Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 57323 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–1766. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 3, 2003, the Department 

issued its final results in the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of certain preserved mushrooms from 

the PRC covering the POR of February 

1, 2001, through January 31, 2002. See 

Final Results. In the Final Results, the 

Department applied total adverse facts 

available (AFA) in calculating the cash 

deposit and assessment rates for 

respondents Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., 

Ltd. (Gerber) and Green Fresh 

(Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Green Fresh). See 

Final Results, 68 FR at 41306. The 

Department found that Gerber and 

Green Fresh were involved in a business 

arrangement during the POR that 

resulted in the circumvention of the 

proper payment of cash deposits on 

certain POR entries of subject 

merchandise made by Gerber. Id. As 

total AFA, the Department applied the 

PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent to both 

companies. Gerber and Green Fresh 

challenged the Department’s resorting to 

total AFA to determine their cash 

deposit and assessment rates for the 

POR in the Final Results. 

In Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. 

and Green Fresh (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. 

v. United States, Slip Op. 05–84 (July 

18, 2005) (Gerber v. United States I), the 

CIT remanded the Final Results, holding 

that the Department’s application of the 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ and 

‘‘adverse inference’’ provisions was not 

supported by substantial record 

evidence and was otherwise not in 

accordance with law. In Gerber v. 

United States II, the CIT held that the 

Department’s Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand complied with the 

remand order in Gerber v. United States 

I in some respects but not others, and 

remanded the redetermination to the 

Department for further reconsideration. 

On September 18, 2007, the 

Department issued its final results of 

redetermination pursuant to Gerber v. 

United States II. The remand 

redetermination explained that, in 

accordance with the CIT’s instructions, 

the Department: (1) Recalculated the 

assessment rate for Gerber using a rate 

other than the PRC-wide rate as partial 

AFA with respect to certain POR sales 

of subject merchandise produced by 

Gerber for which the customs entry 

documentation identified Green Fresh 

as the exporter; and (2) recalculated the 

assessment rate for Green Fresh based 

on the data it reported, exclusive of the 

aforementioned transactions, without 

resorting to facts available or adverse 

inferences. The Department’s 

redetermination resulted in changes to 

the Final Results weighted-average 

margins for Gerber from 198.63 percent 

to 92.11 percent, and for Green Fresh 

from 84.26 percent to 31.55 percent. 

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 

341, the CAFC held that, pursuant to 

section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), the 

Department must publish a notice of a 

court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ 

with a Department determination and 

must suspend liquidation of entries 

pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. 

The CIT’s decision in Gerber v. United 

States III on September 16, 2008, 

constitutes a final decision of that court 

that is not in harmony with the 

Department’s Final Results. This notice 

is published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Accordingly, the Department will 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of the subject merchandise pending the 

expiration of the period of appeal or, if 

appealed, pending a final and 

conclusive court decision. In the event 

the CIT’s ruling is not appealed or, if 

appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the 

Department will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of the 

subject merchandise during the POR 

from Gerber and Green Fresh based on 

the revised assessment rates calculated 

by the Department. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 26, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–23269 Filed 10–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–921] 

Lightweight Thermal Paper From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

lightweight thermal paper (‘‘LWTP’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’). For information on the 

estimated countervailing duty rates, 

please see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section, below. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Layton, David Neubacher, or 

Scott Holland, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0371, (202) 482–5823, or (202) 482– 

1279, respectively. 

Petitioner 

The Petitioner in this investigation is 

Appleton Papers, Inc. (‘‘the Petitioner’’). 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, or period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’), is January 1, 

2006, through December 31, 2006. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the announcement of the 

preliminary determination on March 10, 

2008. See Lightweight Thermal Paper 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Alignment of 

Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination with Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination, 73 FR 13850 

(March 14, 2007) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). 

The Department issued questionnaires 

to the Government of the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘GOC’’), Shanghai 

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

Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘GG’’) and GG’s affiliated input 

supplier Zhanjiang Guanlong Paper 

Industrial Co., Ltd (‘‘ZG’’) regarding new 

subsidy allegations filed by the 

Petitioner on February 8 and February 

14, 2008. We received responses to 

these questionnaires and to several 

supplemental questionnaires, and 

comments from the Petitioner regarding 

the responses. 

The Petitioner and GG/ZG submitted 

additional factual information 

consistent within the deadline for the 

submission of factual information 

established by 19 CFR 351.301(b)(1). 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department stated that it would accept 

the claim of respondent Xiamen Anne 

Paper Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xiamen Anne’’) that it 

made no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POI, subject to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

57324 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 

1See Preliminary Determination at 73 FR 13850. 

2LWTP 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 rolls and converted rolls (as well 

as LWTP in any other forms, presentations, or 

dimensions) are covered by the scope of these 

investigations. 

3A 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. 

4A thermal active coating is typically made of 

sensitizer, dye, and co-reactant. 

5A 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. 

6HTSUS 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. 

7See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation: Lightweight Thermal Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 62209, 62210 

(November 2, 2007) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

8See ITC website located at http://usitc.gov/ 

which describes 3703.1060 as ‘‘photographic paper, 

paperboard, and textiles, sensitized: other.’’ 9See id, which describes HTSUS subheading 

4859.10 as ‘‘other: In strips or rolls of a width 

exceeding 15 cm or in rectangular (including 

square) sheets with one side exceeding 36 cm and 

the other side exceeding 15 cm in the unfolded 

state.’’ 10See id, which describes HTSUS subheading 

4820.10 as ‘‘Registers, account books, notebooks, 

order books, receipt books, letter pads, 

memorandum pads, diaries and similar articles.’’ 

11See id, which describes HTSUS subheading 

4823.40 as ‘‘Rolls, sheets and dials, printed for selfrecording apparatus.’’ 

verification.1 On May 6, 2008, counsel 

for Xiamen Anne informed the 

Department that Xiamen Anne would 

not participate further in the 

investigation and canceled the 

scheduled on-site verification of its 

shipments. See Memorandum to File, 

‘‘E-mail Correspondence with 

Respondent Xiamen Anne Paper Co. 

Ltd.’’ (May 7, 2008) (‘‘Xiamen Anne 

Memo’’). On May 7, 2008, the 

Department informed Xiamen Anne that 

if it did not participate in the on-site 

verification, the Department might use 

facts otherwise available, in accordance 

with section 776 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) and 19 

CFR 351.308. See further discussion in 

the ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available’’ 

section below. 

From June 18 through July 1, 2008, we 

conducted verification of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

the GOC, Hanhong, GG and ZG. 

On September 2, 2008, we issued our 

post-preliminary determination 

regarding the new subsidy allegations 

and certain other programs discovered 

in the course of the investigation. See 

Memorandum to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, entitled ‘‘PostPreliminary Findings for New Subsidy 

Allegations,’’ dated September 2, 2008, 

which is on file in the Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’). 

On September 2, 2008, the 

Department issued a preliminary 

determination that ZG was 

uncreditworthy for the years 2003 and 

2004. See Memorandum from David 

Neubacher to Susan Kuhbach, Senior 

Director, Office 1, regarding 

‘‘Preliminary Creditworthiness 

Determination for Zhanjiang Guanlong 

Paper Industrial Co., Ltd.,’’ dated 

September 2, 2008, which is on file in 

the CRU. 

We received case briefs from the GOC, 

GG/ZG and the Petitioner on September 

10, 2008. The same parties submitted 

rebuttal briefs on September 15, 2008. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise subject to 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; 2 with or 

without a base coat 3 on one or both 

sides; with thermal active coating(s) 4 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; 5 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 4823.40.00.6 Although 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

The scope listed above has changed 

from the Preliminary Determination. 

We set aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. See Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The 

Department encouraged all interested 

parties to submit such comments within 

20 calendar days of signature of the 

Initiation Notice.7 We only received 

comments on the scope from the 

Petitioner. See the Petitioner’s letter to 

the Department regarding, ‘‘Lightweight 

Thermal Paper from China, Germany, 

and Korea,’’ dated November 19, 2007. 

Petitioner requested that the Department 

include in LWTP’s scope language the 

HTSUS subheadings 3703.10.60,8

4811.59,9 4820.10,10 and 4823.40,11

because LWTP may enter the United 

States under one of these HTSUS 

subheadings. Specifically, the Petitioner 

contends that HTSUS subheading 

3703.1060 should be included because 

LWTP is sensitive to heat radiation; 

LWTP with certain latex topcoats could 

enter as paper coated with plastic under 

HTSUS subheading 4811.59; HTSUS 

subheading 4820.10’s description may 

encompass products converted from 

thermal paper; and HTSUS subheading 

4823.40’s description appears to 

encompass LWTP not elsewhere 

specified within the HTSUS. 

On April 11, 2008, and April 16, 

2008, the Department received a request 

from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to update the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

(‘‘AD/CVD’’) module for LWTP from the 

PRC. Specifically, CBP requested that 

the Department add HTSUS 

subheadings 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 

4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00 to the 

AD/CVD module. See the Department’s 

memorandum to the file entitled, 

‘‘Request from Customs and Border 

Protection to update AD/CVD Module,’’ 

dated April 17, 2008. Based on the 

requests from the Petitioner and CBP, 

we are modifying the scope of this 

investigation to include the additional 

HTSUS subheadings. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to a U.S. industry. On December 

11, 2007, the ITC published its 

preliminary determination that there is 

a reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is threatened with 

material injury by reason of allegedly 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 57325 

subsidized imports of LWTP from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) and 

Germany. See Certain Lightweight 

Thermal Paper from China, Germany 

and Korea, Investigation Nos. 701–TA– 

415 and 731–TA–1126–1128, 72 FR 

70343 (Preliminary) (December 11, 

2007). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

decision memorandum, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. See ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Determination,’’ from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated September 25, 

2008 (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’). 

Attached to this notice as an Appendix 

is a list of the issues that parties have 

raised and to which we have responded 

in the Decision Memorandum. Parties 

can find a complete discussion of all 

issues raised in this investigation and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the CRU. In addition, a complete 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

can be accessed directly on the Internet 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

Adverse Inferences 

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 or any 

other person: (A) Withholds information 

that has been requested; (B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding; or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. 

In this investigation, Shenzhen 

Yuanming Industrial Development Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Shenzhen Yuanming’’), MDCN 

Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘MDCN’’), and 

Xiamen Anne did not provide the 

requested information that is necessary 

to determine a CVD rate for this final 

determination. Specifically, MDCN did 

not respond to the Department’s 

December 14, 2007, request for 

shipment data and never participated in 

the investigation. Shenzhen Yuanming 

responded to the Department’s 

December 14, 2007, request for 

shipment data, but failed to respond to 

the Department’s January 4, 2008, CVD 

questionnaire and ceased to participate 

further in the investigation after the 

December 26, 2007, submission of its 

shipment data. In the case of Xiamen 

Anne, on November 29, 2007 it notified 

the Department that it did not ship the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POI. However, Xiamen 

Anne did not permit the Department to 

verify Xiamen Anne’s claim of no 

shipments of subject merchandise, and 

since May 6, 2008, Xiamen Anne has 

not participated in the investigation. See 

Memorandum to File, ‘‘E-mail 

Correspondence with Respondent 

Xiamen Anne Paper Co. Ltd.’’ (May 7, 

2008). Thus, in reaching our final 

determination, pursuant to section 

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

based the countervailing duty rates of 

Shenzhen Yuanming, MDCN, and 

Xiamen Anne on facts otherwise 

available. 

In selecting from among the facts 

available, the Department has 

determined that an adverse inference is 

warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act because, in addition to not fully 

responding to all of our requests for 

information, MDCN, Shenzhen 

Yuanming and Xiamen Anne withdrew 

from all participation in the 

investigation. MDCN failed to respond 

to any of the Department’s 

questionnaires. Shenzhen Yuanming 

responded to the Department’s 

December 14, 2008, request for 

shipment data, but thereafter ceased to 

participate in the investigation. Xiamen 

Anne notified the Department that it 

had no shipments of subject 

merchandise, but after tentatively 

scheduling an on-site verification, it 

decided to cancel the verification and 

stop its participation in the proceeding. 

Thus, MDCN, Shenzhen Yuanming, and 

Xiamen Anne failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of their abilities to 

comply with the Department’s requests 

for information, and our final 

determination is based on total AFA. 

Accordingly, we find that an adverse 

inference is warranted to ensure that 

MDCN, Shenzhen Yuanming, and 

Xiamen Anne will not obtain a more 

favorable result than had they fully 

complied with our request for 

information. 

In deciding which facts to use as 

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

CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 

Department to 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. It is the Department’s practice to 

select, as AFA, the highest calculated 

rate in any segment of the proceeding. 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is 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 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). The 

Department’s practice also ensures ‘‘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 

(‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 

316, 103d Cong., 2d Session (1994), at 

870. In choosing the appropriate balance 

between providing a respondent with an 

incentive to respond accurately and 

imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondent’s prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins, because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United 

States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 

1990). 

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

Parties can find a full discussion of 

the selection of the AFA rate at 

Comment 1 in the Decision 

Memorandum, which is on file in the 

CRU. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 

calculated an individual rate for the 

companies under investigation: GG, 

Hanhong, MDCN, Shenzhen Yuanming, 

and Xiamen Anne. Section 

705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for 

companies not investigated, we will 

determine an ‘‘all others’’ rate equal to 

the weighted average countervailable 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

57326 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Notices 

subsidy rates established for exporters 

and producers individually 

investigated, excluding any zero and de 

minimis countervailable subsidy rates, 

and any rates determined entirely under 

section 776. As the rates for MDCN, 

Shenzhen Yuanming, and Xiamen Anne 

were calculated under section 776 of the 

Act, those rates were not reflected in the 

‘‘all others’’ rate. 

In accordance with sections 703(d) 

and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for 

companies not investigated, we 

determined an ‘‘all others’’ rate by 

weighting the individual company 

subsidy rate of each of the companies 

investigated by each company’s exports 

of the subject merchandise to the United 

States. The ‘‘all others’’ rate does not 

include zero and de minimis rates or 

any rates based solely on the facts 

available. In this investigation, because 

we have only one rate that can be used 

to calculate the ‘‘all others’’ rate, GG’s 

rate, we have assigned that rate to all 

other non-investigated companies. 

Exporter/manufacturer Net subsidy rate 

Guangdong Guanhao 

High-Tech Co., Ltd.

13.17 

Shanghai Hanhong 

Paper Co., Ltd.

0.57 (de minimis) 

Shenzhen Yuanming Industrial Development 

Co., Ltd.

137.25 

MDCN Technology Co., 

Ltd.

123.65 

Xiamen Anne Paper Co., 

Ltd.

123.65 

All Others ....................... 13.17 

As a result of our Preliminary 

Determination and pursuant to section 

703(d) of the Act, we instructed the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to suspend liquidation of all entries of 

LWTP from the PRC which were entered 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after March 14, 

2008, the date of the publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register, except for entries from 

Hanhong, which had a de minimis rate. 

In accordance with section 703(d) of 

the Act, we instructed CBP to 

discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for countervailing duty 

purposes on all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from the warehouse, for consumption 

on or after July 12, 2008, but to continue 

the suspension of liquidation of entries 

made from March 14, 2008 through July 

11, 2008. 

We will issue a countervailing duty 

order and reinstate the suspension of 

liquidation under section 706(a) of the 

Act if the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, and will require a 

cash deposit of estimated countervailing 

duties for such entries of merchandise 

in the amounts indicated above. If the 

ITC determines that material injury, or 

threat of material injury, does not exist, 

this proceeding will be terminated and 

all estimated duties deposited or 

securities posted as a result of the 

suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an APO, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Comments and Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: The Department’s Authority to 

Apply the Countervailing Duty Law to 

China. 

Comment 2: Cut-off Date for Recognition of 

Subsidies. 

Comment 3: Adverse Facts Available 

(‘‘AFA’’). 

Comment 4: Sales Denominator for GG and 

ZG. 

Comment 5: Government Policy Lending— 

Specificity. 

Comment 6: Government Policy Lending— 

Financial Contribution. 

Comment 7: Government Policy Lending— 

Whether Particular Banks Are 

‘‘Authorities’’. 

Comment 8: Chinese Interest Rates as the 

Benchmark. 

Comment 9: Benchmark Rates. 

Comment 10: Whether to Countervail Certain 

Loans Received from Shareholders. 

Comment 11: Provision of Electricity for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration. 

Comment 12: Provision of Land for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration. 

Comment 13: Stamp Tax and Income Tax 

Exemption Under Non-Tradable Share 

Reform. 

Comment 14: Whether ZG is Creditworthy. 

Comment 15: Double Counting/Overlapping 

Remedies. 

[FR Doc. E8–23271 Filed 10–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

ADMINISTRATION 

(A–428–840) 

Lightweight Thermal Paper from 

Germany: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has determined that 

imports of lightweight thermal paper 

(LWTP) from Germany are being, or are 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value (LFTV), as provided 

in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). The final 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Determination Margins.’’ 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Robinson or George McMahon, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3797 or (202) 482– 

1167, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On May 13, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

preliminary determination in the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

LWTP from Germany. See Lightweight 

Thermal Paper from Germany: Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 73 FR 27498 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES