[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58540-58548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23713]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006) 
(Lined Paper Order).
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 50657 (September 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Regarding respondent selection in general, see also 19 CFR 
351.204(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 58541]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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).
    \6\ See Memorandum to Wendy Frankel regarding the Request for a 
List of Surrogate Countries, dated December 20, 2007 (``Office of 
Policy Surrogate Countries Memo'').
    \7\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> unlined copy machine paper;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook 
organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not 
include subject paper;
    <bullet> index cards;
    <bullet> printed books and other books that are case bound through 
the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;
    <bullet> newspapers;
    <bullet> pictures and photographs;
    <bullet> desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not 
limited to such products generally known as ``office planners,'' ``time 
books,'' and ``appointment books'');
    <bullet> telephone logs;
    <bullet> address books;
    <bullet> columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily 
suited for the recording of written numerical business data;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> lined continuous computer paper;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Fly\TM\ 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 Fly\TM\ pen-top 
computer. The product must bear the valid trademark Fly\TM\ (products 
found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not 
excluded from the scope).
    <bullet> Zwipes\TM\: A notebook or notebook

[[Page 58542]]

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 
Zwipes\TM\ 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 
Zwipes\TM\ (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used 
trademark are not excluded from the scope).
    <bullet> FiveStar[reg] Advance\TM\: 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<gr-thn-eq> 
wide elastic fabric band. This band is located 2-3/8<gr-thn-eq> 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[reg] Advance\TM\ (products found to be 
bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from 
the scope).
    <bullet> FiveStar Flex\TM\: 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 Flex\TM\ 
(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 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).
    \9\ See 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)
    \10\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 58543]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See the Department's supplemental Sections C and D 
questionnaire dated March 6, 2008, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 58544]]

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{time} 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, Consol. Ct. No. 03-00302, Slip Op. 07-135 (CIT September 4, 
2007) (``China Kingdom'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Specifically, 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'').
    \16\ See 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 from People's Republic of China,'' dated September 29, 2008 
(``Lian Li Preliminary Calculation Memo'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 58545]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 58546]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 58547]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                        Exporter                          Average Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd...............         217.23
Hwa Fuh Plastics Co., Ltd./Li Teng Plastics (Shenzhen)          217.23
 Co., Ltd..............................................
Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd./Denmax Plastic                 217.23
 Stationery Factory....................................
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

[[Page 58548]]

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