59212 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 

Comment 11: Whether Certain HTS 

numbers Should Be Excluded from 

WTA Statistics 

Comment 12: The Department Should 

Ensure that its Benchmark for the Log 

Export Ban Program Captures the Full 

Price an Indonesian Firm Would Pay for 

Imported Pulp Logs 

Comment 13: Whether the Department 

Should Use Monthly Malaysian 

Exchange Rates to Convert the Monthly 

Malaysian Export Statistics used as 

Benchmarks 

Comment 14: Whether the Department 

Should Round the Malaysian Export 

Statistics 

Comment 15: Whether the Department 

Should Use the GOI Study of Operating 

Costs in Indonesia to Adjust the 

Benchmark for the Provision of 

Standing Timber 

Debt Forgiveness 

Comment 16: Whether the Department 

Should Apply AFA Regarding Debt 

Forgiveness through APP/SMG’s 

Buyback of its Own Debt 

Comment 17: Whether Commerce’s 

Decision to Cancel the Verification of 

the IBRA Debt Sale Was Improper 

Comment 18: Whether the Department 

Should Apply the Highest Rate 

Calculated for any Other Program as 

AFA Regarding the APP/SMG Debt 

Buyback Allegation 

Comment 19: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust the Benefit Calculation 

Regarding the APP/SMG Debt Buyback 

Program 

Comment 20: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Interest Rate Used to 

Calculate the Discount Rate Used for 

Calculating APP/SMG’s Allocable 

Subsidies 

Other 

Comment 21: Whether the Department 

Should Countervail SPA’s Outstanding 

DR Fees as an Interest–Free Loan 

VII. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2010–24182 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–959] 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet-Fed Presses From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

certain coated paper suitable for highquality print graphics using sheet-fed 

presses from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). For information on the 

estimated countervailing duty rates, 

please see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section, below. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 27, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Neubacher, Jennifer Meek, and 

Mary Kolberg, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–5823, (202) 482–2778, and (202) 

482–1785, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, or the period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’), is January 1, 2008, 

through December 31, 2008. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the publication of the preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register 

on March 9, 2010. See Certain Coated 

Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print 

Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Alignment of 

Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination with Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination, 75 FR 10774 

(March 9, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). 

On March 4, 2010, the Department 

initiated investigations into new 

subsidy allegations on several grant 

programs to Shandong Sun Paper 

Industry Co., Ltd. and Yanzhou 

Tianzhang Paper Industry Co., Ltd. 

(collectively, ‘‘Sun companies’’). See 

Memorandum from David Neubacher, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, Office 1, to Susan Kuhbach, 

Director, Office 1, Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘New 

Subsidy Allegations,’’ (March 4, 2010), 

available in the Department’s Central 

Records Unit in Room 7046 of the main 

Department building (‘‘CRU’’). 

On March 5, 2010, the Department 

issued a questionnaire regarding the 

new subsidy allegations to the 

Government of the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘GOC’’), and received a response 

on April 2, 2010. 

On March 17, 2010, the Department 

received a submission from 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’’) regarding additional 

information to be collected from Gold 

East (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd., Gold Huasheng 

Paper Co., Ltd., and their reporting 

cross-owned companies (collectively, 

‘‘Gold companies’’) in connection with 

the entered value adjustment. 

The Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to the GOC on April 14, 

May 12, and May 21, 2010, and received 

responses on April 29, May 19, and May 

26, 2010, respectively. The Department 

issued supplemental questionnaires to 

the Gold companies on April 22, May 

12, and May 21, 2010, and received 

responses on May 14, May 20 (a portion 

of the response was timely filed on May 

27), and May 26, 2010, respectively. 

Finally, the Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires to the Sun 

companies on April 1, and May 14, 

2010, and received responses on April 

27, and May 28, 2010, respectively. 

On March 31, 2010, the Department 

determined to investigate Petitioners’ 

uncreditworthiness allegation for the 

Gold companies for the years 2006– 

2008. See Memorandum from Nancy 

Decker, Program Manager, Office 1, to 

Susan Kuhbach, Director, Office 1, 

Import Administration, regarding 

‘‘Uncreditworthiness Allegation for Gold 

East (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd., (‘‘Gold East’’), 

Gold Huasheng Paper Co., Ltd. (‘‘GH’’), 

Ningbo Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘NZ’’), Ningbo Asia Pulp & Paper Co. 

Ltd., and Hainan Jinhai Pulp and Paper 

Co., Ltd. (collectively, the ‘‘APP 

companies’’),’’ (March 31, 2010), 

available in the CRU. 

On June 1, 2010, the Department 

published an amended affirmative 

preliminary determination to correct a 

significant ministerial error in the 

Preliminary Determination. See Certain 

Coated Paper Suitable For High-Quality 

Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Amended Affirmative Preliminary 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 

FR 30370 (June 1, 2010) (‘‘Amended 

Preliminary Determination’’). 

From June 7, 2010, to June 18, 2010, 

the Department conducted verification 

of the questionnaire responses 

submitted by the GOC, Gold companies, 

and Sun companies. See Memorandum 

from David Neubacher and Jennifer 

Meek, International Trade Compliance 

Analysts, Office 1, to Susan H. Kuhbach, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 59213 

1 ‘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.’ 

2One 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. 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

regarding ‘‘Verification Report of the 

Government of the People’s Republic of 

China’’ (July 28, 2010); Memorandum 

from David Neubacher, David Layton, 

and Jennifer Meek, International Trade 

Compliance Analysts, Office 1, to Susan 

H. Kuhbach, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, regarding 

‘‘Verification Report of Shandong Sun 

Paper Industry Joint Stock Co., Ltd., and 

Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co., 

Ltd.’’ (August 4, 2010); and 

Memorandum from David Neubacher, 

Scott Holland, David Layton, and 

Jennifer Meek, International Trade 

Compliance Analysts, Office 1, to Susan 

H. Kuhbach, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, regarding 

‘‘Verification Report of Gold East Paper 

(Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. and its reported crossowned affiliates’’ (August 24, 2010). 

On August 26, 2010, we issued a 

preliminary determination regarding the 

creditworthiness of the Gold companies 

for the years 2006–2008. See 

Memorandum from Mary Kolberg, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, Office 1, to Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

regarding ‘‘Preliminary Creditworthiness 

Determination for Gold East Paper 

(Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. and its Cross-Owned 

Affiliates,’’ (August 26, 2010). 

On August 27, 2010, the Department 

issued its Post-Preliminary Analysis for 

the Gold and Sun companies. See 

Memorandum from The Team, Office 1, 

to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, regarding 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses from the People’s Republic of 

China: Post-Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum for Gold East Paper 

(Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. (‘‘GE’’), Gold 

Huasheng Paper Co., Ltd. (‘‘GHS’’), and 

their reported cross-owned affiliates 

(collectively, ‘‘APP companies’’),’’ 

(August 27, 2010) and Memorandum 

from The Team, Office 1, to Ronald K. 

Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, regarding 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses from the People’s Republic of 

China: Post-Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum for Shandong Sun Paper 

Industry Joint Stock Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sun 

Paper’’) and Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper 

Industry Co. Ltd. (‘‘Yanzhou 

Tianzhang’’) (collectively, ‘‘Sun 

companies’’),’’ (August 27, 2010), 

available in the CRU. (These analyses 

are referred to herein as ‘‘PostPreliminary Analyses’’.) 

On August 30, 2010, the Department 

determined not to investigate a new 

subsidy allegation regarding currency 

undervaluation. See Memorandum form 

The Team to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘New 

Subsidy Allegation—Currency,’’ (August 

30, 2010), available in the CRU. 

We received case briefs from the GOC, 

the Gold companies, the Sun 

companies, and Petitioners on 

September 7, 2010. The same parties 

submitted rebuttal briefs on September 

10, 2010. 

The GOC, Gold companies, and 

Petitioners requested a hearing. The 

same parties later withdrew their 

requests. Therefore, no hearing was 

held. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation includes certain coated 

paper and paperboard 1 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; 2 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, surfacedecorated, printed (except as described 

below), embossed, or perforated; and 

irrespective of dimensions (‘‘Certain 

Coated Paper’’). 

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 multicolored 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 Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘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 this 

investigation is dispositive. 

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 

HTSUS numbers which may include inscope 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) Multi-ply 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 postpreliminary scope determination. In 

response, the respondents in these 

investigations filed a case brief on 

August 20, 2010, and Petitioners filed a 

rebuttal brief on August 24, 2010. Based 

on the Department’s analysis of these 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
59214 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 

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 

Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, entitled ‘‘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’’ 

(September 20, 2010) (hereafter 

‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the meaning 

of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), the 

International Trade Commission (the 

‘‘ITC’’) is required to determine whether 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

the PRC materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. On 

November 9, 2009, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

issued its affirmative preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of allegedly subsidized imports 

of coated paper from the PRC. See 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses From China and Indonesia; 

Determinations, Investigation Nos. 701– 

TA–470–471 and 731–TA–1169–1170, 

74 FR 61174 (November 23, 2009). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

above-referenced Decision 

Memorandum. Attached to this notice 

as an Appendix is a list of the issues 

that parties have raised and to which we 

have responded in the Decision 

Memorandum. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this investigation and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the CRU. In addition, a complete 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

can be accessed directly on the Internet 

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

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

Consistent with the Preliminary 

Determination, we have continued to 

rely on facts available and to draw an 

adverse inference, in accordance with 

sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, for 

certain of our findings. With respect to 

the GOC’s provision of papermaking 

chemicals, we determine that kaolin 

clay, caustic soda and titanium dioxide 

are being provided by governmental 

authorities for the reasons explained in 

the Preliminary Determination and we 

determine that the subsidy conferred 

through the GOC’s provision of caustic 

soda is specific for the reasons 

explained in the Post-Preliminary 

Analysis. With respect to the GOC’s 

provision of land use rights in the 

Yangpu Economic Development Zone, 

we determine that the subsidy is 

specific for the reason explained in 

Post-Preliminary Analyses. Finally, with 

respect to the GOC’s provision of 

electricity, we determine that the GOC 

has made a financial contribution that is 

specific, and we have applied an 

adverse inference is determining the 

benefit for the reasons explained in the 

Preliminary Determination. 

Sun Companies 

In a departure from the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department now 

finds that the use of ‘‘facts otherwise 

available’’ pursuant to section 776(a) of 

the Act is warranted with regard to the 

Sun companies. At verification, we 

learned that numerous companies that 

meet the Department’s criteria for being 

‘‘cross-owned,’’ as that term is defined in 

19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), and that 

produced certain coated paper or inputs 

for paper products were not included in 

the Sun companies’ responses. 

Therefore, information that the 

Department needs to calculate the Sun 

companies’ subsidy rate has not been 

provided and the Department is unable 

to accurately determine the appropriate 

level of subsidization provided to the 

Sun companies. By not providing this 

information despite being in a position 

to do so, the Sun companies failed to act 

to the best of their ability. Accordingly, 

we find that an adverse inference is 

warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act. 

For the final determination and 

consistent with the Department’s recent 

practice, we are computing a total AFA 

rate for the Sun companies, generally 

using program-specific rates determined 

for the cooperating respondent or in 

past cases. Specifically, for programs 

other than those involving income tax 

exemptions and rate reductions, we will 

apply the highest calculated rate for the 

identical program in this investigation if 

a responding company used the 

identical program. If there is no 

identical program match within the 

investigation, we will use the highest 

non-de minimis rate calculated for the 

same or similar program in another PRC 

CVD investigation. Absent an above-de 

minimis subsidy rate calculated for the 

same or similar program, we will apply 

the highest calculated subsidy rate for 

any program otherwise listed that could 

conceivably be used by the Sun 

companies. See, e.g., Certain Kitchen 

Shelving and Racks from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 

FR 37012 (July 27, 2009) and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Use of Facts 

Otherwise Available and Adverse Facts 

Available’’ at 4–5. The Department has 

further amended its methodology to 

exclude any calculated rate for a 

program by a voluntary respondent. See 

Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 75 FR 54302, 54305 

(September 7, 2010). 

Also, as explained in Certain TowBehind Lawn Groomers and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

42324 (July 21, 2008) and accompanying 

Initiation Checklist, where the GOC can 

demonstrate through complete, 

verifiable, positive evidence that noncooperative companies (including all 

their facilities and cross-owned 

affiliates) are not located in particular 

provinces whose subsidies are being 

investigated, the Department does not 

intend to include those provincial 

programs in determining the 

countervailable subsidy rate for the noncooperative companies. 

The GOC failed to provide verifiable 

information demonstrating that the Sun 

companies are located in particular 

provinces or that they have no facilities 

or cross-owned affiliates in any other 

province in the PRC, as requested. 

Therefore, the Department makes the 

adverse inference that the Sun 

companies have facilities and/or crossowned affiliates that received subsidies 

under all of the sub-national programs 

alleged prior to the selection of 

mandatory respondents. 

In deciding which facts to use as 

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

CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 59215 

Department to rely on information 

derived from: (1) The petition; (2) a final 

determination in the investigation; (3) 

any previous review or determination; 

or (4) any other information placed on 

the record. The Department’s practice 

when selecting an adverse rate from 

among the possible sources of 

information is to ensure that the rate 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., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 

63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 

The Department’s practice also ensures 

‘‘that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act 

Statement of Administrative Action 

(‘‘SAA’’), attached to H.R. Rep. No. 103– 

316, Vol. I, at 870 (1994), reprinted in 

1994 U.S.C.C.A.N 3773, 4163. 

Consistent with this, we have 

calculated the Sun companies’ 

countervailable subsidy rate as follows: 

Loans 

For the ‘‘Preferential Lending to the 

Coated Paper Industry’’ and ‘‘Fast 

Growth High-Yield Forestry Program 

Loans’’ programs, we have applied the 

loan rate calculated for the Gold 

companies in this investigation, 8.89 

percent, to each program. 

Grants 

The Department included in its 

investigation numerous grant programs: 

‘‘Funds for Forestry Plantation 

Construction and Management,’’ ‘‘State 

Key Technologies Renovation Project 

Fund,’’ ‘‘Loan Interest Subsidies for 

Major Industrial Technology Reform 

Projects in Wuhan,’’ ‘‘Funds for Water 

Treatment Improvement Projects in the 

Songhuajiang Basin,’’ ‘‘Special Fund for 

Energy Saving Technology Reform in 

Wuhan and Shougang Municipality,’’ 

‘‘Clean Production Technology Fund,’’ 

‘‘Famous Brands Awards,’’ ‘‘Grants to 

Enterprises Achieving RMB 10 Million 

in Sales Revenue and Implementing 

‘Three Significant Projects,’ ’’ ‘‘Grants to 

Large Enterprises in Jining City,’’ ‘‘Funds 

for Water Treatment and Pollution 

Control Projects for Three Rivers and 

Three Lakes,’’ ‘‘Grants for Programs 

Under the 2007 Science and Technology 

Development Plan in Shandong 

Province,’’ ‘‘Special Funds for Economic 

and Trade Development,’’ and ‘‘Interest 

Subsidies for Forestry Loans.’’ The Gold 

companies did not use any of these 

programs and the Department has not 

calculated above de minimis rates for 

any of these programs in prior 

investigations. Moreover, all previously 

calculated rates for grant programs from 

prior PRC CVD investigations have been 

de minimis. Therefore, for each of these 

programs, we have determined to use 

the highest calculated subsidy rate by a 

non-voluntary respondent for any 

program otherwise listed, which could 

conceivably have been used by the Sun 

companies. This rate was 8.89 percent 

for the ‘‘Government Policy Lending 

Program’’ calculated for the Gold 

companies in this investigation. 

Income Tax Rate Reduction and 

Exemption Programs 

For ‘‘The ‘Two Free, Three Half’ 

Program,’’ ‘‘Income Tax Subsidies for 

Foreign Invested Enterprises (‘FIEs’) 

Based on Geographic Location,’’ 

‘‘Income Tax Reduction for FIEs 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment,’’ ‘‘Local Income Tax 

Exemption and Reduction Program for 

‘Productive FIEs,’ ’’ ‘‘Preferential Tax 

Policies for Technology or KnowledgeIntensive FIEs,’’ ‘‘Preferential Tax 

Programs for FIEs that are New or High 

Technology Enterprises,’’ ‘‘Income Tax 

Reductions for High-Technology 

Industries in Guandong Province,’’ 

‘‘Income Tax Exemption Program for 

Export-Oriented FIEs,’’ we have applied 

an adverse inference that the Sun 

companies paid no income tax during 

the POI (i.e., calendar year 2008). The 

standard income tax rate for 

corporations in the PRC was 30 percent, 

plus a three percent provincial income 

tax rate. See GOC’s Response to the 

Department’s Initial Questionnaire, 

dated January 8, 2010. Therefore, the 

highest possible benefit for these 

income tax programs is 33 percent. We 

are applying the 33 percent AFA rate on 

a combined basis (i.e., the eight 

programs combined provided a 33 

percent benefit). This 33 percent AFA 

rate does not apply to tax credit and 

refund programs. 

Other Tax Benefits and VAT/Tariff 

Reductions and Exemptions 

We are using the rates calculated for 

the Gold companies in this investigation 

for the following programs: ‘‘Preferential 

Tax Policies for Research and 

Development at FIEs’’ (0.01 percent); 

‘‘Exemption from Maintenance and 

Construction Taxes and Education 

Surcharges for FIEs’’ (0.34 percent); 

‘‘Value Added-Tax and Tariff 

Exemptions on Imported Equipment’’ 

(3.46 percent); ‘‘Domestic VAT Refunds 

for Companies Located in the Hainan 

Economic Development Zone’’ (0.37 

percent); and ‘‘VAT Rebates on 

Domestically Produced Equipment’’ 

(0.20 percent). For the programs the 

Gold companies did not use, ‘‘Corporate 

Income Tax Refund Program for 

Reinvestment of FIE Profits in Export 

Orientated Enterprises,’’ and ‘‘Income 

Tax Credits for Domestically Owned 

Companies Purchasing Domestically 

Produced Equipment,’’ we have used the 

highest non-de minimis rate for any 

indirect tax program from a PRC CVD 

investigation. The rate we selected is 

1.51 percent, which was the rate 

calculated for respondent Gold East 

Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. (‘‘GE’’) for the 

‘‘Value-added Tax and Tariff 

Exemptions on Imported Equipment,’’ 

program. See Coated Free Sheet Paper 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 72 FR 60645 (October 

25, 2007) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at 14. 

Provision of Goods and Services for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration (‘‘LTAR’’) 

For ‘‘Provision of Electricity for 

LTAR,’’ ‘‘Provision of Papermaking 

Chemicals for LTAR,’’ and ‘‘Land in the 

Yangpu Economic Development Zone,’’ 

we have used the rates calculated for the 

Gold companies in this investigation, 

0.08 percent, 0.80 percent and 0.85 

percent, respectively. 

Economic Development Zones (‘‘EDZs’’) 

For the ‘‘Subsidies in the Nanchang 

Economic Development Zone,’’ 

Petitioners alleged that land, water and 

electricity were provided to producers 

of coated paper for LTAR in the 

Nanchang EDZ. For land, we have 

applied the rate calculated for the Gold 

companies in this investigation, 0.85 

percent. For water, the Department has 

not calculated an above de minimis rate 

for this program in prior investigations. 

Therefore, we have applied the land for 

LTAR rate calculated for the Gold 

companies in this investigation, 0.85 

percent because this program is similar 

to other EDZ LTAR programs in this 

investigation. We are not applying a 

sub-national rate for electricity, as we 

are already applying a national-level 

rate to the Sun companies as AFA. 

For ‘‘Subsidies in the Wuhan 

Economic Development Zone,’’ 

Petitioners alleged that land was 

provided to producers of coated paper at 

LTAR in the Wuhan EDZ. Therefore, we 

have applied the rate calculated for the 

Gold companies in this investigation, 

0.85 percent. For ‘‘Subsidies in the 

Yangpu Economic Development Zone,’’ 

Petitioners alleged that land and 

electricity were provided to producers 

of coated paper at LTAR in the Yangpu 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
59216 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 

EDZ. For land, we are applying the rate 

calculated for the Gold companies in 

this investigation, 0.85 percent. For 

electricity, as previously discussed we 

are not applying a sub-national rate. 

Finally, for ‘‘Subsidies in the Zhenjiang 

Economic Development Zone,’’ 

Petitioners alleged that electricity was 

provided to producers of coated paper at 

LTAR in the Zhenjiang EDZ. As 

discussed above, we are not applying a 

sub-national rate for electricity. 

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 or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is ‘‘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 e.g., SAA, at 

870. The Department considers 

information to be corroborated if it has 

probative value. See id. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used. The SAA 

emphasizes, however, that the 

Department need not prove that the 

selected facts available are the best 

alternative information. See SAA at 869. 

With regard to the reliability aspect of 

corroboration, we note that these rates 

were calculated in recent final CVD 

determinations. Further, the calculated 

rates were based upon verified 

information about the same or similar 

programs. Moreover, no information has 

been presented in this investigation that 

calls into question the reliability of 

these calculated rates that we are 

applying as AFA. Finally, unlike other 

types of information, such as publicly 

available data on the national inflation 

rate of a given country or national 

average interest rates, there typically are 

no independent sources for data on 

company-specific benefits resulting 

from countervailable subsidy programs. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroborating the rates selected, the 

Department will consider information 

reasonably at its disposal in considering 

the relevance of information used to 

calculate a countervailable subsidy 

benefit. Where circumstances indicate 

that the information is not appropriate 

as AFA, the Department will not use it. 

See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996). 

In the absence of record evidence 

concerning these programs due to Sun 

companies’ decision to impede the 

investigation, the Department has 

reviewed the information concerning 

PRC subsidy programs in this and other 

cases. For those programs for which the 

Department has found a program-type 

match, we find that, because these are 

the same or similar programs, they are 

relevant to the programs of this case. For 

the programs for which there is no 

program-type match, the Department 

has selected the highest calculated 

subsidy rate for any PRC program from 

a non-voluntary respondent from which 

the Sun companies could receive a 

benefit to use as AFA. The relevance of 

this rate is that it is an actual calculated 

CVD rate for a PRC program from which 

the Sun companies could conceivably 

receive a benefit. Further, this rate was 

calculated for a period close to the POI 

in the instant case. Moreover, the Sun 

companies’ failure to respond to 

requests for information has ‘‘resulted in 

an egregious lack of evidence on the 

record to suggest an alternative rate.’’ 

See Shanghai Taoen Int’l Trading Co., 

Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 

1339, 1348 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005). Due to 

the lack of participation by the Sun 

companies and the resulting lack of 

record information concerning these 

programs, the Department has 

corroborated the rates it selected to the 

extent practicable. 

On this basis, we determine that the 

AFA countervailable subsidy rate for the 

Sun companies is 178.03 percent ad 

valorem. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

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

calculated individual rates for each 

producer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise individually investigated. 

Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states 

that for companies not investigated, we 

will determine an ‘‘all others’’ rate equal 

to the weighted-average countervailable 

subsidy rates established for exporters 

and producers individually 

investigated, excluding any zero and de 

minimis countervailable subsidy rates, 

and any rates determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. As the Sun 

companies’ subsidy rate was determined 

entirely under section 776 of the Act, 

the Gold companies’ calculated rate was 

used as the All Others rate. 

Exporter/manufacturer Net subsidy 

rate 

Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Gold Huasheng Paper Co., Ltd., Gold East Trading (Hong Kong) Company Ltd., Ningbo 

Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd., and Ningbo Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd .................................................................................................. 17.64 

Shandong Sun Paper Industry Joint Stock Co., Ltd. and Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co., Ltd ............................................... 178.03 

All Others ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17.64 

Also, in accordance with section 

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

Customs and Border Protection to 

discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for countervailing duty 

purposes for subject merchandise 

entered on or after July 7, 2010, but to 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of entries made from March 9, 2010, 

through July 6, 2010. 

We will issue a countervailing duty 

order if the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, and we will 

require a cash deposit of estimated 

countervailing duties for such entries of 

merchandise in the amounts indicated 

above. If the ITC determines that 

material injury, or threat of material 

injury, does not exist, this proceeding 

will be terminated and all estimated 

deposits or securities posted as a result 

of the suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an APO, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 59217 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is published 

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

the Act. 

Dated: September 20, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Comments and Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum 

General Issues 

Comment 1 Application of CVD Law to the 

PRC 

Comment 2 Application of the CVD Law to 

NMEs and the Administrative Protection 

Act 

Comment 3 Double Counting/Overlapping 

Remedies 

Comment 4 Cutoff Date for Identifying 

Subsidies 

Currency 

Comment 5 Opportunity to Comment and 

the Initiation Standard 

Comment 6 The Determination Not To 

Investigate the Alleged Currency Subsidy 

Comment 7 The Department’s Analysis of a 

Unified Rate of Exchange 

Scope 

Comment 8 Burden Imposed on 

Respondents 

Comment 9 Whether Multi-ply Paperboard 

Was Intended To Be in the Scope 

Comment 10 Physical Characteristics and 

End-use Applications Distinguish Multiply Paper From the Covered Merchandise 

Comment 11 Whether the Department 

Should Retain the ‘‘Suitability’’ Language 

in the Scope Description 

Comment 12 Whether Inclusion of Multiply Paper in the Scope Affects Respondent 

Selection 

Comment 13 Scope Expansion Violates 

Standing and Injury Requirements 

Chemicals for LTAR 

Comment 14 Benchmarks—Papermaking 

Chemicals 

Comment 15 Provision of Papermaking 

Chemicals for LTAR—Specificity 

Comment 16 Government Ownership and 

Determining Whether a Financial 

Contribution Has Occurred 

Preferential Lending to the Coated Paper 

Industry 

Comment 17 Whether Chinese Banks Are 

Authorities 

Comment 18 Whether the Policy Loan 

Program Is Specific 

Lending Benchmarks 

Comment 19 Whether Negative Real 

Interest Rates Should Be Excluded From 

the Regression 

Comment 20 Whether the Regression Is 

Statistically Valid 

Comment 21 Should the Department Use an 

In-Country Benchmark 

Comment 22 Terms of Loan Rates in the 

IMF Data 

Comment 23 Whether the Long-Term and 

Discount Rates Are Flawed 

Provision of Land for LTAR 

Comment 24 Whether HYDC Is an 

Authority 

Comment 25 Financial Contribution 

Comment 26 Whether To Use an In-country 

Benchmark 

Comment 27 Whether There Are Flaws in 

the Thai Benchmark 

Comment 28 Specificity of Land for LTAR 

Based on AFA 

Issues Related to Sun Companies 

Comment 29 Whether To Use Revised Sales 

Values for the Sun Companies 

Comment 30 Whether To Apply Adverse 

Facts Available to Sun Companies’ 

Unreported Loans 

Comment 31 Whether To Apply Facts 

Available to Sun Companies’ Unreported 

Cross-Owned Companies 

Issues Related to Gold Companies 

Comment 32 Whether To Grant the Gold 

Companies an EV Adjustment 

Comment 33 Creditworthiness 

Comment 34 Whether To Adjust the 

Uncreditworthiness Benchmark 

Comment 35 GE Sales Denominator 

Comment 36 Whether To Attribute 

Subsidies Received by Input Suppliers 

Whose Inputs Are Not Used for 

Merchandise Exported to the United States 

Comment 37 Whether the Department 

Should Attribute Subsidies From Pulp 

Producers Based on the Percentage of Total 

Pulp Sales to the Paper Producers Covered 

Comment 38 Whether To Countervail 

Additional Financing Reported by the Gold 

Companies 

Comment 39 Whether To Adjust the Gold 

Companies’ Interest Calculation 

Comment 40 Whether To Adjust JHP’s 

Reported VAT and Duty Exemptions on 

Imported Equipment 

Comment 41 Whether To Use an 

Alternative Electricity Benchmark 

Comment 42 Whether To Apply AFA to 

JAP and JHP Caustic Soda Purchases 

[FR Doc. 2010–24184 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES