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

1See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Director, 

Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, through James 

Terpstra, Program Manager, from George McMahon, 

Case Analyst, Regarding Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India—Selection of Respondents for 

Individual Review, dated November 13, 2007 

(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

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

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

will issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the publication of the final results 

of this review. For assessment purposes, 

where possible, we calculated importer– 

specific assessment rates for certain 

lined paper products from the PRC via 

ad valorem duty assessment rates based 

on the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis. The final 

results of this review shall be the basis 

for the assessment of antidumping 

duties on entries of merchandise 

covered by the final results of these 

reviews and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

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

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the 

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

the intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

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

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

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

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non–PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 258.21 percent; 

and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: September 29, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

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

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–843] 

Certain Lined Paper Products From 

India: Preliminary Results of the First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain lined 

paper products from India with respect 

to 20 companies. The respondents 

which the Department selected for 

individual examination are Kejriwal 

Paper Limited (‘‘Kejriwal’’) and Ria 

ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Ria’’).1 The 

respondents which were not selected for 

individual examination are listed in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. This is the first 

administrative review of this order. The 

period of review (POR) is April 17, 

2006, through August 31, 2007. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

made by Kejriwal have not been made 

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

Ria is a selected mandatory respondent 

and was not responsive to the 

Department’s requests for information, 

we have preliminarily assigned to Ria a 

margin based on adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’). In addition, based on the 

preliminary results for the respondents 

selected for individual examination, we 

have preliminarily determined a 

weighted-average margin for those 

companies that are subject to review but 

not selected for individual examination. 

See the ‘‘Non-Selected Rate’’ section 

below for details. If the preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of administrative review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 7, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Lai Robinson or George 

McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

3, Import Administration-Room 1117, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3797 or (202) 482–1167, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 28, 2006, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register an antidumping duty order on 

certain lined paper products from India. 

See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of 

China; Notice of Antidumping Duty 

Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products 

from India, Indonesia and the People’s 

Republic of China; and Notice of 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain 

Lined Paper Products from India and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 58549 

2The Petitioner made the review request 

pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), and in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(b)(1). 3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 

61621 (October 31, 2007). 4See Memorandum to File entitled ‘‘Customs and 

Border Patrol Data for Selection of Respondents for 

Individual Review,’’ dated November 13, 2007 

(‘‘CBP Memorandum’’). 

5See Memorandum to File, through James 

Terpstra, Program Manager, Office 3, Office of AD/ 

CVD Operations, from Cindy Robinson, Case 

Analyst, RE: Certain Lined Paper Products from 

India, Subject: Meeting with Petitioner, dated 

January 29, 2008. 

6See Memorandum to all Interested Parties from 

George McMahon, Case Analyst, re: Request for 

Comments Regarding Proposed Modifications to the 

Model Match Criteria, dated December 18, 2007. 

Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 

2006) (‘‘Lined Paper Order’’). 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 India for the period 

April 17, 2006, through August 31, 

2007. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 72 

FR 50657 (September 4, 2007). On 

September 21 and 26, 2007, the 

Department received timely requests for 

an administrative review from two 

respondents, Navneet and Kejriwal, 

respectively. On September 28, 2007, 

the Department received a timely 

request for an administrative review 

from the Association of American 

School Paper Suppliers (‘‘AASPS’’), the 

Petitioner,2 for the following 20 

companies: Blue Bird India Ltd.; 

Creative Divya; Exel India Pvt. Ltd.; FFI 

International; Global Art India Inc.; 

Kejriwal Exports; Kejriwal Paper 

Limited; M/S Super ImpEx.; Magic 

International; Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd.; 

Marisa International; Navneet 

Publications (India) Ltd.; Pioneer 

Stationery Pvt. Ltd.; Rajvansh 

International; Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd.; 

Riddhi Enterprises; SAB International; 

TKS Overseas; Unlimited Accessories 

Worldwide; and V. Joshi Co. 

On October 31, 2007, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review for those 20 

companies.3 On November 13, 2007, the 

Department issued a memorandum 4 to 

interested parties regarding its intention 

to limit the number of companies 

examined by using the CBP entry data. 

In the CBP Memorandum, the 

Department solicited comments from 

interested parties regarding the use of 

CBP data for respondent selection in 

this review. On November 9 and 20, 

2007, the Department received 

comments regarding respondent 

selection from Petitioner. On November 

19, 2007, the Department received 

comments regarding respondent 

selection from Navneet Publications 

(India) Limited (Navneet). On November 

21, 2007, Kejriwal submitted rebuttal 

comments to Petitioner’s comments 

dated November 9, 2007. See the 

‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’ for 

further details. 

On December 3, 2007, Petitioner 

submitted comments with respect to an 

amendment of model match 

methodology. See below for further 

details. On January 17, 2008, Petitioner 

requested an extension for withdrawing 

its review request. The Department 

declined Petitioner’s request on January 

29, 2008.5

Based upon our consideration of the 

resource constraints and other factors 

including our current and anticipated 

workload and deadlines coinciding with 

the segment in question, we determined 

that it was not practicable to examine all 

exporters/producers of subject 

merchandise for which a review was 

requested. As a result, on December 17, 

2007, we selected the two largest 

producers/exporters of certain lined 

paper products from India during the 

POR (i.e., Kejriwal and Ria) for 

individual examination, based on the 

volume information in the CBP data 

placed on record of this proceeding. See 

the ‘‘Respondent Selection Memo.’’ On 

this same date, we issued the 

antidumping questionnaire to Kejriwal 

and Ria. 

On December 3, 2007, we received 

Petitioner’s comments regarding 

amendment of model match 

methodology by narrowing the paper 

volume categories from 24 to 7 

categories. On December 18, 2007, the 

Department invited interested parties to 

this proceeding to comment on the 

methodology that Petitioner proposed.6

The Department did not receive 

comments on this matter from any other 

interested parties. On February 7, 2008, 

Petitioner requested that the Department 

adopt the criteria as outlined in its 

December 3, 2007 comments and revise 

the model match criteria for this review. 

In light of the fact that there were no 

viable comparison market sales of the 

subject merchandise reported by the 

mandatory respondents in this 

proceeding, the Department does not 

have a sufficient basis to examine the 

model match issues raised by Petitioner 

in the context of this review. Therefore, 

we did not revise the model match 

criteria for purposes of this review. See 

the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section below for 

further details. 

On January 23, 2008, we received an 

e-mail from Ria requesting a five-week 

extension of the deadline to file its 

response to the Department’s 

questionnaire issued on December 17, 

2007. Because this request for extension 

was not properly filed, in accordance 

with the Department’s filing and service 

regulations, with the Central Records 

Unit, the Department issued a letter to 

Ria on January 23, 2008, instructing Ria 

to properly file its request and properly 

serve it on the interested parties. In 

addition, the Department granted a 

partial extension until February 6, 2008 

for Ria to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire. However, Ria did not 

correct its filing, nor did it submit any 

questionnaire responses to the 

Department. 

On February 6, 2008, Kejriwal filed its 

sections A, C, and D response to the 

Department’s questionnaire. Petitioner 

provided its comments on Kejriwal’s 

questionnaire response on February 28, 

2008. 

On February 7, 2008, Navneet 

informed the Department that it was 

unable to submit a voluntary response 

but indicated that should one of the 

mandatory respondents not respond, it 

would request additional time to file its 

response. On February 13, 2008, 

Petitioner requested that the Department 

deny Navneet’s extension request for 

filing its questionnaire response because 

Navneet is not a mandatory respondent. 

On February 20, 2008, the Department 

denied Navneet’s extension request 

because the deadline to file a voluntary 

questionnaire response had passed. 

On March 14, 2008, we issued the 

first sections A-D supplemental 

questionnaire to Kejriwal. On April 21, 

2008, Kejriwal submitted its response to 

the Department’s first sections A-D 

supplemental questionnaire, to which 

Petitioner submitted its comments on 

May 5, 2008. On May 13 and 28, and 

July 24, 2008, the Department issued 

additional section D supplemental 

questionnaires to Kejriwal, and Kejriwal 

submitted its responses on May 28, June 

17, and August 18, 2008, respectively. 

On July 11 and August 4, 2008, the 

Department issued additional sections A 

and C supplemental questionnaires to 

Kejriwal, which submitted its responses 

on July 25 and August 21, 2008, 

respectively. Petitioner provided further 

comments and Kejriwal provided its 

rebuttal comments on sections A, C, and 

D supplemental questionnaire responses 

between May 5 and June 9, 2008. 

On March 20, 2008, Kejriwal 

requested an extension for submitting 

factual information. The Department 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

58550 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 

7See the Department’s letter to Kejriwal, dated 

March 20, 2008, extending the due date for 

interested parties to submit new factual information 

on the record of this proceeding from March 20, 

2008 to April 3, 2008. In its April 3, 2008 

submission, Kejriwal states that Petitioner 

requested a review of Blue Bird and asserts that 

Blue Bird is an Indian producer of subject 

merchandise. 

8Petitioner’s submitted information contains the 

publicly available 2006–2007 financial statement of 

Navneet, an Indian producer of subject 

merchandise. 

9The Department found that Petitioner’s 

submission was filed after the Department’s April 

3, 2008 deadline for filing factual information. 

Moreover, it did not meet the regulatory 

requirements of 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) because the 

Navneet financial statement submitted by Petitioner 

did not rebut, clarify or correct information 

previously on the record, i.e., the Blue Bird 

financial statement. Specifically, on page 2 of its 

April 10, 2008, letter, Petitioner simply states 

‘‘{c}oncerning the calculation of Kejriwal’s selling 

expense and profit ratios, we hereby submit rebuttal 

information in the form of publicly available, and 

fully audited 2006–2007 financial statement of 

Navneet Publications (India) Ltd.—an Indian 

producer of subject merchandise.’’ Petitioner has 

made no statements or arguments as to why 

Navneet’s rather than Blue Bird’s selling and profit 

data should be used by the Department in this 

review, or why it is relevant to the information 

placed on the record by Kejriwal on April 13, 2008. 

Accordingly, the Department rejected Petitioner’s 

April 10, 2008, submission. See the Department’s 

April 28, 2008, letter from Melissa G. Skinner, 

Director, Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, to AASPS; 

RE: 2006—2007 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order of Certain Lined Paper 

from India; SUBJECT: Removal of untimely filed 

factual information from the Record. 

granted Kejriwal’s extension request.7

On April 3, 2008, Kejriwal submitted 

factual information, which includes a 

public financial statement of Blue Bird 

India, Ltd. (‘‘Blue Bird’’). On April 10, 

2008, Petitioner submitted a letter 

containing certain factual information 8

which, Petitioners claimed, rebuts and 

clarifies information submitted by 

Kejriwal on April 3, 2008. On April 11, 

2008, Kejriwal filed a letter requesting 

that the Department remove Petitioner’s 

April 10, 2008, submission from the 

record of this administrative review on 

the grounds that Petitioner’s submission 

did not meet the regulatory 

requirements of 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) as 

it did not rebut, clarify or correct 

information previously on the record. 

On April 17, 2008, Petitioner rebutted 

Kejriwal’s April 11, 2008, comments, 

asserting that the prior case decisions 

referenced by Kejriwal are not 

applicable because they refer to nonmarket economy cases. On April 28, 

2008, the Department rejected 

Petitioner’s April 10, 2008, submission 

because this submission contained new 

factual information which was untimely 

submitted and the information 

presented by Petitioner did not rebut, 

clarify, or correct the information 

reported in Blue Bird’s financial 

statement.9

On May 2, 2008, the Department 

postponed the preliminary results in 

this review until no later than 

September 29, 2008. See Certain Lined 

Paper Products from India: Extension of 

Time Limits for the Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 24219 (May 2, 2008). 

On September 12, 2008, Petitioner 

filed pre-preliminary comments, to 

which Kejriwal submitted its rebuttal 

comments on September 17, 2008. 

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 

loose leaf filler paper) including but not 

limited to such products as single- and 

multi-subject notebooks, composition 

books, wireless notebooks, loose leaf 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 83⁄4 inches to 15 

inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are 

measured size (not advertised, stated, or 

‘‘tear-out’’ size), and are measured as 

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

and folded pages in a notebook are 

measured by the size of the page as it 

appears in the notebook page, not the 

size of the unfolded paper). However, 

for measurement purposes, pages with 

tapered or rounded edges shall be 

measured at their longest and widest 

points. Subject lined paper products 

may be loose, packaged or bound using 

any binding method (other than case 

bound through the inclusion of binders 

board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). 

Subject merchandise may or may not 

contain any combination of a front 

cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of 

any composition, regardless of the 

inclusion of images or graphics on the 

cover, backing, or paper. Subject 

merchandise is within the scope of this 

order whether or not the lined paper 

and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, 

perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject 

merchandise may contain accessory or 

informational items including but not 

limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, 

closure devices, index cards, stencils, 

protractors, writing implements, 

reference materials such as 

mathematical tables, or printed items 

such as sticker sheets or miniature 

calendars, if such items are physically 

incorporated, included with, or attached 

to the product, cover and/or backing 

thereto. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of this order are: 

• Unlined copy machine paper; 

• Writing pads with a backing 

(including but not limited to products 

commonly known as ‘‘tablets,’’ ‘‘note 

pads,’’ ‘‘legal pads,’’ and ‘‘quadrille 

pads’’), provided that they do not have 

a front cover (whether permanent or 

removable). This exclusion does not 

apply to such writing pads if they 

consist of hole-punched or drilled filler 

paper; 

• Three-ring or multiple-ring binders, 

or notebook organizers incorporating 

such a ring binder provided that they do 

not include subject paper; 

• Index cards; 

• Printed books and other books that 

are case bound through the inclusion of 

binders board, a spine strip, and cover 

wrap; 

• Newspapers; 

• Pictures and photographs; 

• Desk and wall calendars and 

organizers (including but not limited to 

such products generally known as 

‘‘office planners,’’ ‘‘time books,’’ and 

‘‘appointment books’’); 

• Telephone logs; 

• Address books; 

• Columnar pads & tablets, with or 

without covers, primarily suited for the 

recording of written numerical business 

data; 

• Lined business or office forms, 

including but not limited to: pre-printed 

business forms, lined invoice pads and 

paper, mailing and address labels, 

manifests, and shipping log books; 

• Lined continuous computer paper; 

• Boxed or packaged writing 

stationary (including but not limited to 

products commonly known as ‘‘fine 

business paper,’’ ‘‘parchment paper,’’ 

and ‘‘letterhead’’), whether or not 

containing a lined header or decorative 

lines; 

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

Gregg ruled (‘‘Gregg ruling’’ consists of 

a single-or double-margin vertical ruling 

line down the center of the page. For a 

six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad, 

the ruling would be located 

approximately three inches from the left 

of the book), measuring 6 inches by 9 

inches; 

Also excluded from the scope of this 

order are the following trademarked 

products: 

• FlyTM lined paper products: A 

notebook, notebook organizer, loose or 

glued note paper, with papers that are 

printed with infrared reflective inks and 

readable only by a FlyTM pen-top 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 58551 

computer. The product must bear the 

valid trademark FlyTM (products found 

to be bearing an invalidly licensed or 

used trademark are not excluded from 

the scope). 

• ZwipesTM: A notebook or notebook 

organizer made with a blended 

polyolefin writing surface as the cover 

and pocket surfaces of the notebook, 

suitable for writing using a speciallydeveloped permanent marker and erase 

system (known as a ZwipesTM pen). 

This system allows the marker portion 

to mark the writing surface with a 

permanent ink. The eraser portion of the 

marker dispenses a solvent capable of 

solubilizing the permanent ink allowing 

the ink to be removed. The product 

must bear the valid trademark ZwipesTM

(products found to be bearing an 

invalidly licensed or used trademark are 

not excluded from the scope). 

• FiveStarAdvanceTM: A notebook 

or notebook organizer bound by a 

continuous spiral, or helical, wire and 

with plastic front and rear covers made 

of a blended polyolefin plastic material 

joined by 300 denier polyester, coated 

on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl 

chloride) coating, and extending the 

entire length of the spiral or helical 

wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are 

of specific thickness; front cover is 

0.019 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances) and rear 

cover is 0.028 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances). Integral with 

the stitching that attaches the polyester 

spine covering, is captured both ends of 

a 1′′ wide elastic fabric band. This band 

is located 23⁄8’’ from the top of the front 

plastic cover and provides pen or pencil 

storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are 

cut and then bent backwards to overlap 

with the previous coil but specifically 

outside the coil diameter but inside the 

polyester covering. During construction, 

the polyester covering is sewn to the 

front and rear covers face to face 

(outside to outside) so that when the 

book is closed, the stitching is 

concealed from the outside. Both free 

ends (the ends not sewn to the cover 

and back) are stitched with a turned 

edge construction. The flexible 

polyester material forms a covering over 

the spiral wire to protect it and provide 

a comfortable grip on the product. The 

product must bear the valid trademarks 

FiveStar AdvanceTM (products found 

to be bearing an invalidly licensed or 

used trademark are not excluded from 

the scope). 

• FiveStar FlexTM: A notebook, a 

notebook organizer, or binder with 

plastic polyolefin front and rear covers 

joined by 300 denier polyester spine 

cover extending the entire length of the 

spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic 

fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are 

of a specific thickness; front cover is 

0.019 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances) and rear 

cover is 0.028 inches (within normal 

manufacturing tolerances). During 

construction, the polyester covering is 

sewn to the front cover face to face 

(outside to outside) so that when the 

book is closed, the stitching is 

concealed from the outside. During 

construction, the polyester cover is 

sewn to the back cover with the outside 

of the polyester spine cover to the inside 

back cover. Both free ends (the ends not 

sewn to the cover and back) are stitched 

with a turned edge construction. Each 

ring within the fixture is comprised of 

a flexible strap portion that snaps into 

a stationary post which forms a closed 

binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted 

with six metal rivets and sewn to the 

back plastic cover and is specifically 

positioned on the outside back cover. 

The product must bear the valid 

trademark FiveStar FlexTM (products 

found to be bearing an invalidly 

licensed or used trademark are not 

excluded from the scope). 

Merchandise subject to this order is 

typically imported under headings 

4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 

4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 

4820.10.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). The HTSUS headings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes; however, the written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Application of Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department will apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ 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 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. 

As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’ 

section above, on December 17, 2007, 

the Department selected Kejriwal and 

Ria as the mandatory respondents for 

this review, and on the same date, the 

Department issued the antidumping 

questionnaire to Kejriwal and Ria. See 

the ‘‘Respondent Selection Memo.’’ The 

deadline to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire was January 23, 2008. On 

January 23, 2008, the Department 

received an e-mail from Ria requesting 

a five-week extension of the deadline to 

file its response to the Department’s 

questionnaire issued on December 18, 

2007. Because this request for extension 

was not properly filed and served on the 

interested parties in accordance with 

the Department’s filing and service 

regulations, the Department on January 

23, 2008, issued a letter to Ria and 

instructed Ria to properly file its 

extension request and properly serve it 

on the interested parties. Despite Ria’s 

improper filing of its extension request, 

the Department granted a two-week 

extension until February 6, 2008 for Ria 

to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire. However, despite the 

extension, Ria never submitted any 

questionnaire responses to the 

Department, nor did it request any 

further extension. By failing to respond 

to the Department’s requests, Ria 

withheld requested information and 

significantly impeded the proceeding. 

Therefore, pursuant to sections 

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

Department preliminarily finds that the 

use of total facts available for Ria is 

appropriate. 

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 

(Sept. 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 (Aug. 30, 2002). 

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘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, despite an 

improperly filed extension request, the 

Department granted Ria an opportunity 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

58552 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 

10The dumping margin of 23.17 percent is the 

AFA rate for Navneet in the original investigation, 

which was based on a calculated rate for Kejriwal. 

See the Memorandum to File through James 

Terpstra, Program Manager, from Cindy Lai 

Robinson, Case Analyst, entitled ‘‘Analysis 

Memorandum for Kejriwal Paper, Re: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from 

India,’’ dated September 29, 2008. 

to refile the extension request and a 

two-week extension to respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire. Ria never 

responded, refiled, or made additional 

request for a further extension. We 

preliminarily find that Ria did not act to 

the best of its ability in this proceeding, 

within the meaning of section 776(b) of 

the Act, because it could have 

responded to the Department’s requests 

for information, but failed to do so. 

Therefore, an adverse inference is 

warranted in selecting from the facts 

otherwise available with respect to Ria. 

See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382–83. 

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 

(Nov. 7, 2006). 

In order to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse so as to induce 

cooperation, we have preliminarily 

assigned a rate of 23.17 percent, which 

is the highest rate on the record of the 

proceeding which can be corroborated. 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, and Negative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India (‘‘India Lined Paper 

Investigation Final’’), 71 FR 45012 

(August 8, 2006). As stated in the India 

Lined Paper Investigation Final, this rate 

was assigned as AFA to two companies, 

which failed to cooperate to the best of 

their ability, and is based on Kejriwal’s 

data submitted in the investigation. Id. 

The Department finds that this rate is 

sufficiently high as to effectuate the 

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

we find that this rate is high enough to 

encourage participation in future 

segments of this proceeding in 

accordance with section 776(b) of the 

Act). 

Corroboration of Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the 

Department to corroborate, to the extent 

practicable, secondary information used 

as facts available. Secondary 

information is defined as ‘‘information 

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 19 CFR 

351.308(c) and (d); see also the SAA at 

870. The SAA clarifies that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See the SAA at 870. 

The SAA also states 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. Id. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used. 

To corroborate secondary information, 

to the extent practicable, the 

Department normally examines the 

reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used. Unlike other 

types of information such as input costs 

or selling expenses, however, there are 

no independent sources for calculated 

dumping margins. The only source for 

margins is administrative 

determinations. Thus, with respect to an 

administrative review, if the Department 

chooses as facts available a calculated 

dumping margin from a prior segment of 

the proceeding, it is not necessary to 

question the reliability of the margin for 

that time period. See Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 52012 

(September 8, 2008) (‘‘Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India’’). See also 

Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof 

from France, et al.: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent 

to Rescind Administrative Reviews, and 

Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part, 

69 FR 5949, 5953 (February 9, 2004), 

unchanged in Antifriction Bearings and 

Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Rescission of 

Administrative Reviews in Part, and 

Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 

69 FR 55574, 55576–77 (September 15, 

2004). 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, however, the 

Department will consider information 

reasonably at its disposal to determine 

whether a margin continues to have 

relevance. Where circumstances 

indicate that the selected margin is not 

appropriate as AFA, the Department 

will disregard the margin and determine 

an appropriate margin. For example, in 

Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (Feb. 22, 1996), the Department 

disregarded the highest margin in that 

case as adverse best information 

available (the predecessor to facts 

available) because the margin was based 

on another company’s uncharacteristic 

business expense resulting in an 

unusually high margin. Similarly, the 

Department does not apply a margin 

that has been discredited or judicially 

invalidated. See D & L Supply Co. v. 

United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 

(CAFC 1997). 

None of these unusual circumstances 

is present here. The Department 

considers the dumping margin of 23.17 

percent relevant for use as AFA for this 

review because this margin is based on 

information from the investigation and 

is within the range of transactionspecific margins calculated for a 

mandatory respondent in this review.10

Moreover, there is no information on the 

record of this review that demonstrates 

that 23.17 percent is not an appropriate 

AFA rate for Ria. The Department finds 

that use of the rate of 23.17 percent as 

an AFA rate is sufficiently high to 

ensure that Ria does not benefit from 

failing to cooperate in our review by 

refusing to respond to our 

questionnaire. See Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products 

from the Republic of Korea: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Rescission 

of Administrative Review in Part, 73 FR 

15132, 15133 (March 21, 2008). See also 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India. 

As this rate is both reliable and 

relevant, the Department determines 

that it has probative value. Accordingly, 

the Department has determined that the 

selected rate of 23.17 percent, the 

highest rate from any segment of this 

proceeding that can be corroborated, is 

in accordance with section 776(c)’s 

requirement that secondary information 

be corroborated (i.e., that it have 

probative value). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 58553 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of certain 

lined paper products by Kejriwal to the 

United States were made at less than 

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

the NV, as described in the ‘‘Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Act, we compared the EPs of individual 

U.S. transactions to the weightedaverage NV of the foreign like product 

where there were sales made in the 

ordinary course of trade, as discussed in 

the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ 

section below. 

Export Price 

For all U.S. sales made by Kejriwal, 

we used EP methodology, in accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act, because 

the subject merchandise was sold 

directly to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation and constructed export 

price methodology was not otherwise 

warranted based on the facts of record. 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made 

deductions for movement expenses, 

where appropriate, foreign inland 

freight from plant/warehouse to the port 

of exportation, foreign brokerage and 

handling, U.S. brokerage and handling, 

international freight, U.S. marine 

insurance, U.S. inland freight from port 

to warehouse, U.S. inland freight from 

warehouse to customers, U.S. duty and 

certain bank charges. In addition, we 

deducted billing adjustments from EP, 

where appropriate. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and 

Comparison Market Selection 

In order to determine whether there is 

a sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product is equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales), we compared 

Kejriwal’s volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product to the volume 

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, 

in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) 

of the Act. 

Section 773(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act 

applies to the Department’s 

determination of NV if the foreign like 

product is not sold (or offered for sale) 

for consumption in the exporting 

country. When sales in the home market 

are not viable, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of 

the Act provides that sales to a 

particular third country market may be 

utilized if: (1) The prices in such market 

are representative; (2) the aggregate 

quantity of the foreign like product sold 

by the producer or exporter in the third 

country market is five percent or more 

of the aggregate quantity of the subject 

merchandise sold in or to the United 

States; and (3) the Department does not 

determine that a particular market 

situation in the third country market 

prevents a proper comparison with the 

U.S. price. 

Kejriwal reported that it made no 

sales to the home market and no sales 

to a third country. See Kejriwal’s 

Section A Response, dated February 6, 

2008, at A–2 and A–3; see also 

Kejriwal’s supplemental questionnaire 

response at 15, dated April 21, 2008. 

Therefore, for Kejriwal, we used 

constructed value (‘‘CV’’) as the basis for 

calculating NV, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(4) of the Act. 

B. Level of Trade 

Kejriwal reported sales only to 

unaffiliated distributors in the U.S. 

market, and no sales to either the home 

or third country markets. In the U.S. 

market, it reported only one level of 

trade. The selling functions, customer 

category, and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale was 

consistent for all distributors in the 

United States. A level-of-trade 

adjustment is not practicable in this 

review, as we do not have the 

information necessary with respect to 

the level of trade at which CV selling 

expenses and profit were determined. 

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we based Kejriwal’s NV on 

CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of 

the Act, we calculated CV based on the 

sum of Kejriwal’s cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus amounts for selling, general, and 

administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), 

profit, and U.S. packing costs. We 

calculated the cost of materials and 

fabrication based on the CV information 

provided by Kejriwal in its section D 

response. We recalculated Kejriwal’s 

financial expense ratio to include 

newsprint SG&A reclassified as cost of 

newsprint revenue in the cost of goods 

sold denominator. Because Kejriwal 

does not have Indian sales of the foreign 

like product or third country sales, the 

Department does not have comparison 

market selling expenses or profit to use 

in its calculations, as directed by section 

773(e) of the Act. As an alternative, the 

Department has used as selling expenses 

and profit for Kejriwal, data from the 

March 31, 2007 financial statements of 

Blue Bird. Blue Bird sells merchandise 

within the same general category of 

products as the foreign like product in 

the Indian market. See Memorandum 

from Robert Greger to Neal Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Kejriwal Paper 

Limited, dated September 29, 2008 

(‘‘COP/CV Memo’’). 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act based on exchange 

rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. 

sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve 

Bank. 

Non-Selected Rate 

The statute and the Department’s 

regulations do not directly address the 

establishment of rates to be applied to 

companies not selected for examination 

where the Department limited its 

examination in an administrative review 

pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the 

Act. However, the Department normally 

determines the rates for non-selected 

companies in reviews in a manner that 

is consistent with section 735(c)(5) of 

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

instructs that the Department is not to 

calculate an all-others rate using any 

zero or de minimis margins or any 

margins based on total facts available. 

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also 

provides that, where all margins are 

zero, de minimis, or based on total facts 

available, the Department may use ‘‘any 

reasonable method’’ for assigning the 

rate to non-selected respondents. One 

method that section 735(c)(5)(B) of the 

Act contemplates as a possible method 

is ‘‘averaging the estimated weighted 

average dumping margins determined 

for the exporters and producers 

individually investigated.’’ 

In this review, the margin calculated 

for Kejriwal is de minimis and the 

margin applied to Ria is based on AFA. 

Thus, in this segment of the proceeding, 

we have assigned only de minimis and 

rates based entirely on AFA. Based on 

the facts of this case, the Department 

determines that a reasonable method for 

determining the margin for the nonselected companies in this review is the 

average of the margins, other than those 

which are zero, de minimis, or based on 

total facts available, that we found for 

the most recent period in which there 

were such margins. In this case, the 

most recently completed segment is the 

original investigation. In the 

investigation, only one rate that we 

calculated was not zero, de minimis, or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

58554 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 

11See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews 

in Part, 73 FR 52823 (September 11, 2008), and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 6 (‘‘AFBs’’). See also Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Notice of Preliminary Results of the New Shipper 

Review and Fourth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of the 

Fourth Administrative Review, 73 FR 52017 

(September 8, 2008). 

12This rate is based on the weighted average of 

the margins calculated during the investigation 

(which is also the rate calculated for Kejriwal in the 

investigation). See the ‘‘Non-Selected Rate’’ section 

above. 

13As stated above, Ria will receive an AFA rate 

of 23.17 percent. 

based on total facts available: the margin 

we calculated for Kejriwal was 3.91 

percent (see India Lined Paper 

Investigation Final). This margin was 

also assigned as the all-others rate. 

While the statute contemplates that the 

Department may use an average of the 

zero, de minimis, or facts-available rates 

determined in an investigation where 

such rates are the only rates determined, 

in this review, the Department has 

additional information that would not 

be available in an investigation 

involving only de minimis/zero and 

AFA rates. Specifically, in addition to 

the option of using an average of the 

rates in this review, the Department can 

use the above de minimis rate calculated 

in the most recently completed segment 

of the proceeding. Consistent with the 

Department’s decision in AFBs,11 we 

have determined that it is appropriate in 

this review to use the calculated above 

de minimis rate from the investigation, 

as there is no reason to find that it is not 

reasonably reflective of potential 

dumping margins for the non-selected 

companies. 

We note that in the investigation, 

Navneet, a non-selected company in this 

review, was assigned a companyspecific rate of 23.17 percent based on 

AFA for its failure to cooperate to the 

best of its ability. In this review, 

however, there is no basis for finding 

Navneet uncooperative. As stated above, 

Navneet and the other 17 companies are 

non-selected companies under this 

review. The Department determines to 

use, as the non-selected rate, a 

calculated rate which does not rely on 

zero, de minimis, or facts-available 

margins from the investigation. 

Therefore, for purposes of these 

preliminary results, the 18 remaining 

non-selected companies subject to this 

review will receive the rate of 3.91 

percent calculated during the 

investigation. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties in this 

proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the respondents for the period 

April 17, 2006, through August 31, 

2007, as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted average margin 

(percent) 

Kejriwal Paper Limited ........... 0.44 (de minimis) 

Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. ................ 23.17 

Review-Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the Non-Selected 

Companies Subject to This Review: 12

Blue Bird India Ltd. .......................... 3.91 

Creative Divya ................................... 3.91 

Exel India Pvt. Ltd. ............................ 3.91 

FFI International ................................ 3.91 

Global Art India Inc. ......................... 3.91 

Kejriwal Exports ................................ 3.91 

M/S Super ImpEx .............................. 3.91 

Magic International ........................... 3.91 

Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd. .................... 3.91 

Marisa International .......................... 3.91 

Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. ..... 3.91 

Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd. .............. 3.91 

Rajvansh International ...................... 3.91 

Riddhi Enterprises ............................. 3.91 

SAB International .............................. 3.91 

TKS Overseas ..................................... 3.91 

Unlimited Accessories Worldwide ... 3.91 

V. Joshi Co. ........................................ 3.91 

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). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit cases 

briefs not later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, may be filed not later 

than 35 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. 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 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

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

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

for the companies subject to this review 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

For Kejriwal, because it reported the 

entered value for some of its U.S. sales, 

we will calculate importer-specific ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of the sales for which entered 

value was reported. For Kejriwal’s U.S. 

sales reported without entered values, 

we will calculate importer-specific perunit duty assessment rates by 

aggregating the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales and dividing this 

amount by the total quantity of those 

sales. To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will 

calculate importer-specific ad valorem 

ratios based on the estimated entered 

value. 

For all other companies 13 subject to 

this review which were not selected for 

individual examination, we will 

calculate an assessment rate based on 

the weighted average of the cash deposit 

rates calculated for the companies as 

described in the ‘‘Non-Selected Rate’’ 

section above. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer-specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct 

CBP to liquidate without regard to 

antidumping duties any entries for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 58555 

which the assessment rate is de 

minimis. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 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 this 

review 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 allothers 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 for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

this review, or the original investigation, 

but the manufacturer is, the cash 

deposit rate will be the rate established 

for the most recent period for the 

manufacturer of the merchandise; and 

(4) the cash deposit rate for all other 

manufacturers or exporters will 

continue to be 3.91 percent, the allothers rate made effective by the 

investigation. See Lined Paper Order, 70 

FR at 5148. 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) 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. 

These preliminary results of review 

are 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. E8–23704 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Minority Business Development 

Agency 

[Docket No.: 0809301287–81291–01] 

Solicitation of Applications for the 

Minority Business Enterprise Center 

(MBEC) Program 

AGENCY: Minority Business 

Development Agency, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 

Section 1512 and Executive Order 

11625, the Minority Business 

Development Agency (MBDA) is 

soliciting competitive applications from 

organizations to operate a Minority 

Business Enterprise Center (MBEC) in 

Houston, TX. The MBEC operates 

through the use of business consultants 

and provides a range of business 

consulting and technical assistance 

services directly to eligible minorityowned businesses in the Houston-Sugar 

Land-Baytown, Texas Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA). Responsibility 

for ensuring that applications in 

response to this competitive solicitation 

are complete and received by MBDA on 

time is the sole responsibility of the 

applicant. Applications submitted must 

be to operate a MBEC and to provide 

business consultation services to 

eligible clients. Applications that do not 

meet these requirements will be 

rejected. This is not a grant program to 

help start or to further an individual 

business. 

DATES: The closing date for receipt of 

applications is November 7, 2008 at 5 

p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). 

Completed applications must be 

received by MBDA at the address below 

for paper submissions or at http:// 

www.Grants.gov for electronic 

submissions. The due date and time is 

the same for electronic submissions as 

it is for paper submissions. The date 

that applications will be deemed to have 

been submitted electronically shall be 

the date and time received at 

Grants.gov. Applicants should save and 

print the proof of submission they 

receive from Grants.gov. Applications 

received after the closing date and time 

will not be considered. Anticipated time 

for processing is forty-five (45) days 

from the closing date for receipt of 

applications. MBDA anticipates that one 

award under this notice will be made 

with a start date of January 1, 2009. 

Pre-Application Conference: In 

connection with this solicitation, a preapplication teleconference will be held 

on October 21, 2008 at 1 p.m. Eastern 

Daylight Time (EDT). Participants must 

register at least 24 hours in advance of 

the teleconference and may participate 

in person or by telephone. Please visit 

the MBDA Internet Portal at http:// 

www.mbda.gov (MBDA Portal) or 

contact an MBDA representative listed 

below for registration instructions. 

ADDRESSES: (1a) Paper Submission—If 

Mailed: If the application is sent by 

postal mail or overnight delivery service 

by the applicant or its representative, 

one (1) signed original plus two (2) 

copies of the application must be 

submitted. Applicants are encouraged to 

also submit an electronic copy of the 

proposal, budget and budget narrative 

on a CD–ROM to facilitate the 

processing of applications. Complete 

application packages must be mailed to: 

Office of Business Development—MBEC 

Program, Office of Executive Secretariat, 

HCHB, Room 5063, Minority Business 

Development Agency, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

Applicants are advised that MBDA’s 

receipt of mail sent via the United States 

Postal Service may be substantially 

delayed or suspended in delivery due to 

security measures. Applicants may 

therefore wish to use a guaranteed 

overnight delivery service. Department 

of Commerce delivery policies for 

overnight delivery services require all 

packages to be sent to the address above. 

(1b) Paper Submission—If HandDelivered: If the application is handdelivered by the applicant or by its 

representative, one (1) signed original 

plus two (2) copies of the application 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES