58540 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 

1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China; 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined 

Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the 

People’s Republic of China; and Notice of 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 

(September 28, 2006) (Lined Paper Order). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 50657 

(September 4, 2007). 

3Regarding respondent selection in general, see 

also 19 CFR 351.204(c). 

4See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, from Marin Weaver, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, titled, ‘‘Selection of 

Respondents for the Antidumping Review of 

Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (November 7, 2007) 

(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

14th and Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. 

Comments: None received. Decision: 

Approved. We know of no instruments 

of equivalent scientific value to the 

foreign instruments described below, for 

such purposes as each is intended to be 

used, that was being manufactured in 

the United States at the time of its order. 

Docket Number: 08–040. Applicant: 

New Mexico Institute of Mining and 

Technology; Socorro, New Mexico 

87801. Instrument: Unit Telescope. 

Manufacturer: Advanced Mechanical 

and Optical Systems SA (AMOS), 

Belgium. Intended Use: See notice at 73 

FR 52644, September 10, 2008. Reasons: 

The instrument has the following 

features which are essential to the 

research. The instrument is able to be 

relocated, the functions of the 

instrument are able to be controlled and 

monitored over a network connection, 

and the instrument has an aperture 

greater than one-meter. 

Docket Number: 08–042. Applicant: 

University of Alabama at Birmingham, 

Birmingham, AL 35294. Instrument: FIE 

Vitrobot. Manufacturer: FEI Company, 

the Netherlands. Intended Use: See 

notice at 73 FR 52644, September 10, 

2008. Reasons: The instrument has a 

controlled environmental chamber and 

the capability of fully automated 

operation. These features are required 

for the research. 

Dated: September 30, 2008. 

Faye Robinson, 

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, 

Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–23583 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–901] 

Certain Lined Paper Products from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting the 

first administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain lined 

paper products (‘‘CLPP’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

with respect to four producers/exporters 

for the period April 17, 2006, through 

August 31, 2007. We have preliminarily 

determined that sales have been made 

below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by Shanghai 

Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Lian 

Li’’). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the period of review. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We intend to issue the final results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Victoria Cho or Cindy Lai Robinson, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

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

3797, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 28, 2006, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register an antidumping duty order on 

certain lined paper products from the 

PRC.1 On September 4, 2007, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order of certain lined 

paper products from the PRC for the 

period April 17, 2006, through August 

31, 2007.2 On September 28, 2007, the 

following parties requested the 

Department to conduct an 

administrative review of themselves in 

the antidumping review of CLPP from 

the PRC: Lian Li; Hwa Fuh Plastics Co. 

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

Ltd. (‘‘H.F. Plastics/L.T. Plastics’’); Leo’s 

Quality Products Co., Ltd./Denmax 

Plastic Stationery Factory (‘‘Denmax/ 

Leo’s Products’’); and the Watanabe 

Group (which consists of the following 

three companies: Watanabe Paper 

Products (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Watanabe Shanghai’’); Watanabe 

Paper Products (Linqing) Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Watanabe Linqing’’); and Hotrock 

Stationery (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Hotrock Shenzhen’’) 

On October 1, 2007, the Association 

of American School Paper Suppliers, a 

domestic interested party and Petitioner 

in the underlying investigation, 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of the 

Watanabe Group and Lian Li as well as 

any of these companies’ subsidiaries or 

affiliates (as well as predecessor and 

successor companies), whether directly 

to the United States or indirectly 

through third countries. On October 31, 

2007, the Department initiated this 

review with respect to all requested 

companies. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 61621 

(October 31, 2007). 

On May 6, 2008, the Petitioner 

submitted a request for an extension for 

these preliminary results. On June 5, 

2008, the Department published a notice 

extending the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results for 120 days to 

September 29, 2008. See Certain Lined 

Paper Products From the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limits for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 31964 (June 5, 2008). 

Respondent Selection and Quantity and 

Value 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter or producer of the subject 

merchandise.3 However, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 

Department discretion to limit its 

examination to a reasonable number of 

exporters or producers if it is not 

practicable to examine all exporters or 

producers involved in the review. 

The Department obtained CBP 

quantity and value data for the parties 

for which a review was requested. After 

assessing its resources, the Department 

determined that it can reasonably 

examine one of the four exporters 

subject to this review. On November 7, 

2007, the Department selected Lian Li as 

a mandatory respondent in this 

investigation.4

On November 8, 2007, the Department 

issued its initial sections A, C, and D 

antidumping duty questionnaire to Lian 

Li. On December 6, 2007, Lian Li 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 58541 

5See Memorandum to Ron Lorentzen, Director, 

Office of Policy, from Wendy Frankel, Director, 

Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, titled, ‘‘Certain Lined 

Paper Products from the People’s Republic of 

China: Request for Surrogate Country Selection’’ 

(November 9, 2007). 

6See Memorandum to Wendy Frankel regarding 

the Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated 

December 20, 2007 (‘‘Office of Policy Surrogate 

Countries Memo’’). 

7See Memorandum to the File from Andrea 

Berton, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 

Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, titled, ‘‘2006/ 

2007Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order of Certain Lined Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China: Selection of a 

Surrogate Country’’ (February 22, 2008) (‘‘Surrogate 

Country Selection Memo’’). 

submitted its Section A response to the 

Department’s original questionnaire, 

and on January 23, 2008, Lian Li 

submitted its supplemental Section A 

questionnaire response. On January 3, 

2008, Lian Li submitted its section C 

response to the Department’s original 

questionnaire and on March 6, 2008, 

Lian Li submitted its supplemental 

section C questionnaire response. On 

January 10, 2008, Lian Li submitted its 

Section D response to the Department’s 

original questionnaire and on January 

23, 2008, Lian Li submitted its 

supplemental section D questionnaire 

response. On April 11, 2008, Lian Li 

submitted its fourth and fifth 

supplemental responses to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaires. 

On May 1, 2008, the Petitioner 

submitted deficiency comments 

regarding Lian Li’s supplemental 

questionnaire response. 

On September 12, 2008, the Petitioner 

submitted pre–preliminary results 

comments. On September 18, 2008, Lian 

Li submitted a letter to correct certain 

errors contained in its factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’) database. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is April 

17, 2006, through August 31, 2007. 

Surrogate Country and Factors 

On November 9, 2007, the Department 

requested that the Office of Policy 

provide a list of surrogate countries for 

this review.5 On December 20, 2007, the 

Office of Policy issued its list of 

surrogate countries.6 On January 18, 

2008, the Department requested that 

interested parties submit surrogate 

country selection comments. On 

February 22, 2008, the Department 

selected its surrogate country for this 

review.7 The Department received Lian 

Li’s and the Petitioner’s comments on 

April 1, and on April 8 and 15, 2008, 

respectively. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain lined paper products, typically 

school supplies (for purposes of this 

scope definition, the actual use of or 

labeling these products as school 

supplies or non–school supplies is not 

a defining characteristic) composed of 

or including paper that incorporates 

straight horizontal and/or vertical lines 

on ten or more paper sheets (there shall 

be no minimum page requirement for 

looseleaf filler paper) including but not 

limited to such products as single- and 

multi–subject notebooks, composition 

books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or 

glued filler paper, graph paper, and 

laboratory notebooks, and with the 

smaller dimension of the paper 

measuring 6 inches to 15 inches 

(inclusive) and the larger dimension of 

the paper measuring 8–3/4 inches to 15 

inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are 

measured size (not advertised, stated, or 

tear–out size), and are measured as they 

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

folded pages in a notebook are measured 

by the size of the page as it appears in 

the notebook page, not the size of the 

unfolded paper). However, for 

measurement purposes, pages with 

tapered or rounded edges shall be 

measured at their longest and widest 

points. Subject lined paper products 

may be loose, packaged or bound using 

any binding method (other than case 

bound through the inclusion of binders 

board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). 

Subject merchandise may or may not 

contain any combination of a front 

cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of 

any composition, regardless of the 

inclusion of images or graphics on the 

cover, backing, or paper. Subject 

merchandise is within the scope of this 

order whether or not the lined paper 

and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, 

perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject 

merchandise may contain accessory or 

informational items including but not 

limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, 

closure devices, index cards, stencils, 

protractors, writing implements, 

reference materials such as 

mathematical tables, or printed items 

such as sticker sheets or miniature 

calendars, if such items are physically 

incorporated, included with, or attached 

to the product, cover and/or backing 

thereto. 

Specifically excluded from the scope of 

this order are: 

• unlined copy machine paper; 

• writing pads with a backing 

(including but not limited to 

products commonly known as 

‘‘tablets,’’ ‘‘note pads,’’ ‘‘legal 

pads,’’ and ‘‘quadrille pads’’), 

provided that they do not have a 

front cover (whether permanent or 

removable). This exclusion does not 

apply to such writing pads if they 

consist of hole–punched or drilled 

filler paper; 

• three–ring or multiple–ring binders, 

or notebook organizers 

incorporating such a ring binder 

provided that they do not include 

subject paper; 

• index cards; 

• printed books and other books that 

are case bound through the 

inclusion of binders board, a spine 

strip, and cover wrap; 

• newspapers; 

• pictures and photographs; 

• desk and wall calendars and 

organizers (including but not 

limited to such products generally 

known as ‘‘office planners,’’ ‘‘time 

books,’’ and ‘‘appointment books’’); 

• telephone logs; 

• address books; 

• columnar pads & tablets, with or 

without covers, primarily suited for 

the recording of written numerical 

business data; 

• lined business or office forms, 

including but not limited to: pre– 

printed business forms, lined 

invoice pads and paper, mailing 

and address labels, manifests, and 

shipping log books; 

• lined continuous computer paper; 

• boxed or packaged writing 

stationary (including but not 

limited to products commonly 

known as ‘‘fine business paper,’’ 

‘‘parchment paper’’, and 

‘‘letterhead’’), whether or not 

containing a lined header or 

decorative lines; 

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

Gregg ruled (‘‘Gregg ruling’’ consists 

of a single- or double–margin 

vertical ruling line down the center 

of the page. For a six–inch by nine– 

inch stenographic pad, the ruling 

would be located approximately 

three inches from the left of the 

book.), measuring 6 inches by 9 

inches; 

Also excluded from the scope of this 

order are the following trademarked 

products: 

• FlyTM lined paper products: A 

notebook, notebook organizer, loose 

or glued note paper, with papers 

that are printed with infrared 

reflective inks and readable only by 

a FlyTM pen–top computer. The 

product must bear the valid 

trademark FlyTM (products found to 

be bearing an invalidly licensed or 

used trademark are not excluded 

from the scope). 

• ZwipesTM: A notebook or notebook 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

58542 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 

8See Honey from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

34893 (June 16, 2006). 

9See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

7013 (February 10, 2006) 

10See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the 

People’s Republic of China: Fianl Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Rescission in Part, 72 FR 26589 (May 10, 2007). 

11See Memorandum from Andrea Berton, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office of 

AD/CVD Enforcement, through Blanche Ziv, 

Program Manager, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, 

to File, ‘‘2006/2007 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order of Certain Lined Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China: 

Selection of a Surrogate Country’’ (February 22, 

2008) (‘‘Surrogate Country Memo’’). 

organizer made with a blended 

polyolefin writing surface as the 

cover and pocket surfaces of the 

notebook, suitable for writing using 

a specially–developed permanent 

marker and erase system (known as 

a ZwipesTM pen). This system 

allows the marker portion to mark 

the writing surface with a 

permanent ink. The eraser portion 

of the marker dispenses a solvent 

capable of solubilizing the 

permanent ink allowing the ink to 

be removed. The product must bear 

the valid trademark ZwipesTM

(products found to be bearing an 

invalidly licensed or used 

trademark are not excluded from 

the scope). 

• FiveStar AdvanceTM: A notebook 

or notebook organizer bound by a 

continuous spiral, or helical, wire 

and with plastic front and rear 

covers made of a blended polyolefin 

plastic material joined by 300 

denier polyester, coated on the 

backside with PVC (poly vinyl 

chloride) coating, and extending the 

entire length of the spiral or helical 

wire. The polyolefin plastic covers 

are of specific thickness; front cover 

is 0.019 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances) and rear 

cover is 0.028 inches (within 

normal manufacturing tolerances). 

Integral with the stitching that 

attaches the polyester spine 

covering, is captured both ends of a 

1′′ wide elastic fabric band. This 

band is located 2–3/8′′ from the top 

of the front plastic cover and 

provides pen or pencil storage. Both 

ends of the spiral wire are cut and 

then bent backwards to overlap 

with the previous coil but 

specifically outside the coil 

diameter but inside the polyester 

covering. During construction, the 

polyester covering is sewn to the 

front and rear covers face to face 

(outside to outside) so that when 

the book is closed, the stitching is 

concealed from the outside. Both 

free ends (the ends not sewn to the 

cover and back) are stitched with a 

turned edge construction. The 

flexible polyester material forms a 

covering over the spiral wire to 

protect it and provide a comfortable 

grip on the product. The product 

must bear the valid trademarks 

FiveStar AdvanceTM (products 

found to be bearing an invalidly 

licensed or used trademark are not 

excluded from the scope). 

• FiveStar FlexTM: A notebook, a 

notebook organizer, or binder with 

plastic polyolefin front and rear 

covers joined by 300 denier 

polyester spine cover extending the 

entire length of the spine and 

bound by a 3–ring plastic fixture. 

The polyolefin plastic covers are of 

a specific thickness; front cover is 

0.019 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances) and rear 

cover is 0.028 inches (within 

normal manufacturing tolerances). 

During construction, the polyester 

covering is sewn to the front cover 

face to face (outside to outside) so 

that when the book is closed, the 

stitching is concealed from the 

outside. During construction, the 

polyester cover is sewn to the back 

cover with the outside of the 

polyester spine cover to the inside 

back cover. Both free ends (the ends 

not sewn to the cover and back) are 

stitched with a turned edge 

construction. Each ring within the 

fixture is comprised of a flexible 

strap portion that snaps into a 

stationary post which forms a 

closed binding ring. The ring fixture 

is riveted with six metal rivets and 

sewn to the back plastic cover and 

is specifically positioned on the 

outside back cover. 

The product must bear the valid 

trademark FiveStar FlexTM (products 

found to be bearing an invalidly 

licensed or used trademark are not 

excluded from the scope). Merchandise 

subject to this order is typically 

imported under headings 4820.10.2050, 

4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090, 

4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). The HTSUS 

headings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes; however, the 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

Non–Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non–market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country. See, e.g., 

Honey from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 74764 

(December 16, 2005) (unchanged in 

final).8 Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) 

of the Act, any determination that a 

foreign country is an NME country shall 

remain in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See, e.g., 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

58672 (October 7, 2005) (unchanged in 

final);9 and Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and 

Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65073, 65074 

(November 7, 2006) (unchanged in 

final).10 None of the parties to this 

proceeding has contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Surrogate Country 

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires 

the Department to value an NME 

producer’s FOPs, to the extent possible, 

in one or more market–economy 

countries that (1) are at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country, and (2) are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The Department 

determined that India, Indonesia, Sri 

Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development. See 

‘‘Office of Policy Surrogate Countries 

Memo.’’ In addition, based on publicly 

available information placed on the 

record (e.g., production data), India is a 

significant producer of the subject 

merchandise.11 Id. Further, we have 

available on the record of this segment 

of the proceeding information with 

which to value the FOPs and determine 

surrogate financial ratios in India. 

Accordingly, we have selected India as 

the surrogate country for purposes of 

valuing the FOPs because it meets the 

Department’s criteria for surrogate– 

country selection. 

Application of Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department will apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ (‘‘FA’’) if, inter 

alia, necessary information is not 

available on the record or an interested 

party: 1) withholds information that has 

been requested by the Department; 2) 

fails to provide such information within 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 58543 

12See the Department’s supplemental Sections C 

and D questionnaire dated March 6, 2008, at 3. 

13See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and 

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 

8273 (February 13, 2008) (‘‘PRC Wooden Bedroom 

Furniture’’). 

the deadlines established, or in the form 

or manner requested by the Department, 

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

section 782 of the Act; 3) significantly 

impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides 

such information, but the information 

cannot be verified. 

To date in this review, as stated above 

in the ‘‘Background’’ section, the 

Department has issued five 

supplemental questionnaires to Lian Li. 

Although Lian Li responded to the 

Department’s original and five 

supplemental questionnaires, for the 

reasons discussed below, the 

Department finds that the FOP 

databases submitted by Lian Li for its 

two unaffiliated suppliers, Shanghai 

Sentian Paper Product Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Sentian’’) and Shanghai Miaopanfang 

Paper Product Co., Ltd. (‘‘MPF’’) cannot 

be relied on for purposes of calculating 

NV for these preliminary results. In 

addition, the Department finds that Lian 

Li also failed to provide FOP data for 

certain merchandise it produced and 

sold in the United States during the 

POR. Accordingly, the Department finds 

that for purposes of these preliminary 

results, application of FA to Lian Li is 

warranted, in accordance with section 

776(a) of the Act. 

A. Application of Adverse Facts 

Available for the FOP Data of Lian Li’s 

Suppliers 

In its original Section A response, 

Lian Li stated that, in addition to its 

own production, it purchased and 

resold merchandise which was 

produced by two unaffiliated suppliers, 

Sentian and MPF. Lian Li provided 

three separate FOP databases, one for 

each of the three producers in its 

original Section D response. It also 

provided a consolidated FOP database 

inclusive of FOPs for all three 

producers. Because the initial FOP 

databases did not have proper 

supporting documentation and because 

Lian Li did not provide reconciliations 

as requested, on January 17, 2008, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire. The Department 

requested that Lian Li provide, for each 

producer of subject merchandise, 

reconciliations for the reported FOPs, as 

was required in the Department’s 

original questionnaire at Appendix V. In 

the same letter, the Department also 

requested that Lian Li provide proper 

worksheets which can be tied to the 

financial statements or accounting 

records of each respective producer. 

Although Lian Li provided some 

worksheets in its responses dated 

January 24 and February 27, 2008, the 

Department found that the ‘‘worksheets 

in and of themselves cannot be relied 

upon without support from the 

appropriate source documentation’’12

and therefore, the Department issued 

another supplemental Sections C and D 

questionnaire on March 6, 2008, in 

which it requested supporting 

documentation for the three largest raw 

material inputs and the three largest 

packing material inputs for June 2006. 

In its April 11, 2008, response at 12, 

Lian Li indicated that because Sentian 

and MPF are affiliated with each other 

and share the same management and 

accounting staff, the same accountant 

collectively gathered all production, 

warehouse and sales records. 

Furthermore, Lian Li stated that the FOP 

databases provided by Sentian and MPF 

were based on arbitrary sales and 

manufacturing costs assigned to each 

company’s books and records by the 

companies’ accountant. Therefore, Lian 

Li claimed that ‘‘the only way to make 

the cost as accurate as possible based on 

the accounting records of the affiliated 

companies is to combine the total 

production and total consumption of 

these two affiliated companies together, 

as they have done in their own records, 

and calculate a combined variance for 

both companies.’’ 

It is the Department’s practice to rely 

on accurate information submitted by 

respondents to calculate dumping 

margins in an antidumping duty 

proceeding. See PRC Wooden Bedroom 

Furniture.13 When the Department finds 

that a respondent’s reported information 

is not reliable, the Department will 

resort to FA. Id. Specifically, in the 

Department’s recent decision in PRC 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture, the 

Department concluded that a 

respondent’s submitted data are not 

reliable when the data cannot be tied to 

reliable financial statements or a reliable 

financial recording system. In this case, 

Lian Li states that the reported FOPs of 

both of its suppliers, Sentian and MPF, 

are arbitrarily assigned and therefore not 

accurate. Lian Li further states that the 

FOP data cannot be tied to the books 

and records of the two companies. 

Furthermore, based on the information 

on the record at this point in the review, 

it is not clear whether Sentian’s and 

MPF’s accounting books and records are 

reliable, given the arbitrary manner in 

which sales and costs were assigned. 

Because, by Lian Li’s own admission, 

the reported FOP data provided by 

Sentian and MPF are arbitrary and 

inaccurate, we preliminarily find that 

such data are unreliable and therefore 

cannot be used for these preliminary 

results. Thus, the Department will use 

the facts otherwise available to calculate 

NV for subject merchandise produced 

by Sentian and MPF for these 

preliminary results of review. 

According to section 776(b) of the 

Act, if the Department finds that an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information, the 

Department may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from the facts otherwise 

available. See also Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025–26 

(September 13, 2005); and Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Final Negative 

Critical Circumstances: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (August 

30, 2002). Adverse inferences may be 

employed ‘‘to ensure that the party does 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

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

(1994) (SAA), reprinted in 1994 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198–99. 

Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of 

bad faith on the part of a respondent is 

not required before the Department may 

make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 

(May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel 

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

1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). 

In this case, Sentian and MPF knew 

that their reported FOP data were 

inaccurate and based on arbitrarily 

assigned numbers which could not be 

tied to their accounting books and 

records and were therefore unreliable. 

However, the Department was not 

informed of such fact until the last 

supplemental questionnaire response 

was filed. Sentian and MPF clearly 

should have known that if the FOP data 

are arbitrarily assigned numbers and 

cannot be tied to any of the companies’ 

accounting records, the data cannot be 

relied upon by the Department. In this 

regard it is important to note that FOPs 

for Sentian and MPF were examined 

and verified in the investigation phase 

of this proceeding, and where such 

FOPs were found to be unreliable, the 

Department in that segment resorted to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

58544 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 

14See China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 03–00302, Slip Op. 

07–135 (CIT September 4, 2007) (‘‘China 

Kingdom’’). 

15Specifically, the Department found that in Lian 

Li’s FOP database, Lian Li reported that binding 

type and cover material for various products are not 

consistently reported and may possibly be 

incorrectly reported. Therefore, in its fifth 

supplemental questionnaire, dated March 6, 2008, 

the Department instructed Lian Li to assign a 

CONNUM to each unique product reported in the 

section C sales database by specifying its product 

characteristics in Fields 3.1 through 3.8. See The 

Department’s March 6, 2008, letter to Lian Li at 12– 

14 (‘‘The Department’s March 6, 2008, letter’’). 

16See the Memorandum to file from Victoria Cho, 

titled ‘‘Calculation Memorandum, Shanghai Lian Li 

Paper Products Co. Ltd.; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Investigation of Certain Lined Paper 

FA, with an adverse inference. Thus, 

Sentian and MPF were aware of the 

Department’s requirements and 

standards from the very beginning of 

this review. 

Had Lian Li, Sentian and MPF 

informed the Department of this 

problem in its original or first 

supplemental Section D questionnaire 

responses, dated January 11 and 23, 

2008, respectively, the Department 

would have had the opportunity to 

further examine the issue and, if 

warranted, consider alternatives to the 

use of the unreliable data. However, 

Sentian and MPF withheld this 

information for three additional months 

until Lian Li filed its response to the 

Department’s March 6, 2008, 

supplemental questionnaire. As such, 

the Department preliminarily finds that 

Sentian and MPF did not act to the best 

of their ability in this review, within the 

meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. 

Therefore, an adverse inference is 

warranted in selecting from the facts 

otherwise available with respect to the 

FOPs for subject merchandise produced 

by Sentian and MPF. See Nippon, 337 

F.3d at 1382–83. 

In Nippon, the Court set out two 

requirements for drawing an adverse 

inference under section 776(b) of the 

Act. First, the Department ‘‘must make 

an objective showing that a reasonable 

and responsible importer would have 

known that the requested information 

was required to be kept and maintained 

under the applicable statutes, rules, and 

regulations.’’ Next the Department must 

‘‘make a subjective showing that the 

respondent . . . has failed to promptly 

produce the requested information’’ and 

that ‘‘failure to fully respond is the 

result of the respondent’s lack of 

cooperation in either: (a) failing to keep 

and maintain all required records, or (b) 

failing to put forth its maximum efforts 

to investigate and obtain the requested 

information from its records.’’ The Court 

clarifies further that ‘‘{a}n adverse 

inference may not be drawn merely 

from a failure to respond, but only 

under circumstances in which it is 

reasonable for Commerce to expect that 

more forthcoming responses should 

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

83. 

In the underlying investigation, the 

Department examined and verified the 

FOPs of Sentian and MPF and where it 

found that Sentian and MPF were 

unable to substantiate their reported 

consumption for a particular FOP, 

mixed–pulp paper, the Department 

resorted to FA with an adverse 

inference. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined 

Paper Products from People’s Republic 

of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 

2006) (‘‘PRC Lined Paper Investigation 

Final’’), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 18.. 

In its final determination, the 

Department, citing Nippon, concluded 

that Lian Li and its producers were 

responsible for demonstrating the 

reliability of their own data, and found 

the company unable to substantiate its 

reported consumption for a particular 

FOP. Therefore, the Department 

concluded that Sentian and MPF did 

not cooperate to the best of their ability 

with respect to this FOP, mixed–pulp 

paper consumption, and applied FA 

with an adverse inference to Sentian’s 

and MPF’s paper consumption. As 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), the 

Department applied the highest reported 

paper consumption rate for any single 

CONNUM from any of Lian Li’s other 

suppliers. Id. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that Sentian and MPF should have 

known from the beginning of this 

review that the requested information 

would be required and that by failing to 

maintain and provide the information, 

they have failed to cooperate to the best 

of their ability. As such, an adverse 

inference is warranted in this review. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use as AFA 

information derived from: 1) the 

petition; 2) the final determination in 

the investigation; 3) any previous 

review; or 4) any other information 

placed on the record. The Department’s 

practice, when selecting an AFA rate 

from among the possible sources of 

information, has been to ensure that the 

margin is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to 

effectuate the statutory purposes of the 

adverse facts available rule to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See, e.g., Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 

Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 

(November 7, 2006) (quoting Carbon 

and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at LTFV and Final Negative 

Circumstances, 67 FR 55792 (August 30, 

2002)). 

In order to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse so as to induce 

cooperation, the Department has 

preliminarily assigned the highest NV 

for any single matching control number 

(‘‘CONNUM’’) from the three producers 

at issue in this review, Lian Li, Sentian, 

and MPF, to all subject merchandise 

produced by Sentian and MPF. This is 

consistent with the Department’s 

practice in similar situations.14 See also 

PRC Lined Paper Investigation Final. 

The Department finds that this adverse 

inference is sufficient to effectuate the 

purpose of the facts available rule (i.e., 

we find that this is sufficient to 

encourage participation in future 

segments of this proceeding in 

accordance with section 776(b) of the 

Act). 

After issuance of these preliminary 

results, however, the Department 

expects to issue an additional 

questionnaire to Lian Li to seek further 

clarification on certain information, 

including Sentian’s and MPF’s FOP 

data, which was submitted on the 

record in this proceeding. 

B. Application of Facts Otherwise 

Available for Certain of Lian Li’s Own 

FOP Data 

In the U.S. sales database submitted 

by Lian Li dated April 11, 2008, with 

respect to its own production, the 

Department found several sales 

CONNUMs for which Lian Li did not 

report matching FOP CONNUMs in its 

FOP database. The Department believes 

that the missing FOP CONNUMs are 

attributable to a technical mis–coding 

problem caused partially by the 

Department’s instructions to Lian Li to 

re–code certain products.15 In its April 

11, 2008, response, Lian Li re–coded its 

CONNUMs in its revised U.S. sales 

database but it did not recode the 

corresponding CONNUMs in its FOP 

database accordingly. Pursuant to 

section 776(a) of the Act, the 

Department has determined 

preliminarily to apply facts otherwise 

available to the missing FOP 

CONNUMs. For purposes of these 

preliminary results, as facts available, 

the Department determined FOPs for the 

re–coded sales based on FOPs for 

similar CONNUMs reported by Lian Li. 

See ‘‘Lian Li Preliminary Calculation 

Memo’’16 for further details. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 58545 

from People’s Republic of China,’’ dated September 

29, 2008 (‘‘Lian Li Preliminary Calculation Memo’’). 

17See The Department’s letter to interested 

parties entitled, ‘‘Certain Lined Paper Products from 

People’s Republic of China: Separate Rates 

Application and Separate Rates Certification,’’ 

dated November 20, 2007 (‘‘Separate Rates 

Application and Separate Rates Certification 

Letter’’). 

As stated above, the Department 

intends to issue an additional 

questionnaire to Lian Li to seek further 

clarification of certain information, 

including Lian Li’s missing FOP 

CONNUMs, after issuance of these 

preliminary results. 

Corroboration of Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the 

Department to corroborate, to the extent 

practicable, secondary information used 

as FA. Secondary information is 

Ainformation derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise. See 

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

and (d). The SAA clarifies that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

‘‘secondary information to be used has 

probative value.’’ See Id. The SAA and 

the Department’s regulations state that 

independent sources used to corroborate 

such evidence may include, for 

example, published price lists, official 

import statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation or review. See SAA at 870; 

19 CFR 351.308 (d). To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used. See Ferro Union, Inc. 

v. United States, 44 F.Supp. 2d 1310 

(CIT 1999); section 776 (c) of the Act. 

As stated above, the Department 

calculated partial AFA based on 

information reported by the 

respondents, and did not rely on any 

secondary information. Therefore, 

corroboration is not necessary in this 

review in accordance with section 

776(c) of the Act. 

Separate Rates 

In the Separate Rates Application and 

Separate Rates Certification Letter,17 the 

Department notified parties of the recent 

application process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate–rate 

status in an NME review. The process 

requires exporters and producers to 

submit a separate–rate status 

certification and/or application. See 

also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate– 

Rates Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non–Market 

Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005) 

(‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’), available at 

<http://ia.ita.doc.gov>. However, the 

standard for eligibility for a separate rate 

(which is whether a firm can 

demonstrate an absence of both de jure 

and de facto government control over its 

export activities) has not changed. 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. See Policy Bulletin 05.1. It is 

the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to 

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. Id. Exporters can 

demonstrate this independence through 

the absence of both de jure and de facto 

government control over export 

activities. Id. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Notice of 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 further developed in 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’’). 

However, if the Department determines 

that a company is wholly foreign– 

owned or located in a market economy, 

then a separate–rate analysis is not 

necessary to determine whether it is 

independent from government control. 

See e.g., Final results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax 

Candles from the PRC, 72 FR 52355 

(September 13, 2007). 

A. Separate Rate Recipients 

1. Wholly Foreign–Owned 

The three companies not selected for 

individual examination in this review 

(H.F. Plastics/L.T. Plastics; Denmax/ 

Leo’s Products; and the Watanabe 

Group) reported in their separate–rate 

applications (collectively ‘‘Foreign– 

owned SR Applicants’’) that they are 

wholly owned by individuals or 

companies located in a market 

economy. Therefore, because they are 

wholly foreign–owned, and we have no 

evidence indicating that they are under 

the control of the PRC, a separate–rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether these companies are 

independent from government control. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine 

Monohydrate from the People’s 

Republic of China, 64 FR 71104–05 

(December 20, 1999) (where the 

respondent was wholly foreign–owned 

and, thus, qualified for a separate rate). 

Accordingly, we have preliminarily 

granted a separate rate to these 

companies. 

2. Joint Wholly Chinese–Owned 

Companies 

Lian Li, the mandatory respondent in 

this review, stated that it is a wholly 

Chinese–owned company. Therefore, 

the Department must analyze whether 

this respondent can demonstrate the 

absence of both de jure and de facto 

government control over its export 

activities. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence 

provided by Lian Li supports a 

preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of government control based on the 

following: (1) an absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) there are applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and (3) there 

are formal measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Lian Li’s letter to the Department 

entitled, ‘‘Lined Paper Products from 

China; Section A Response of Shanghai 

Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd.,’’ dated 

December 13, 2007, at Exhibit 1. 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

58546 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 

18See PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture. 

19See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 10. 

20See Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 

F.3d 1442, 1445–1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming 

the Department’s use of market-based prices to 

value certain FOPs). 

21See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011 (September 13, 2005) 

(unchanged in the final results); Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative 

Review, 69 FR 61790 (October 21, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 5, and China National Machinery Import 

& Export Corporation v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 

2d 1334 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal 

Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

government control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. The evidence provided 

by Lian Li supports a preliminary 

finding of de facto absence of 

government control based on the 

following: (1) Lian Li sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) Lian Li has 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; (3) Lian Li has 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) there 

is no restriction on any of Lian Li’s use 

of export revenue. See Lian Li’s letter to 

the Department entitled, ‘‘Lined Paper 

Products from China; Section A 

Response of Shanghai Lian Li Paper 

Products Co., Ltd.,’’ dated December 13, 

2007, at Exhibit 1. 

Therefore, the Department 

preliminarily finds that Lian Li has 

established that it qualifies for a 

separate rate under the criteria 

established by Silicon Carbide and 

Sparklers. 

Separate Rate Calculation 

This review covers four exporters. As 

stated previously, the Department 

selected one exporter, Lian Li, as a 

mandatory respondent in this review. 

The remaining three companies (H.F. 

Plastics/L.T. Plastics; Denmax/Leo’s 

Products; and the Watanabe Group) 

submitted timely information as 

requested by the Department and 

remain subject to this review as 

cooperative separate–rate respondents. 

For the exporters subject to this 

review that were determined to be 

eligible for separate–rate status, but 

were not selected as mandatory 

respondents (‘‘Separate–Rate 

Recipients’’), the Department normally 

establishes a weighted–average margin 

based on an average of the rates it 

calculated for the mandatory 

respondents, excluding any rates that 

are zero, de minimis, or based entirely 

on AFA.18 In this proceeding, there is 

only one mandatory respondent. 

Accordingly, for these preliminary 

results, the rate calculated for Lian Li is 

applied as the rate for non–selected 

separate entities. That rate is 217.23 

percent. Entities receiving this rate are 

identified by name in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

Date of Sale 

Lian Li reported the invoice date as 

the date of sale because it claims that, 

for its U.S. sales of subject merchandise 

made during the POR, the material 

terms of sale were established on the 

invoice date. We have preliminarily 

determined that the invoice date is the 

most appropriate date to use as Lian Li’s 

date of sale in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(i) and the Department’s long– 

standing practice of determining the 

date of sale.19

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of lined 

paper products to the United States by 

Lian Li were made at less than NV, we 

compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as 

described in the ‘‘Export Price,’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice, 

pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act. 

Export Price 

We based U.S. price for Lian Li on EP 

in accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated purchaser was made prior 

to importation, and constructed export 

price was not otherwise warranted by 

the facts on the record. We calculated 

EP based on the packed price from the 

exporter to the first unaffiliated 

customer in the United States. We 

deducted foreign inland freight from the 

starting price (gross unit price), in 

accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Act. 

Lian Li incurred foreign inland freight 

expenses from PRC service providers. 

We therefore valued these services using 

Indian surrogate values (see ‘‘Factors of 

Production’’ section below for further 

discussion). 

Normal Value 

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

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine NV using 

an FOP methodology if the merchandise 

is exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home–market 

prices, third–country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. 

The Department will base NV on 

FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NME economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under our 

normal methodologies. Therefore, we 

calculated NV based on FOPs in 

accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and 

(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). 

The FOPs include: (1) hours of labor 

required; (2) quantities of raw materials 

employed; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; and (4) 

representative capital costs. We used the 

FOPs reported by respondents for 

materials, energy, labor, by–products, 

and packing, with the exception of 

subject merchandise produced by 

Sentian and MPF, as noted above. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to value the FOPs, but 

when a producer sources an input from 

a market–economy country and pays for 

it in market–economy currency, the 

Department may value the factor using 

the actual price paid for the input.20

Lian Li reported that it did not purchase 

any inputs from market–economy 

suppliers for the production of the 

subject merchandise. See Lian Li’s 

January 10, 2008, questionnaire 

response at 4. 

With regard to both the Indian 

import–based surrogate values and the 

market–economy input values, we have 

disregarded prices that we have reason 

to believe or suspect may be 

subsidized.21 We have reason to believe 

or suspect that prices of inputs from 

India, Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non–industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries may be subsidized. 

We are also guided by the statute’s 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 58547 

22See http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. 

legislative history that explains that it is 

not necessary to conduct a formal 

investigation to ensure that such prices 

are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100– 

576 at 590 (1988). Rather, the 

Department was instructed by Congress 

to base its decision on information that 

is available to it at the time it is making 

its determination. Id. Therefore, we 

have not used prices from these 

countries in calculating the Indian 

import–based surrogate values. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, for subject merchandise 

produced by Lian Li, we calculated NV 

based on the FOPs reported by Lian Li 

for the POR. To calculate NV, we 

multiplied the reported per–unit factor 

quantities by publicly available Indian 

surrogate values (except as noted 

below). In selecting the surrogate values, 

the Department considers the quality, 

specificity, and contemporaneity of the 

data. See, e.g., PRC Lined Paper 

Investigation Final and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3. 

As appropriate, we adjusted input 

prices by including freight costs to 

render them delivered prices. 

Specifically, we added to Indian import 

surrogate values a surrogate freight cost 

using the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma 

Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed 

description of all surrogate values used 

for Lian Li, see the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Except as noted below, we valued raw 

material inputs using the surrogate 

values denominated in Indian rupees 

(‘‘Rs’’) using the Indian Wholesale Price 

Index (‘‘WPI’’) from the RBI Handbook 

of Statistics on Indian Economy as 

published on the Reserve Bank of India 

website. See www.rbi.org.in, a printout 

of which is attached to the Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. We applied a 

surrogate value using Indian import 

prices for the POI reported in the 

Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade 

of India, as published by the Directorate 

General of Commercial Intelligence and 

Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce 

and Industry, Government of India, and 

available from World Trade Atlas 

(‘‘WTA’’).22 We excluded from our 

calculations any imports from NME 

countries, imports from unspecified 

countries, and imports from countries 

which the Department has determined 

maintain non–specific export subsidies 

(i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand). Where necessary we adjusted 

surrogate values for inflation, exchange 

rates, and taxes, and we converted all 

applicable items to a per–kilogram 

(‘‘Kg’’) basis. 

To value electricity, we valued 

electricity rates using the WPI in the 

India Source: Reserve Bank of India 

Bulletin Electricity Source, Table 178, of 

the Handbook of Statistics on the Indian 

Economy under the All Commodities 

Source. We adjusted the value to reflect 

inflation using the ‘‘Fuel, Power, Light 

and Lubricants’’ inflation index 

published in the Table 178, a copy of 

which is attached to the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value water, we used the revised 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation water rates for June 1, 2003 

for the Mumbai region, available at 

http://www.midcindia.com/water 

supply, adjusted for inflation. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

For direct labor, indirect labor and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

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

regression–based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s web site. 

Because this regression–based wage rate 

does not separate the labor rates into 

different skill levels or types of labor, 

we have applied the same wage rate to 

all skill levels and types of labor 

reported by each respondent. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8. 

For factory overhead, selling, general, 

and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), 

Lian Li submitted financial information 

for the year–ended March 31, 2007, for 

one Indian producer of comparable 

merchandise: Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. 

(‘‘Sundaram’’), a producer of 

comparable merchandise. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we 

preliminarily determine that 

Sundaram’s financial statement is the 

best available information with which to 

calculate financial ratios, because it is 

complete, publicly available, and 

contemporaneous with the POR. 

Therefore, we used the financial 

statements to value factory overhead, 

SG&A, and profit, for these preliminary 

results. 

For packing materials, we used the 

per–kilogram values obtained from the 

WTA and made adjustments to account 

for freight costs incurred between the 

PRC suppliers plant. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

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

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

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

Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted–average dumping 

margin exists: 

The weighted–average dumping margins 

are as follows: 

Exporter 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products 

Co., Ltd. .................................. 217.23 

Hwa Fuh Plastics Co., Ltd./Li 

Teng Plastics (Shenzhen) Co., 

Ltd. .......................................... 217.23 

Leo’s Quality Products Co., Ltd./ 

Denmax Plastic Stationery 

Factory .................................... 217.23 

The Watanabe Group (consisting 

of the following companies).

Watanabe Paper Product 

(Shenghai) Co., Ltd. ................ 217.23 

Watanabe Paper Product 

(Linqing) Co., Ltd..

Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) 

Co., Ltd..

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Because, as discussed above, 

we intend to seek additional 

information, we will establish the 

briefing schedule at a later time, and 

will notify parties of the schedule in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309. 

Parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each 

argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2) 

a brief summary of the argument; and 3) 

a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room 1117, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

1) the party’s name, address and 

telephone number; 2) the number of 

participants; and 3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. Id. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of the issues 

raised in any written briefs, not later 

than 120 days after the date of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

58548 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 

1See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Director, 

Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, through James 

Terpstra, Program Manager, from George McMahon, 

Case Analyst, Regarding Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India—Selection of Respondents for 

Individual Review, dated November 13, 2007 

(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

will issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the publication of the final results 

of this review. For assessment purposes, 

where possible, we calculated importer– 

specific assessment rates for certain 

lined paper products from the PRC via 

ad valorem duty assessment rates based 

on the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis. The final 

results of this review shall be the basis 

for the assessment of antidumping 

duties on entries of merchandise 

covered by the final results of these 

reviews and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the 

‘‘PRC–wide’’ rate if there is no rate for 

the intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

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

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non–PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 258.21 percent; 

and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: September 29, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–23713 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–843] 

Certain Lined Paper Products From 

India: Preliminary Results of the First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain lined 

paper products from India with respect 

to 20 companies. The respondents 

which the Department selected for 

individual examination are Kejriwal 

Paper Limited (‘‘Kejriwal’’) and Ria 

ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Ria’’).1 The 

respondents which were not selected for 

individual examination are listed in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. This is the first 

administrative review of this order. The 

period of review (POR) is April 17, 

2006, through August 31, 2007. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

made by Kejriwal have not been made 

at below normal value (‘‘NV’’). Because 

Ria is a selected mandatory respondent 

and was not responsive to the 

Department’s requests for information, 

we have preliminarily assigned to Ria a 

margin based on adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’). In addition, based on the 

preliminary results for the respondents 

selected for individual examination, we 

have preliminarily determined a 

weighted-average margin for those 

companies that are subject to review but 

not selected for individual examination. 

See the ‘‘Non-Selected Rate’’ section 

below for details. If the preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of administrative review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 7, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Lai Robinson or George 

McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

3, Import Administration-Room 1117, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3797 or (202) 482–1167, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 28, 2006, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register an antidumping duty order on 

certain lined paper products from India. 

See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of 

China; Notice of Antidumping Duty 

Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products 

from India, Indonesia and the People’s 

Republic of China; and Notice of 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain 

Lined Paper Products from India and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES