[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 186 (Monday, September 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59217-59223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24159]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-958]


Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics 
Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: September 27, 2010.
SUMMARY: On May 6, 2010, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair 
value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of certain coated 
paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses 
(``coated paper'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). We 
invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination 
of sales at LTFV. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we 
have made changes to our margin calculations for the mandatory 
respondents. The final dumping margins for this investigation are 
listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lindsey Novom and Demitri 
Kalogeropoulos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-5256 or (202) 482-2623, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History

    The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at 
LTFV on May 6, 2010. See Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality 
Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 24892, (May 6, 
2010) (``Preliminary Determination'').
    On May 19, 2010, Shandong Sun Paper Industry Joint Stock Co., Ltd., 
Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co., Ltd., Shandong International 
Paper and Sun Coated Paperboard Co., Ltd., International Paper and Sun 
Cartonboard Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Sun Paper Companies'') ceased 
participating

[[Page 59218]]

in the investigation.\1\ On May 10, 2010, Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) 
Co., Ltd. (``GE''), Gold Huasheng Paper Co., Ltd. (``GHS''), Gold East 
(Hong Kong) Trading Co., Ltd. (``GEHK''), Ningbo Zhonghua Paper Co., 
Ltd. (``NBZH''), Ningbo Asia Pulp and Paper Co., Ltd. (``NAPP''), 
collectively referred to as the ``GE Group,'' or ``APP-China,'' alleged 
that the Department made ministerial errors in its Preliminary 
Determination. On May 13, 2010, APP-China and Appleton Coated LLC, 
NewPage Corporation, S.D. Warren Company d/b/a Sappi Fine Paper North 
America, and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union 
(collectively, ``Petitioners'') submitted comments on APP-China's 
allegations. On June 9, 2010, the Department released a memo detailing 
the errors it found to be ``clerical'' in nature, but determined not to 
amend the Preliminary Determination as the ministerial errors were not 
significant under 19 CFR 351.224(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See letter from Sun Paper Companies, regarding ``Certain 
Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-
Fed Presses from the People's Republic of China; Withdrawal from 
Antidumping Case,'' dated May 19, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a Memo to the File, on May 19, 2010, regarding ``Phone Call 
Regarding Factual Information Submission and Tackifier Input,'' the 
Department requested information with respect to APP-China's 
``tackifier'' input. On May 21, 2010, APP-China submitted the input 
data. APP-China and Shandong Chenming Paper Holding Ltd. (``Chenming'') 
also submitted a market-oriented industry (``MOI'') submission, on May 
19, 2010.
    Between May 26, 2010, and June 25, 2010, the Department conducted 
verifications of several of the APP-China entities and their affiliated 
U.S. reseller Global Paper Solutions Inc. (``GPS''). The Department 
released both verification reports for these companies on July 21, 
2010. See the ``Verification'' section below for additional 
information. Petitioners submitted a request for a public hearing on 
May 28, 2010, and June 3, 2010, respectively. On August 6, 2010, APP-
China and Petitioners filed timely requests for a withdrawal of request 
for a public hearing.
    APP-China and Petitioners submitted surrogate value comments on 
June 29, 2010. On July 6, 2010, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments 
on this information. On July 27, 2010, the Department requested a 
revised factors of production (``FOP'') and sales database from APP-
China, and on July 30, 2010, APP-China submitted the requested 
databases to the Department. On August 5, 2010, case briefs were filed 
by Petitioners, APP-China, and the Government of China (``GOC''), APP-
China, and Chenming, collectively, submitted a separate case brief on 
August 5, 2010. On August 10, 2010, Petitioners filed their rebuttal 
brief, and on August 11, 2010, APP-China filed its rebuttal brief. The 
Department released labor wage rate data on July 16, 2010.\2\ 
Petitioners and APP-China submitted comments on the labor wage rate 
data on July 23, 2010. The Department released additional (Honduran) 
labor wage rate data on August 5, 2010, and Petitioners submitted 
comments on this information on August 9, 2010. On August 12, 2010, 
APP-China requested that the Department reject parts of Petitioners' 
August 10, 2010 rebuttal brief because it contains certain new 
information. On August 16, 2010, Petitioners submitted a response to 
APP-China's request. On August 17, 2010, the Department rejected APP-
China's request and continued to accept the Petitioners' rebuttal brief 
as filed because the information at issue already existed on the record 
of this investigation. On August 19, 2010, APP-China submitted a 
request for reconsideration, and Petitioners submitted a request to 
remove APP-China's request for reconsideration from the record on 
August 23, 2010. On September 1, 2010, the Department rejected APP-
China's August 19, 2010, request for reconsideration and Petitioners' 
August 23, 2010 submission because they contained untimely filed 
written arguments within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.309 of the 
Department's regulations. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d), the 
Department removed the submissions from the record of the proceeding 
and has not considered them for purposes of the final determination. On 
September 3, 2010 APP-China resubmitted its request for 
reconsideration, and Petitioners resubmitted their request to remove 
APP-China's request for reconsideration. On September 16, 2010, the 
Department issued its final response not to reject Petitioners' 
rebuttal brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum to the file, ``Wage Rate Data,'' dated July 
16, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope Comments

    Following the Preliminary Determination, on August 3, 2010, the 
Department issued a decision memorandum addressing three scope issues 
in this and the concurrent antidumping and countervailing duty 
investigations on certain coated paper from Indonesia and the People's 
Republic of China: (1) Whether to clarify the scope of these 
investigations to exclude multi-ply coated paper and paperboard; (2) 
whether to modify the scope language by striking the phrase ``suitable 
for high-quality print graphics;'' and (3) whether to add three 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') numbers 
which may include in-scope merchandise (i.e., HTSUS 4810.32, 4810.39 
and 4810.92). See August 3, 2010, Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Susan 
Kuhbach, Director, Office 1, entitled ``Scope'' (August 3, 2010 Scope 
Memorandum). For the reasons explained in the August 3, 2010, Scope 
Memorandum, the Department determined that: (1) Multiply products that 
otherwise meet the description of the scope of the investigations are 
not excluded from the scope; (2) the ``suitable for high-quality print 
graphics'' language should not be deleted from the scope; and (3) the 
three HTSUS numbers at issue should be added to the scope.
    The Department subsequently provided the interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on its post-preliminary scope determination. In 
response, the respondents in these investigations filed a case brief on 
August 20, 2010, and the petitioners filed a rebuttal brief on August 
24, 2010. Based on the Department's analysis of these comments and the 
factual records of these investigations, the Department continues to 
find that multi-ply coated paper and paperboard are not excluded from 
the scope of the investigations, that the ``suitable for high-quality 
print graphics'' language should be maintained, and that the three 
HTSUS numbers listed above should be added to the scope. For a complete 
discussion of the parties' comments and the Department's position, see 
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the 
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 
High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from the People's 
Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with this notice and 
incorporated herein by reference.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 2009, through 
June 30, 2009. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which was 
September 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

[[Page 59219]]

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``Act''), we verified the information submitted by APP-China for use 
in our final determination. See the Department's verification reports 
on the record of this investigation in the Central Records Unit 
(``CRU''), Room 7046 of the main Department building, with respect to 
these entities. For all verified companies, we used standard 
verification procedures, including the examination of relevant 
accounting and production records, as well as original source documents 
provided by respondents.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All non-scope issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by 
parties to this investigation are addressed in the ``Investigation of 
Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using 
Sheet-Fed Presses from the People's Republic of China: Issues and 
Decision Memorandum,'' dated concurrently with this notice and hereby 
adopted in this notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''). A list of 
the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as 
Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document on 
file in the CRU and is accessible on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in 
content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    <bullet> Sun Paper Companies did not submit a complete database of 
all reportable U.S. sales, refused to undergo verification, and 
withdrew from participating in the investigation. We have also found 
that Sun Paper Companies did not demonstrate that they are entitled to 
a separate rate, and are therefore part of the PRC entity. Thus, we 
have applied total adverse facts available (``AFA'') to the PRC entity, 
which includes Sun Paper Companies. See ``Use of Facts Available'' and 
``PRC-Wide Rate'' sections below. See also Comment 6 of the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum.
    <bullet> For APP-China, we made the following changes since the 
Preliminary Determination:
    [cir] We revised the targeted dumping analysis to include another 
customer alleged by Petitioners. See Comment 4 of the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum.
    [cir] The Department has revised APP-China's margin calculation to 
incorporate minor corrections submitted at verification, as well as 
other minor discrepancies noted in the verification report. See 
Comments 10 and 11 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. See also the 
public version of the APP-China Verification report on file in the CRU.
    [cir] The Department is no longer deducting certain commissions 
from those sales classified as ``Channel 1'' sales, based on APP-
China's minor correction from verification. See Comment 12 of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    [cir] The Department has made corrections to the Preliminary 
Determination that we found to be ``clerical'' in nature in our 
Ministerial Error Memo. See Comment 13 of the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.
    [cir] The Department has revised the calculation of foreign truck 
freight to include the weight of the packing. See Comment 15 of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    [cir] The Department has revised the calculation of domestic inland 
insurance and brokerage and handling to include the weight of the 
packing. See Final Analysis Memo.
    [cir] The Department has revised the surrogate value (``SV'') for 
tapioca starch (``TSTARCH''). For the final determination, the 
Department is valuing TSTARCH using the Indonesian HTS category 110814, 
labeled ``Manioc (cassava) starch.'' See Comment 22 of the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum.
    [cir] The Department is using HTS category 3906.90.90, labeled 
``other acrylic polymers in other forms,'' to value the non-market 
economy (``NME'') portion of APP-China's tackifier input. See Comment 
25 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    [cir] The Department has revised the SV for surface sizing starch 
(``SSS''). For the final determination, the Department is valuing SSS 
using the Indian HTS category 3505.10.00, labeled ``dextrins and other 
modified starches (for example, pregelantinized or esterified 
starches).'' See Comment 29 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    [cir] We have revised the calculation of the wage rate. See Comment 
30 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    [cir] We have revised the brokerage and handling surrogate value. 
See Comment 31 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain 
coated paper and paperboard \3\ in sheets suitable for high quality 
print graphics using sheet-fed presses; coated on one or both sides 
with kaolin (china or other clay), calcium carbonate, titanium dioxide, 
and/or other inorganic substances; with or without a binder; having a 
GE brightness level of 80 or higher;\4\ weighing not more than 340 
grams per square meter; whether gloss grade, satin grade, matte grade, 
dull grade, or any other grade of finish; whether or not surface-
colored, surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), 
embossed, or perforated; and irrespective of dimensions (``Certain 
Coated Paper'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ `` `Paperboard' refers to Certain Coated Paper that is 
heavier, thicker and more rigid than coated paper which otherwise 
meets the product description. In the context of Certain Coated 
Paper, paperboard typically is referred to as `cover,' to 
distinguish it from `text.' ''
    \4\ One of the key measurements of any grade of paper is 
brightness. Generally speaking, the brighter the paper the better 
the contrast between the paper and the ink. Brightness is measured 
using a GE Reflectance Scale, which measures the reflection of light 
off of a grade of paper. One is the lowest reflection, or what would 
be given to a totally black grade, and 100 is the brightest measured 
grade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain Coated Paper includes (a) coated free sheet paper and 
paperboard that meets this scope definition; (b) coated groundwood 
paper and paperboard produced from bleached chemi-thermo-mechanical 
pulp (``BCTMP'') that meets this scope definition; and (c) any other 
coated paper and paperboard that meets this scope definition.
    Certain Coated Paper is typically (but not exclusively) used for 
printing multi-colored graphics for catalogues, books, magazines, 
envelopes, labels and wraps, greeting cards, and other commercial 
printing applications requiring high quality print graphics.
    Specifically excluded from the scope are imports of paper and 
paperboard printed with final content printed text or graphics.
    As of 2009, imports of the subject merchandise are provided for 
under the following categories of the HTSUS: 4810.14.11, 4810.14.1900, 
4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.6000, 4810.14.70, 
4810.19.1100, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, 4810.19.2090, 4810.22.1000, 
4810.22.50, 4810.22.6000, 4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000, 
4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70, 4810.32, 4810.39 and 4810.92. While HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected 
India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation 
for the following

[[Page 59220]]

reasons: (1) It is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; 
(2) it is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the 
PRC, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable 
data from India that we can use to value the FOPs. See Preliminary 
Determination, 75 FR at 24898. For the final determination, we received 
no comments on surrogate country selection and made no changes to our 
findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country.

Separate Rates

    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 assigned a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME 
country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) 
(``Sparklers''), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''), and 19 CFR 
351.107(d).
    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that the four mandatory 
respondents (i.e., GE, GHS (and their affiliates, NAPP and NBZH), 
Tianzhang, and IP Paperboard/IP Cartonboard), and the separate-rate 
respondent Chenming, demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate 
status. For the final determination, we continue to find that the 
evidence placed on the record of this investigation by GE, GHS (their 
affiliates, NAPP and NBZH), and Chenming demonstrates both a de jure 
and de facto absence of government control, with respect to their 
respective exports of the merchandise under investigation, and, thus 
are eligible for separate-rate status. See Preliminary Determination, 
75 FR at 24899-24900. However, we are no longer finding that Tianzhang, 
and IP Paperboard/IP Cartonboard are eligible for separate rate status, 
as they withdrew from participating in the investigation.

Margin for the Separate Rate Company

    As discussed above, the Department continues to find that Chenming 
has demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate. Consistent with 
the Department's practice, as the separate rate, we have established a 
margin for Chenming based on the rate we calculated for the cooperating 
mandatory respondent, APP-China.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged 
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
19690 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Available (``FA'')

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record, or an interested party: (A) Withholds 
information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such 
information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that 
cannot be verified, as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain its deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Pursuant to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider 
submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) 
The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the 
information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete 
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable 
determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted 
to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without 
undue difficulties.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established 
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is 
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can 
be used without undue difficulties.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the 
administering authority finds that an interested party has not acted to 
the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the 
administering authority may, in reaching its determination, use an 
inference that is adverse to that party. The adverse inference may be 
based upon: (1) The petition, (2) a final determination in the 
investigation under this title, (3) any previous review under section 
751 of the Act or determination under section 753 of the Act, or (4) 
any other information placed on the record.
    Because Sun Paper Companies ceased participating in the instant 
investigation, the Department was not able to conduct verification of 
Sun Paper Companies' responses. Verification is integral to the 
Department's analysis because it allows the Department to satisfy 
itself that it is relying upon accurate information and calculating 
dumping margins as accurately as possible. By failing to participate in 
verification, Sun Paper Companies prevented the Department from 
verifying its reported information, including separate rates 
information, and significantly impeded the proceeding. In addition, by 
not permitting verification, Sun Paper Companies failed to demonstrate 
that they operate free of government control and are entitled to a 
separate rate. Accordingly, Sun Paper Companies is considered part of 
the PRC-wide entity for purposes of this final determination. Thus, we 
find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C) and (D) of the 
Act, the use of FA for the PRC-wide entity (which includes Sun Paper 
Companies) is appropriate for this final determination.
    First, the PRC-wide entity, which includes Sun Paper Companies, 
failed to submit a full and proper database of all sales to 
unaffiliated U.S. customers during the POI. Accordingly, we find that 
the PRC wide entity withheld information requested by the Department 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.\6\ Second, we find that 
the PRC-wide entity, which includes the Sun Paper Companies, 
significantly impeded the Department's proceeding pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, by failing to provide the requested 
information and by refusing to allow verification of their data. Based 
on the above, we have

[[Page 59221]]

determined that the PRC-wide entity, which includes the Sun Paper 
Companies, failed to act to the best of its ability by not providing 
the requested information and by ceasing their participation in the 
proceeding. Therefore, we have determined that when selecting from 
among FA, an adverse inference is warranted for the PRC-wide entity, 
including the Sun Paper Companies, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For the Preliminary Determination, the Department applied 
partial AFA to Sun Paper Companies for failing to report all 
reportable U.S. sales made during the POI. See Preliminary 
Determination, 75 FR at 24901-24902.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRC-Wide Rate

    Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a 
NME country are subject to government control, and because only the 
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section, 
below, have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single 
antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters of 
subject merchandise from the PRC. These other companies did not 
demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo 
From the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000). The 
PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for 
entries from the companies eligible for separate rate status.
    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department preliminarily 
determined that there were exporters/producers of the subject 
merchandise during the POI from the PRC that did not respond to the 
Department's request for information. Further, we treated these PRC 
producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not 
apply for a separate rate. As a result, we found that the use of FA was 
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 24900-
02.
    Thus, in the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined 
that, in selecting from among the FA, an adverse inference is 
appropriate because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information. See Id. As AFA, we preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide 
entity a rate of 135.8 percent, the highest calculated rate from the 
petition. See id; see also Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 
(``SAA'').
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to 
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner 
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject 
to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination. Because the PRC-wide entity 
(including Sun Paper Companies) did not respond to our requests for 
information, withheld information requested by the Department, and did 
not allow their information to be verified, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in the 
Preliminary Determination, that the use of facts otherwise available is 
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate.

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on 
information derived from (1) The petition, (2) a final determination in 
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to 
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' \7\ It is also the Department's 
practice to select a rate that ensures ``that the party does not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 
8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    \8\ See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; 
Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 
(November 18, 2005); See also, SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the Department finds selecting the highest rate in any 
segment of the proceeding as AFA to be appropriate.\9\ It is the 
Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest 
margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of 
any respondent in the investigation.\10\ In the instant investigation, 
as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity the highest petition 
rate, recalculated using the revised wage rate, on the record of this 
proceeding that can be corroborated. See Certain Coated Paper Suitable 
for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia 
and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, 74 FR 53710 (October 20, 2009) (``Initiation Notice''), 
and Memorandum to the File, regarding ``Recalculation of Petition 
Margins,'' dated concurrently with this notice. The Department 
determines that this information is the most appropriate from the 
available sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic 
of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December 
28, 2005) unchanged in final, Certain Cased Pencils from the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
    \10\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Facts Available.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as FA, it must, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Secondary information is described as ``information derived 
from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the 
final determination concerning merchandise subject to this 
investigation, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
merchandise subject to this investigation.'' \11\ To ``corroborate'' 
means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value. Independent sources used to 
corroborate may include, for example, published price lists, official 
import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from 
interested parties during the particular investigation. To corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 
6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008), quoting SAA at 870.
    \12\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).

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

[[Page 59222]]

    The AFA rate that the Department used is from the Petition; 
however, we have updated the labor wage rate used to calculate the 
Petition rates. The Department's practice is not to recalculate dumping 
margins provided in petitions, but rather to corroborate the applicable 
petition rate when applying that rate as AFA. In the instant case, 
however, the surrogate wage rate used in the Petition was based upon 
the Department's methodology that the Federal Circuit invalidated in 
Dorbest II.\13\ In light of the Federal Circuit decision to invalidate 
the wage rate methodology, the Department has adjusted the petition 
rate using the surrogate value for labor used in this final 
determination.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Comment 30 of Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    \14\ See Id. See also Memorandum to the File, regarding 
``Recalculation of Petition Margins,'' dated concurrently with this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AFA rate that the Department used is from the Petition. To 
corroborate the AFA margin that we have selected, we compared this 
margin to the transaction-specific margins we found for the cooperating 
mandatory respondents. We found that the margin of 135.83 percent has 
probative value because it is in the range of the transaction-specific 
margins that we found for APP-China during the period of investigation. 
See APP-China's Final Analysis Memo. Accordingly, we find this rate is 
reliable and relevant, considering the record information, and thus, 
has probative value. See Memorandum to the File, regarding 
``Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Entity Rate and for the Final 
Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Coated 
Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with this 
notice. Given that numerous PRC-wide entities did not respond to the 
Department's requests for information and that Sun Paper Companies, 
which is part of the PRC-wide entity, ceased participating in the 
investigation, the Department concludes that the updated petition rate 
of 135.83 percent, as total AFA for the PRC-wide entity, is 
sufficiently adverse to prevent these respondents from benefitting from 
their lack of cooperation. See SAA at 870. Accordingly, we found that 
the rate of 135.83 percent is corroborated to the extent practicable 
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under 
investigation except for entries from APP-China and Chenming, as they 
have demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate. These companies and 
their corresponding antidumping duty cash deposit rates are listed 
below in the ``Final Determination'' section of this notice.

Combination Rates

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it 
would calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for 
a separate rate in this investigation.\15\ This practice is described 
in the Separate Rate Policy Bulletin.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 24905.
    \16\ See Memorandum entitled ``Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries'' dated April 5, 2005, 
available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margin percentages are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
             Exporter                       Producer            margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co.,     Gold East Paper (Jiangsu)        7.60
 Ltd.;.                             Co., Ltd.;.
Gold Huasheng Paper Co., Ltd.;...  Gold Huasheng Paper Co.,
Ningbo Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd.;.   Ltd.;.
Ningbo Asia Pulp and Paper Co.,    Ningbo Zhonghua Paper
 Ltd.;.                             Co., Ltd.;.
Gold East (Hong Kong) Trading      Ningbo Asia Pulp and
 Co., Ltd.                          Paper Co., Ltd.
Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings   Shandong Chenming Paper          7.60
 Ltd                                Holdings Ltd.
PRC-Wide Entity*.................  .........................      135.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The PRC-Wide Entity includes the Sun Paper Companies.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to 
suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. 
We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond 
equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds 
U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer 
combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate we have 
determined in this final determination; (2) for all PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) 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 
exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 
These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect 
until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of 
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance 
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will, within 45 days, 
determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is 
materially injured or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the 
subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or 
threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be 
terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If 
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will 
issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn 
from warehouse

[[Page 59223]]

for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 20, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--List of Issues

Case Issues:

Comment 1: Whether to Grant Market-Oriented Industry (``MOI'') 
Status to the Coated Paper Industry
Comment 2A: Whether Simultaneous Application of Countervailing 
Duties (``CVDs'') and Antidumping Duties Calculated Using the NME 
Methodology is Contrary to Law
Comment 2B: Whether Simultaneous Application of Countervailing 
Duties and Antidumping Duties Calculated Using the NME Methodology 
to Imports of the Same Products Results in the Imposition of Double 
Remedies
Comment 3: Whether Targeted Dumping Test Violates the Administrative 
Procedures Act (``APA'') and is Flawed
Comment 4: Whether to Revise the Targeted Dumping Analysis in Light 
of APP-China's Minor Corrections Filed at Verification
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Apply Zeroing
Comment 6: Application of Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'') to Sun 
Paper Companies
Comment 7: Whether to Apply Market-Oriented Economy (``MOE'') 
Treatment to APP-China
Comment 8: Whether to Apply AFA to All Sales and Expense Information 
of GPS
Comment 9: Whether to Reclassify Certain APP-China Sales from Export 
Price (``EP'')- to ``Constructed Export Price (``CEP'')
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Reject APP-China's Minor 
Correction
Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Deduct Certain Rebates for 
APP-China
Comment 12: Whether the Department Should Deduct Certain Commission 
Expenses
Comment 13: Whether the Department Should Correct Certain 
Ministerial Errors
Comment 14: Whether to Deduct Domestic Inland Insurance from U.S. 
Price
Comment 15: Application of Foreign Truck Freight
Comment 16: Whether to Treat All of APP-China's Market Economy 
(``ME'') Pulp Purchases as Market Economy Purchases (``MEPs'')
Comment 17: Whether to Accept APP-China's ME Purchases from Thailand 
and Korea
Comment 18: Whether to Employ the 33 Percent Threshold for GE 
Group's ME Purchases
Comment 19: Valuation of Calcium Carbonate Ore (``CCORE'')
Comment 20: Valuation of Optical Brightener (``OBA/OBAS/OBAL'')
Comment 21: Valuation of Masculine Starch Transforming Agent 
(``MSTA'')
Comment 22: Valuation of Tapioca Starch (``TSTARCH'')
Comment 23: Valuation of Wet End Starch (``WESTARCH'')
Comment 24: Valuation of Dispersing Agent A (``DISPERSANTA'')
Comment 25: Valuation of Tackifier
Comment 26: Valuation of Hypochlorous Natrium/Sodium Hypochlorite 
(``BACLO/NACLO'')
Comment 27: Valuation of Coating Binding Agent (``CBA'')
Comment 28: Valuation of Coating Starch (``CSTARCH'')
Comment 29: Valuation of Surface Sizing Starch (``SSS'')
Comment 30: Selection of Labor Rate
Comment 31: Valuation of Brokerage & Handling
Comment 32: Whether the Department Should Include Certain Direct 
Selling Expenses in the Calculation of SG&A

[FR Doc. 2010-24159 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P