S. company’s 

involvement in the U.S. sales process 

and PD/TK/IK’s affiliation claim further 

at verification. 

We based EP on the packed FOB, 

CFR, CIF, or DDU prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. We 

adjusted the starting price, where 

appropriate, for billing adjustments. In 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act, we made deductions, where 

appropriate, for foreign inland freight 

from plant to the port of exportation, 

insurance (including domestic, marine, 

and U.S. inland), freight and 

warehousing expenses (incurred on 

sales of subject merchandise sold out of 

the inventory of an affiliated trading 

company located in a third country), 

international freight (including foreign 

and U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses and U.S. inland freight), and 

U.S. importation fees. We also added 

freight revenue, where applicable, and 

capped it by the amount of freight 

expenses incurred, in accordance with 

our practice. See Certain Orange Juice 

from Brazil: Final Results of 

Antidumping Administrative Review, 74 

FR 40167 (August 11, 2009), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and 

Comparison-Market Selection 

To determine whether there is a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product is equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales), we compared PD/ 

TK/IK’s volume of home market sales of 

the foreign like product to the volume 

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 

See section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 

Based on this comparison, we 

determined that PD/TK/IK had a viable 

home market during the POI. 

Consequently, we based NV on home 

market sales. 

B. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or 

CEP. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1), 

the NV LOT is that of the starting-price 

sales in the comparison market or, when 

NV is based on constructed value (CV), 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24890 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

13PD/TK/IK reported that it also made some sales 

directly to unaffiliated customers in the home 

market. However, these sales were not included in 

the home market database PD/TK/IK submitted to 

the Department. Given that the quantity of these 

sales constitute an insignificant percentage of the 

total home market sales quantity that PD/TK/IK 

reported in its home market sales database, we have 

excluded these sales from our preliminary LOT 

(and margin) analysis. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Negative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers 

From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 

(April 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 27. 

that of the sales from which we derive 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses (SG&A) and profit. For EP, the 

U.S. LOT is also the level of the startingprice sale, which is usually from 

exporter to importer. For CEP, it is the 

level of the constructed sale from the 

exporter to the importer. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market 

sales are at a different LOT, and the 

difference affects price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and comparisonmarket sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction, we make an LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV 

level is more remote from the factory 

than the CEP level and there is no basis 

for determining whether the difference 

in levels between NV and CEP affects 

price comparability, we adjust NV 

under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act 

(the CEP-offset provision). See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997). 

In this investigation, we obtained 

information from PD/TK/IK regarding 

the marketing stages involved in making 

their reported home market and U.S. 

sales, including a description of the 

selling activities performed by the 

respondent (and its affiliates) for each 

channel of distribution. 

PD/TK/IK reported that it made EP 

sales in the U.S. market through the 

following general channels of 

distribution: (1) Direct sales to U.S. 

customers (Channel 1); (2) direct sales 

through affiliated trading companies 

(Channel 2); and (3) out-of-inventory 

sales through an affiliated trading 

company (Channel 3). PD/TK/IK stated 

that its U.S. sales were made at the same 

LOT, regardless of distribution channel. 

We examined the selling activities 

performed for all three channels and 

found that PD/TK/IK performed the 

following selling functions for all three 

channels: Sales forecasting, strategic/ 

economic planning, personnel training/ 

exchange, order input/processing, 

provision of direct sales personnel, 

packing, payment of commissions, and 

freight and delivery services. Regarding 

sales through Channel 2, we found that, 

in addition to the selling functions 

performed by PD/TK/IK on these sales, 

the trading companies further 

performed the following selling 

functions: Order input/processing and 

payment of commissions. Regarding 

sales through Channel 3, we found that 

the trading company performed the 

following selling functions: Sales 

promotion, inventory maintenance, 

order input/processing, provision of 

direct sales personnel, sales/marketing 

support, technical assistance, freight 

and delivery services, and repacking. 

These selling activities can be generally 

grouped into four categories for 

analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) 

freight and delivery; (3) inventory 

maintenance and warehousing; and (4) 

warranty and technical support. 

Accordingly, we found that PD/TK/IK 

(and its affiliates) performed sales and 

marketing and freight and delivery 

services for all U.S. sales. We also note 

that PD/TK/IK’s affiliated trading 

company performed certain selling 

activities (e.g., inventory maintenance 

and technical services) for PD/TK/IK’s 

sales through Channel 3 that were not 

performed for PD/TK/IK’s sales through 

Channels 1 and 2. However, there is no 

evidence on the record to support 

finding these differences to be material 

selling function distinctions significant 

enough to warrant a separate LOT in the 

U.S. market, as the respondent did not 

provide information on the extent to 

which the selling activities identified 

above are performed in one channel or 

the other. Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

U.S. market. 

With respect to the home market, PD/ 

TK/IK made sales through a single 

channel of distribution (i.e., sales to 

unaffiliated customers through an 

affiliated reseller).13 We examined the 

selling activities performed for this 

channel and found that PD/TK/IK 

performed the following selling 

functions: Sales forecasting, strategic/ 

economic planning, personnel training/ 

exchange, packing, inventory 

maintenance, order input/processing, 

provision of direct sales personnel, 

technical assistance, after-sales services, 

and freight and delivery services. In 

addition, PD/TK/IK’s affiliated reseller 

performed the following sales functions: 

Sales forecasting, strategic/economic 

planning, personnel training/exchange, 

advertising, sales promotion, 

distributor/dealer training, inventory 

maintenance, order input/processing, 

provision of direct sales personnel, 

sales/marketing support, market 

research, technical assistance, provision 

of cash discounts, and after-sales 

services. Accordingly, based on the four 

selling function categories identified 

above, we find that PD/TK/IK and its 

affiliated reseller performed sales and 

marketing, freight and delivery services, 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing, and warranty and 

technical services in the home market. 

Because all sales in the home market 

were made through a single distribution 

channel, we preliminarily determine 

that there is one LOT in the home 

market. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the home market selling functions 

differed from the U.S. selling functions 

with respect to: (1) Inventory 

maintenance and technical services 

performed in the home market that are 

performed only on certain sales to the 

United States; and (2) certain sales and 

marketing activities performed in the 

home market that are either not 

performed on U.S. sales or are 

performed only on certain U.S. sales. 

However, there is no evidence on the 

record to support a finding that these 

differences are significant enough to 

distinguish the home market LOT from 

the EP LOT, as the respondent did not 

provide information on the extent to 

which the selling activities identified 

above are performed in one market or 

the other. Notwithstanding this fact, we 

note that given that PD/TK/IK sold at 

only one LOT in the home market, and 

there is no additional information on 

the record that would allow for an LOT 

adjustment, no LOT adjustment is 

possible for PD/TK/IK. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

Based on our analysis of the 

petitioners’ sales-below-cost of 

production (COP) allegation in the 

petition, we found reasonable grounds 

to believe or suspect that coated paper 

sales were made in Indonesia at prices 

below the COP, and initiated a countrywide cost investigation. See section 

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act and Initiation 

Notice at 74 FR 53713. Accordingly, we 

conducted a sales-below-cost 

investigation to determine whether PD/ 

TK/IK’s sales were made at prices below 

their COP. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24891 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of the cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus an amount for general and 

administrative expenses (G&A), and 

financial expenses. See ‘‘Test of Home 

Market Sales Prices’’ section below for 

treatment of home market selling 

expenses and packing costs. We relied 

on the COP data submitted by PD/TK/ 

IK in the April 15, 2010, response to 

section D of the Department’s 

questionnaire, except where noted 

below. 

1. We applied the major input rule 

under section 773(f)(3) of the Act to PD/ 

TK’s purchases of certain pulp from an 

affiliated supplier. As a result, we 

adjusted PD/TK’s reported cost of 

manufacturing to reflect the higher of 

transfer price, market price or COP for 

pulp. Regarding the affiliated supplier’s 

COP of the pulp, we currently have 

outstanding requests for information 

concerning affiliated log purchases by 

this company used in the production of 

pulp and will consider this information 

for the final determination. 

2. We applied the transactions 

disregarded rule under section 773(f)(2) 

of the Act to purchases of certain pulp 

from affiliated parties, and we adjusted 

PD’s reported cost of manufacturing to 

the higher of transfer price or market 

price. 

3. We eliminated the inter-company 

profit arising from the affiliated pulp 

transactions between IK and PD/TK. We 

currently have outstanding requests for 

information concerning affiliated log 

purchases by IK used in the production 

of pulp and will consider this 

information for the final determination. 

4. We adjusted the COP of certain 

pulp PD/TK purchased from IK and an 

affiliated supplier to reflect the total 

financial expenses of an affiliated 

trading company. 

5. We revised PD/TK/IK’s G&A 

expense ratios to include 

unconsolidated non-operating expenses 

in the numerator of the ratios. 

6. We revised the reported financial 

expense ratio of the parent company 

(Purinusa) to exclude that portion of the 

interest income offset that we are unable 

to determine was generated from shortterm interest-bearing assets from the 

numerator of the ratio. 

7. We revised the denominator of the 

financial expense ratio to exclude TK’s 

and PD’s reported packing expenses. 

8. We applied the parent company’s 

financial expense ratio against each 

company’s reported total cost of 

manufacturing to determine the 

company’s per-unit financial expenses. 

See the April 28, 2010, Memorandum 

from LaVonne Clark and Robert Greger, 

Senior Accountants, to Neal M. Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Determination—PT. Pabrik 

Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk., PT. Pindo Deli 

Pulp and Paper, and PT Indah Kiat Pulp 

and Paper Tbk.,’’ for further discussion. 

For the preliminary determination, we 

have relied upon the POI weightedaverage COP PD/TK/IK reported, as 

adjusted above. However, depending on 

the extent to which production costs 

changed throughout the cost reporting 

period, we are considering whether it is 

more appropriate to use the 

Department’s alternative cost averaging 

methodology for the final 

determination. Accordingly, we have 

requested product-specific quarterly 

cost information from PD/TK/IK for 

consideration prior to the final 

determination. 

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices 

On a product-specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales 

prices of the foreign like product, as 

required under section 773(b) of the Act, 

to determine whether the sale prices 

were below the COP. The sales prices 

were exclusive of any applicable 

discounts, movement charges, direct 

and indirect selling expenses, and 

packing expenses. For purposes of this 

comparison, we used the COP exclusive 

of selling and packing expenses. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of 

the Act, where less than 20 percent of 

the respondent’s sales of a given 

product during the POI are at prices less 

than the COP, we do not disregard any 

below-cost sales of that product, 

because we determined that the belowcost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of 

the respondent’s sales of a given 

product during the POI were at prices 

less than the COP, we determine that 

such sales have been made in 

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ See section 

773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, we 

determine that the sales were made 

within an extended period of time, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of 

the Act, because we examine below-cost 

sales occurring during the entire POI. In 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 

the Act, we compare prices to the POIaverage costs to determine whether the 

prices permit recovery of costs within a 

reasonable period of time. 

In this case, we found that, for certain 

products, more than 20 percent of PD/ 

TK/IK’s sales were made at prices less 

than the COP and, in addition, such 

sales did not provide for the recovery of 

costs within a reasonable period of time. 

We, therefore, excluded these sales and 

used the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

4. Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Comparison-Market Prices 

We based NV for PD/TK/IK on packed 

CIF prices to unaffiliated customers. 

Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for quantity discounts. We 

made deductions for movement 

expenses, including foreign inland 

freight, warehousing, and insurance 

expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) 

of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we 

made, where appropriate, circumstanceof-sale adjustments for imputed credit 

expenses, bank charges, courier 

expenses, and commissions. Regarding 

commissions, PD/TK/IK incurred 

commissions only in relation to U.S. 

sales. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.410(e), we offset U.S. commissions 

by the lesser of the commission amount 

or home market indirect selling 

expenses. 

Furthermore, we made adjustments 

for differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also 

deducted home market packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 

based on the exchange rates in effect on 

the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 

the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

relied upon in making our final 

determination for PD/TK/IK. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of coated paper 

from Indonesia that are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will also instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24892 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

dumping margins, as indicated in the 

chart below. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

WeightedAverage 

margin 

(percent) 

PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia 

Tbk./PT. Pindo Deli Pulp and 

Paper/PT. Indah Kiat Pulp 

and Paper Tbk ...................... 10.62 

All Others .................................. 10.62 

All Others Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that the estimated ‘‘All Others’’ 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. As mentioned 

above in this notice, the collapsed entity 

(i.e., PD/TK/IK) is the only respondent 

in this investigation for which the 

Department calculated a companyspecific rate. Therefore, for purposes of 

determining the all-others rate and 

pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the 

Act, we are using the weighted-average 

dumping margin calculated for PD/TK/ 

IK, as referenced above. See, e.g., CFS 

from Indonesia, 72 FR at 60637; and 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 

FR 30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999). 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with this preliminary 

determination within five days of the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that a final determination may be 

postponed until not later than 135 days 

after the date of the publication of the 

preliminary determination if, in the 

event of an affirmative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by exporters, 

who account for a significant proportion 

of exports of the subject merchandise, or 

in the event of a negative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by the petitioner. 

The Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), require that requests by 

respondents for postponement of a final 

determination be accompanied by a 

request for extension of provisional 

measures from a four-month period to 

not more than six months. 

On April 13, 2010, PD/TK/IK 

requested that in the event of an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in this investigation, the Department 

postpone its final determination by 60 

days. At the same time, PD/TK/IK 

requested that the Department extend 

the application of the provisional 

measures prescribed under section 

733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period 

to a six-month period. In accordance 

with section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.210(b)(2), because (1) our 

preliminary determination is 

affirmative, (2) the requesting exporters 

account for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting this request and 

are postponing the final determination 

until no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Suspension of liquidation will 

be extended accordingly. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of the 

Department’s preliminary affirmative 

determination. If the Department’s final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine before the later of 120 

days after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after our final 

determination whether imports of 

coated paper from Indonesia are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, the U.S. industry (see 

section 735(b)(2) of the Act). Because we 

are postponing the deadline for our final 

determination to 135 days from the date 

of the publication of this preliminary 

determination, the ITC will make its 

final determination no later than 45 

days after our final determination. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs to the Department no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the issuance of the last sales or cost 

verification report in this proceeding. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, 

the content of which is limited to the 

issues raised in the case briefs, must be 

filed within five days from the deadline 

date for the submission of case briefs. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(d). A list of 

authorities used, 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. Further, we request 

that parties submitting briefs and 

rebuttal briefs provide the Department 

with a copy of the public version of 

such briefs on diskette. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, the Department will hold a public 

hearing, if timely requested, 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. See also 19 CFR 351.310(d). If a 

timely request for a hearing is made in 

this investigation, we intend to hold the 

hearing two days after the rebuttal brief 

deadline date at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at 

a time and in a room to be determined. 

See 19 CFR 351.310. Parties should 

confirm by telephone, the date, time, 

and location of the hearing 48 hours 

before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties, who wish to 

request a hearing, or to participate in a 

hearing 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. 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. At the hearing, oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 28, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10682 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–958] 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet-Fed Presses From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES