Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 57329 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 735(d) 

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

Dated: Septembe 25, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix -- Issues in Decision 

Memorandum 

I. GENERAL ISSUES 

Comment 1: Ministerial Error Correction 

II. TARGETED DUMPING ISSUES 

Comment 2: Whether the Department’s 

Targeted Dumping Test is Flawed and 

Should be Replaced with the 

‘‘preponderance at two percent test’’ (P/ 

2 Test) 

Comment 3: Whether the Department 

Should Apply any Margins Calculated 

for Koehler Pursuant to its Targeted 

Dumping Test to Mitsubishi HiTec 

Paper and the Non–Selected 

Respondents 

Comment 4: Whether Margins Should 

be Calculated Without Applying Offsets 

for Non–Dumped Sales 

[FR Doc. E8–23270 Filed 10–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–920] 

Lightweight Thermal Paper From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 2008. 

SUMMARY: On May 13, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of 

lightweight thermal paper (‘‘LWTP’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’). The period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 2007, to June 30, 

2007. We invited interested parties to 

comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. Based 

on our analysis of the comments we 

received, we have made changes to our 

calculations for the mandatory 

respondents. The final dumping 

margins for this investigation are listed 

in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Veith or Demitrios 

Kalogeropoulos, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4295 or (202) 482–2623, 

respectively. 

Final Determination 

We determine that LWTP from the 

PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in 

the United States at LTFV as provided 

in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section of this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on May 13, 2008. See Lightweight 

Thermal Paper From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 73 FR 27504 (May 13, 

2008) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

Additionally, the Department postponed 

the deadline for the final determination 

by 60 days to September 25, 2008. See 

Preliminary Determination, at 27504. 

On May 28, 2008, Appleton Papers, Inc. 

(‘‘petitioner’’) submitted comments 

regarding Guanhao’s eligibility for a 

separate rate. From June 2 through 13, 

2008, the Department conducted 

verifications of Hanhong International 

Limited, Shanghai Hanhong Paper Co., 

Ltd., and Hong Kong Hanhong Ltd. 

(collectively (‘‘Hanhong’’)) and 

Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Guanhao’’) and released its 

verification reports for both companies 

on July 16, 2008. See the ‘‘Verification’’ 

section below for additional 

information. On June 12, 2008, 

petitioner filed a timely request for a 

public hearing. On June 23, 2008, 

petitioner and Guanhao submitted 

surrogate value information for the 

record. On July 2, 2008, the Department 

placed its updated wage rate 

calculations on the record. On July 24, 

2008, case briefs were filed by both 

petitioner and Hanhong. On July 29, 

2008, Hanhong and Guanhao each filed 

rebuttal briefs. On August 14, 2008, 

petitioner withdrew its request for a 

hearing. 

Targeted Dumping 

On May 5, 2008, petitioner filed an 

allegation of targeted dumping with 

respect to patterns of Hanhong’s 

constructed export prices (‘‘CEPs’’) for 

comparable merchandise that differ 

significantly among purchases and 

periods of time. Petitioner limited its 

targeted dumping allegation to patterns 

of prices found in Hanhong’s CEP sales. 

In our Preliminary Determination, we 

found that Hanhong was not affiliated 

with its U.S. customer, and based our 

margin analysis on Hanhong’s export 

price (‘‘EP’’) sales. As a result, 

petitioner’s targeted dumping allegation 

was inapplicable to our margin 

calculations. Since the Preliminary 

Determination, no interested party has 

provided any argument or information 

on the record concerning petitioner’s 

targeted dumping allegation. In our final 

determination, we have continued to 

find Hanhong unaffiliated with its U.S. 

customer, and consequently, based our 

margin calculations on Hanhong’s EP 

sales. As a result, petitioner’s allegation 

of targeted dumping is not applicable to 

our margin analysis. Therefore, we did 

not address it in this final 

determination. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007. 

This period corresponds to the two most 

recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 

of the filing of the petition, which was 

September 2007. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by Hanhong and Guanhao for 

use in our final determination. See the 

Department’s verification reports on the 

record of this investigation in the 

Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 

1117 of the main Department building, 

with respect to these entities. For all 

verified companies, we used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by 

respondents. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Investigation of Lightweight Thermal 

Paper from the People’s Republic of 

China: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently 

with this notice and hereby adopted by 

this notice (‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’). A list of the issues 

which parties raised and to which we 

respond in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is attached to this notice 

as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

57330 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 

1LWTP is typically produced in jumbo rolls that 

are slit to the specifications of the converting 

equipment and then converted into finished slit 

rolls. Both jumbo and converted rolls (as well as 

LWTP in any other form, presentation, or 

dimension) are covered by the scope of these 

investigations. 

2A base coat, when applied, is typically made of 

clay and/or latex and like materials and is intended 

to cover the rough surface of the paper substrate 

and to provide insulating value. 

3A thermal active coating is typically made of 

sensitizer, dye, and co-reactant. 

4A top coat, when applied, is typically made of 

polyvinyl acetone, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or like 

materials and is intended to provide environmental 

protection, an improved surface for press printing, 

and/or wear protection for the thermal print head. 

5HTSUS subheading 4811.90.8000 was a 

classification used for LWTP until January 1, 2007. 

Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.8000 was 

replaced with 4811.90.8020 (for gift wrap, a 

nonsubject product) and 4811.90.8040 (for ‘‘other’’ 

including LWTP). HTSUS subheading 4811.90.9000 

was a classification for LWTP until July 1, 2005. 

Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.9000 was 

replaced with 4811.90.9010 (for tissue paper, a 

nonsubject product) and 4811.90.9090 (for ‘‘other,’’ 

including LWTP). Petitioner indicated that, from 

time to time, LWTP also may have been entered 

under HTSUS subheading 3703.90, HTSUS heading 

4805, and perhaps other subheadings of the HTSUS, 

including HTSUS subheadings: 3703.10.60, 

4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00. 

Memorandum is a public document on 

file in the CRU and accessible on the 

Web at ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

• Financial statements—In the 

Preliminary Determination, we 

calculated financial ratios based on two 

Indian producers’ financial statements 

(i.e. , Parag Copigraph Pvt. Ltd. 

(‘‘Parag’’) and Alpha Carbonless Paper 

Ltd. for the fiscal year ending March 31, 

2006. For the final determination, we 

have determined to use only Parag’s 

financial statement for the fiscal year 

ending March 31, 2007. See Comment 2. 

• Financial ratios—For the final 

determination, we made certain changes 

to the financial ratio calculations from 

the Preliminary Determination. We 

excluded the line items for freight and 

cartage-outward, and freight and 

cartage-export from the Selling, General, 

and Administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) 

ratio calculation obtained from Parag’s 

financial statement. Additionally, we 

included Parag’s line items for 

miscellaneous income, other income, 

and interest revenue (because all of 

Parag’s interest revenue was on current 

assets) as an offset to the SG&A ratio 

calculation and we have continued to 

include export expense in our 

calculation of the surrogate financial 

ratio for SG&A. See Comment 3. 

• Base paper surrogate value—For 

the Preliminary Determination, we 

calculated Guanhao’s surrogate value for 

base paper using WTA import statistics. 

For the final determination, we have 

continued to calculate Guanhao’s 

surrogate value using WTA import 

statistics; however, we have excluded 

imports into India from the United 

States. See Comment 9. 

• Guanhao minor corrections—We 

made the following minor corrections to 

Guanhao’s sales data: (1) We changed 

the reported gross weight for two 

observations; and (2) we changed the 

reported payment date for six 

observations. See Memorandum 

entitled, ‘‘Verification of the Sales and 

Factors Responses of Guangdong 

Guanhao High Tech Co., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Investigation of 

Lightweight Thermal Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated July 

16, 2008. 

• Hanhong minor corrections—We 

made the following minor corrections to 

Hanhong’s sales and factors-ofproduction (‘‘FOP’’) data: (1) We 

changed the reported destination for one 

observation; (2) we changed the 

reported per-unit gross weight for 

certain observations; and (3) we 

changed the reported capped distance 

for certain FOPs. See Memorandum 

entitled, ‘‘Verification of the Sales and 

Factors Responses of Hanhong 

International Limited, Shanghai 

Hanhong Paper Co., Ltd., Hong Kong 

Hanhong Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping 

Investigation of Lightweight Thermal 

Paper from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated July 16, 2008. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation includes certain 

lightweight thermal paper, which is 

thermal paper with a basis weight of 70 

grams per square meter (g/m2) (with a 

tolerance of ±4.0 g/m2) or less; 

irrespective of dimensions; 1 with or 

without a base coat 2 on one or both 

sides; with thermal active coating(s) 3 on 

one or both sides that is a mixture of the 

dye and the developer that react and 

form an image when heat is applied; 

with or without a top coat; 4 and 

without an adhesive backing. Certain 

lightweight thermal paper is typically 

(but not exclusively) used in point-ofsale applications such as ATM receipts, 

credit card receipts, gas pump receipts, 

and retail store receipts. The 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation may be classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under 

subheadings 4811.90.8040, 

4811.90.9090, 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 

4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00.5 Although 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) It is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC; and (3) 

we have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the FOPs. See 

Preliminary Determination. For the final 

determination, we received and 

reviewed comments from interested 

parties; however, we made no changes 

to our findings with respect to the 

selection of India as a surrogate country. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-marketeconomy (‘‘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) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 

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) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 

19 CFR 351.107(d). 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that Hanhong and Guanhao 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate-rate status. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by Hanhong and 

Guanhao demonstrate both a de jure and 

de facto absence of government control, 

with respect to their respective exports 

of the merchandise under investigation, 

and, thus are eligible for separate-rate 

status. See Comment 7. 

Facts Available and the PRC-wide 

Entity 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not on the 

record or an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information requested by the 

Department, (B) fails to provide such 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 57331 

6See Preliminary Determination at 73 FR 27508. 

7See Preliminary Determination at 73 FR 27508. 

8See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the 

People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 16116 (March 30, 

2006) (‘‘Artist Canvas’’). 

9See, e.g., Artist Canvas, 71 FR 16116, 16118 

(March 30, 2006). See also, Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, 

H.R. Rep No. 103–316 (‘‘SAA’’) at 870. 

10See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8932 (February 23, 1998). 

11See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the 

Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 

(November 18, 2005); see also, SAA at 870. 

12See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 

(December 28, 2005) Unchanged in Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

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

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 10. 

13See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality 

Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China, 

65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Facts 

Available.’’ 

14See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479, 6481 

(February 4, 2008); see also, SAA at 870. 

15See id. 

16See id. 

information by the deadline, or in the 

form or manner requested, (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding, or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified, as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits, subject to section 782(e) of 

the Act, the Department may disregard 

all or part of the original and subsequent 

responses, as appropriate. Pursuant to 

section 782(e) of the Act, the 

Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

determined that two companies, Xiamen 

Anne Paper Co., Ltd. (‘‘Anne Paper’’) 

and Yalong Paper Product (Kunshan) 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yalong’’), which did not 

respond to any of the Department’s 

requests for information, did not 

cooperate to the best of their ability.6 As 

a result, we determined that they failed 

to demonstrate that they operate free of 

government control and that they are 

entitled to a separate rate.7 Thus, we 

considered Anne Paper and Yalong to 

be part of the PRC-wide entity. Because 

the PRC-wide entity, including Anne 

Paper and Yalong, did not provide any 

information, we determined that 

sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not 

relevant to our analysis. Therefore, in 

the Preliminary Determination, we 

determined that there were exports of 

the merchandise subject to this 

investigation from PRC exporters/ 

producers that did not respond to the 

Department’s shipment questionnaire. 

Because the PRC-wide entity did not 

cooperate to the best of its ability in 

responding to our requests for 

information, we determined that use of 

facts available pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act was 

warranted for the PRC-wide entity, 

which includes Anne Paper and 

Yalong.8

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party fails to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with requests for 

information, the Department may 

employ adverse inferences.9 We found 

that, because the PRC-wide entity did 

not respond to our request for 

information, it failed to cooperate to the 

best of its ability. Therefore, in the 

Preliminary Determination, the 

Department determined that, in 

selecting from among the facts available, 

an adverse inference is appropriate. 

There have been no changes to the 

information on the record concerning 

the PRC-wide entity which includes 

Anne Paper and Yalong. Therefore, we 

have made no changes in our analysis 

for the final determination. 

Consequently, we determine that the 

use of adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) 

for the PRC-wide entity, which includes 

Anne Paper and Yalong, is warranted 

for the final determination. 

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the 

Department may rely on information 

derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 

Department selects a rate that is 

sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the 

purpose of the facts available rule to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner.’’ 10 It is 

also the Department’s practice to select 

a rate that ensures ‘‘that the party does 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ 11

Generally, the Department finds 

selecting the highest rate in any segment 

of the proceeding as AFA to be 

appropriate.12 It is the Department’s 

practice to select, as AFA, the higher of 

the (a) highest margin alleged in the 

petition, or (b) the highest calculated 

rate of any respondent in the 

investigation.13 In the instant 

investigation, as AFA, we have assigned 

to the PRC-wide entity, including Anne 

Paper and Yalong, the highest rate on 

the record of this proceeding, which in 

this case is the calculated margin for 

Hanhong. The Department determines 

that this information is the most 

appropriate from the available sources 

to effectuate the purposes of AFA. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning merchandise subject to this 

investigation, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation.’’ 14 To ‘‘corroborate’’ 

means simply that the Department will 

satisfy itself that the secondary 

information to be used has probative 

value.15 Independent sources used to 

corroborate may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation.16 To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

57332 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 

17See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

18See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479 (February 

4, 2008). 

19See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 62435. 

20See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries’’ dated April 5, 2005, available 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html. 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used.17

As we did not rely upon secondary 

information, no corroboration was 

required under section 776(c) of the Act; 

rather we used a rate calculated for a 

respondent in this investigation as the 

AFA rate for this investigation. 18 See the 

‘‘Final Determination’’ section of this 

notice below. 

The PRC-wide rate applies to all 

entries of the merchandise under 

investigation except for entries from 

respondents, Hanhong and Guanhao as 

they have demonstrated eligibility for a 

separate rate. These companies and 

their corresponding antidumping duty 

cash deposit rates are listed below in the 

‘‘Final Determination’’ section of this 

notice. Accordingly, we find that the 

rate of xx.xx percent is corroborated 

within the meaning of section 776(c) of 

the Act. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.19 This 

practice is described in the Separate 

Rate Policy Bulletin.20

Adjustment for Export Subsidies 

Consistent with our practice, where 

the product under investigation is also 

subject to a concurrent countervailing 

duty investigation, we instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to require a cash deposit or posting of 

a bond equal to the amount by which 

the normal value exceeds the EP, less 

the amount of the countervailing duty 

determined to constitute an export 

subsidy. Accordingly, for cash deposit 

purposes for Guanhao, we will subtract 

from the antidumping applicable cash 

deposit rate that portion of the rate 

attributable to the export subsidies 

found in the affirmative countervailing 

duty determination (i.e., 0.13 percent). 

After the adjustment for the export 

subsidies, the resulting cash deposit rate 

will be 19.64 for Guanhao. 

Final Determination 

The weighted-average dumping 

margin percentages are as follows: 

Exporter/producer combination Percent 

margin 

Exporter: Shanghai Hanhong Paper Co., Ltd, also known as, Hanhong International Limited ................................................................. 115.29 

Producer: Shanghai Hanhong Paper Co., Ltd..

Exporter: Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................... 19.77 

Producer: Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., Ltd.

PRC-Wide Entity* ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 115.29 

* Includes Anne Paper and Yalong. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

CBP to continue to suspend liquidation 

of all imports of subject merchandise 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

following dates: (1) For Guanhao and 

Hanhong, on or after May 13, 2008, the 

date of publication of the Preliminary 

Determination in the Federal Register, 

(2) for the PRC-wide entity, on or after 

May 13, 2008, the date of publication of 

the Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to continue to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond for all companies 

based on the estimated weightedaverage dumping margins shown above. 

The suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the 

ITC will determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—List of Issues 

I. GENERAL ISSUES 

Comment 1: Surrogate Country 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 57333 

Comment 2: Financial Statements 

Comment 3: Financial Ratios 

Comment 4: New NME Wage Rate 

Comment 5: Zeroing 

Comment 6: Exchange Rates 

II. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO GUANHAO 

Comment 7: Separate Rate Eligibility 

Comment 8: Vertical Integration 

Comment 9: Base Paper Surrogate Value 

III. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO HANHONG 

Comment 10: Coated Jumbo Rolls 

Surrogate Value 

Comment 11: Invoice Date 

[FR Doc. E8–23284 Filed 10–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–851] 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has received two 

requests for new shipper reviews of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty order: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China, 64 FR 8310 

(February 19, 1999). In accordance with 

section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), and 

19 CFR 351.214(d) (2008), we are 

initiating antidumping duty new 

shipper reviews of Zhejiang Iceman 

Group Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Iceman) and 

Zhangzhou Gangchang Foods Co., Ltd. 

(Zhangzhou Gangchang). The period of 

review (POR) of these new shipper 

reviews is February 1, 2008, through 

July 31, 2008. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–1121 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 19, 1999, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on certain preserved mushrooms from 

the PRC. See Notice of Amendment of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 64 

FR 8308 (February 19, 1999). Thus, the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms has a February 

anniversary month and a semiannual 

anniversary month of August. The 

Department received a request for new 

shipper reviews from Zhangzhou 

Gangchang and Zhejiang Iceman on 

August 29, 2008. See August 29, 2008, 

letter from Zhangzhou Gangchang to the 

Secretary of Commerce requesting a new 

shipper review; and August 29, 2008, 

letter from Zhejiang Iceman to the 

Secretary of Commerce requesting a new 

shipper review. Therefore, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.214(d), Zhangzhou 

Gangchang and Zhejiang Iceman both 

made their requests during the 

semiannual anniversary month. 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of 

the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b), 

Zhangzhou Gangchang certified that it is 

both an exporter and producer of the 

subject merchandise, and that it did not 

export subject merchandise to the 

United States during the period of the 

investigation (POI) (July 1, 1997, 

through December 31, 1997). See section 

751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act and 19 

CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i). Likewise, Zhejiang 

Iceman certified that it is both an 

exporter and producer of the subject 

merchandise, and that it did not export 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POI. Id. Pursuant to 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Tariff 

Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), 

Zhangzhou Gangchang and Zhejiang 

Iceman both certified that since the 

investigation was initiated, they have 

not been affiliated with any producer or 

exporter who exported the subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI. Because these new shipper 

reviews involve imports from a nonmarket economy country, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), 

Zhangzhou Gangchang and Zhejiang 

Iceman also certified that their export 

activities are not controlled by the 

central government. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv), Zhangzhou Gangchang 

and Zhejiang Iceman also submitted 

documentation establishing the date on 

which they first shipped the subject 

merchandise to the United States, the 

volume of that shipment, and the date 

of their first sale to an unaffiliated 

customer in the United States. 

Zhangzhou Gangchang and Zhejiang 

Iceman also certified they had no 

shipments to the United States during 

the period subsequent to their first 

shipments. 

The Department conducted a Customs 

database query in an attempt to confirm 

that Zhangzhou Gangchang’s and 

Zhejiang Iceman’s shipments of subject 

merchandise entered the United States 

for consumption and that liquidation of 

such entries had been suspended for 

antidumping duties. See September 26, 

2008, Zhangzhou Gangchang New 

Shipper Review Initiation Checklist, 

question 18; and Zhejiang Iceman New 

Shipper Review Initiation Checklist, 

question 18. The Department also 

examined whether U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) confirmed that 

such entries were made during the new 

shipper review POR. 

Initiation of Review 

Based on information on the record 

and in accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 

351.214(d) of the Department’s 

regulations, we find that the requests 

Zhangzhou Gangchang and Zhejiang 

Iceman submitted meet the statutory 

and regulatory requirements for 

initiation of a new shipper review. 

Accordingly, we are initiating new 

shipper reviews of the antidumping 

duty order on certain preserved 

mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China manufactured and exported by 

Zhangzhou Gangchang and Zhejiang 

Iceman. These reviews cover the period 

February 1, 2008 through July 31, 2008. 

We intend to issue the preliminary 

results of these reviews no later than 

180 days after the date on which this 

review is initiated, and the final results 

within 90 days after the date on which 

we issue the preliminary results. See 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.214(h)(i). 

In cases involving non-market 

economies, the Department requires that 

a company seeking to establish 

eligibility for an antidumping duty rate 

separate from the country-wide rate 

provide evidence of de jure and de facto 

absence of government control over the 

company’s export activities. See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the 

People’s Republic of China, 61 FR 

19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). 

Accordingly, we will issue 

questionnaires to Zhangzhou Gangchang 

and Zhejiang Iceman, each of which 

will include a separate rates section. 

These reviews will proceed if the 

responses provide sufficient indication 

that Zhangzhou Gangchang and 

Zhejiang Iceman are not subject to either 

de jure or de facto government control 

with respect to its exports of preserved 

mushrooms. However, if either 

Zhangzhou Gangchang or Zhejiang 

Iceman do not demonstrate eligibility 

for a separate rates, then the respective 

company will be deemed not separate 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES