Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 59209 

7See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2007 Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: Due Date for Interested 

Parties to Submit Comments on Draft Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant to Remand,’’ dated July 

16, 2010. 

8See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341. 

9See NSR Final Results. 

and its determination that it could not 

address its failure to consider the 

February 5, 2009, submission as a 

ministerial error. On June 7, 2010, the 

Department filed an unopposed motion 

for voluntary remand with the Court so 

that the Department could fully 

consider and evaluate the overlooked 

record evidence, prepare draft remand 

results, issue a draft to the parties for 

comment, analyze those comments, and 

take such action as may be appropriate 

pertaining to Bon Ten. On June 8, 2010, 

the Court granted the Department’s 

voluntary remand motion. 

On June 11, 2010, we issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Bon Ten, 

in which we provided Bon Ten the 

opportunity to submit a no-shipment 

certification. On June 15, 2010, Bon Ten 

submitted a certification that it had no 

shipments of WBF during the period 

August 1, 2007, through December 31, 

2007, the portion of the 2007 AR POR 

that was not covered by the preceding 

NSR POR. On July 16, 2010, we released 

to all interested parties for comment: (1) 

Our draft redetermination pursuant to 

the remand finding that Bon Ten had 

properly submitted its no-shipment 

certification and stating our intent to 

rescind the AR with respect to Bon Ten; 

(2) a U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data listing of all 

type 3 entries (i.e., entries subject to 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

tariffs) classified under subheadings 

7009.92.5000, 9403.50.9080, and 

9403.50.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States that 

entered the United States during the 

2007 AR POR and were exported/ 

manufactured by Bon Ten; and (3) a 

draft version of Bon Ten’s amended 

final cash deposit instructions reflecting 

the draft redetermination results, which 

the Department intends to send to CBP, 

pending the expiration of the period of 

appeal or, if appealed, pending a final 

and conclusive court decision.7 We 

received no comments from interested 

parties on the Department’s draft 

redetermination results, CBP data, or the 

draft version of the cash deposit 

instructions for Bon Ten. 

On August 9, 2010, the Department 

issued its final results of 

redetermination pursuant to Bon Ten v. 

United States. The remand 

redetermination explained that, in 

accordance with the CIT’s instructions, 

we have reconsidered the record 

information with regard to Bon Ten’s 

no-shipment certification and separaterate status for the 2007 AR. Based on 

this reconsideration, we have 

determined to rescind the 2007 AR with 

respect to Bon Ten pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.214(j) and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). 

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, the CAFC 

held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), the Department must publish a 

notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in 

harmony’’ with a Department 

determination and must suspend 

liquidation of entries pending a 

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.8 The CIT’s 

decision in Bon Ten v. United States, 

issued on September 17, 2010, 

constitutes a final decision of that Court 

that is not in harmony with the 

Department’s Final Results and 

Amended Final Results. This notice is 

published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Accordingly, pending the expiration of 

the period of appeal or, if appealed, 

pending a final and conclusive court 

decision, the Department will instruct 

CBP to collect a cash-deposit rate for 

Bon Ten, effective October 31, 2008, 

based on the rate established in the final 

results of Bon Ten’s NSR (i.e., 0.00 

percent) until completion of any 

subsequent administrative review of 

Bon Ten.9

This notice is issued and published in 

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

the Act. 

Dated: September 23, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24321 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT Of COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–560–824] 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High–Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet–Fed Presses from Indonesia: 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerc. 

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 high– 

quality print graphics using sheet–fed 

presses (coated paper) from Indonesia. 

For information on the estimated 

countervailing duty rates, please see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section, 

below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene Calvert or Nicholas Czajkowski, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3586 and (202) 

482–1395, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the announcement of the 

preliminary determination, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 9, 2010. See Certain Coated 

Paper from Indonesia: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

75 FR 10761 (March 9, 2010) 

(Preliminary Determination). 

The Department issued additional 

supplemental questionnaires to the 

Government of Indonesia (GOI), and to 

cross–owned company respondents PT 

Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk., PT 

Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk., and PT 

Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills 

(collectively, APP/SMG) regarding the 

programs under investigation. Parties 

submitted timely responses to these 

supplemental questionnaires on May 11 

and May 26 (the GOI and APP/SMG) 

and June 25 (the GOI only). On April 7 

and April 8, APP/SMG and Appleton 

Coated LLC, NewPage Corporation, S.D. 

Warren Company d/b/a Sappi Fine 

Paper North America, and the United 

Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union (collectively, 

Petitioners), respectively, submitted 

timely requests for a hearing pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(c), which they both 

subsequently withdrew on August 6, 

2010. 

The Department conducted 

verification of the questionnaire 

responses submitted by the GOI and 

APP/SMG from June 28, 2010 through 

July 8, 2010. The Department issued the 

final business–proprietary version of the 

verification reports on August 6, 2010. 

We received case briefs from the GOI 

and APP/SMG, jointly, and from 

Petitioners on August 16. We received 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
59210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 

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. 

rebuttal briefs from these parties on 

August 23. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise under investigation 

includes certain coated paper and 

paperboard1 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, surface–decorated, 

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 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 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 the 

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 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) 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 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. 

Injury Test 

Because Indonesia 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 (ITC) is 

required to determine pursuant to 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act whether 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

Indonesia materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a United States 

industry. On November 23, 2009, the 

ITC published its preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of allegedly subsidized imports 

from Indonesia of subject merchandise. 

See Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High–Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet–Fed Presses from China and 

Indonesia, 74 FR 61174 (November 23, 

2009); and Certain Coated Paper 

Suitable for High–Quality Print 

Graphics Using Sheet–Fed Presses from 

China and Indonesia (Preliminary), 

USITC Pub. 4108, Inv. Nos. 701–TA– 

470–471 and 731–TA–1169–1170 

(November 2009). 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

investigation (POI), is January 1, 2008 

through December 31, 2008. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All non–scope issues raised in the 

case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the 

GOI, APP/SMG, and Petitioners are 

addressed in the Memorandum to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High– 

Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet–Fed 

Presses from Indonesia: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination’’ (September 20, 2010) 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. 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 

this public memorandum in the 

Department’s Central Records Unit, 

located in Room 7046 in the main 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

ia–highlights-and–news.html or http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 59211 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

For purposes of this final 

determination, we relied, in part, on 

adverse facts available (AFA), as 

provided for in sections 776(a) and (b) 

of the Act, to determine the 

countervailable subsidy rate for one 

program under investigation. A full 

discussion of our decision to apply AFA 

is presented in the Decision 

Memorandum in the section 

‘‘Application of Facts Otherwise 

Available.’’ 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

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

calculated an individual rate for APP/ 

SMG. 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 based 

entirely on AFA under section 776 of 

the Act. 

Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate 

PT Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi 

Kimia, Tbk..

PT Pindo Deli Pulp and 

Paper Mills.

PT Indah Kiat Pulp and 

Paper, Tbk..

(i.e., APP/SMG) ............ 17.94% 

All Others ...................... 17.94% 

Although suspension of liquidation 

was required on the date of publication 

of the Preliminary Determination, we 

subsequently instructed U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection, pursuant to 

section 703(d) of the Act, 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 on or after 

March 9, 2010 (the publication date of 

the Preliminary Determination) through 

July 6, 2010. 

If the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, we will issue a 

countervailing duty order and continue 

with the suspension of liquidation 

under section 706(a) of the Act. We will 

then require a cash deposit of estimated 

countervailing duties for entries of 

subject merchandise in the amounts 

indicated above. If the ITC determines 

that material injury, or threat of material 

injury, does not exist, this proceeding 

will be terminated and all estimated 

duties deposited or securities posted as 

a result of the suspension of liquidation 

will be refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all non– 

privileged 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 Administrative Protective 

Order (APO), without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an 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 issued and 

published pursuant to sections 705(d) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: Septmber 20, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Subsidies Valuation 

A. Period of Investigation 

B. Allocation Period 

C. Discount Rates and 

Uncreditworthiness 

D. Cross–Ownership 

E. Attribution of Subsidies Sales 

Denominator 

IV. Application of Facts Otherwise 

Available 

A. APP/SMG Purchased Its Own Debt 

from the GOI 

B. Corroboration 

V. Analysis of Programs 

A. Programs Determined To Be 

Countervailable 

1. Provision of Standing Timber for 

Less Than Adequate Remuneration 

2. Government Prohibition of Log 

Exports 

3. Debt Forgiveness Through the 

Indonesian Government’s 

Acceptance of Financial 

Instruments with No Market Value 

4. Debt Forgiveness Through APP/ 

SMG’s Buyback of Its Own Debt 

from the Indonesian Government 

B. Programs Determined To Have 

Been Not Used During the Period of 

Investigation 

1. Government Provision of Interest 

Free Reforestation Loans 

2. Government Forgiveness of 

Stumpage Obligations 

3. Tax Incentives for Investment in 

Priority Business Lines and 

Designated Regions 

a. Corporate Income Tax Deduction 

b. Accelerated Depreciation and 

Amortization 

c. Extension of Loss Carryforward 

d. Reduced Withholding Tax on 

Dividends 

VI. Analysis of Comments 

PROVISION OF STANDING TIMBER/LOG

EXPORT BAN

Comment 1: Whether the Department 

Should Account for any Volumes of 

Timber Determined to have been 

Harvested Contrary to Indonesian Law 

in its Benefit Calculations 

Comment 2: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust APP/SMG’s Reported 

Harvest Based on its Verification 

Findings 

Comment 3: Whether the Department 

Should Use the GOI Conversion Factor 

Study for Conversion Ratios 

Comment 4: Whether the Department 

has Assumed the Existence of Distortive 

Effects Due to the Log Export Ban 

Log Benchmarks 

Comment 5: Whether Export Prices to 

Indonesia Should be Used as the Basis 

for Benchmark Calculations 

Comment 6: Whether Specific Export 

Transactions Provided by Respondents 

are an Appropriate Starting Point for 

Calculating a Benchmark 

Comment 7: Whether the Sabah Export 

Data Provides an Appropriate Starting 

Point for Calculating a Benchmark 

Comment 8: Whether Other Data on the 

Record Provides an Appropriate Starting 

Point for Calculating a Benchmark 

Comment 9: Whether the AUV from the 

WTA Should be Used Only as a 

Fallback when More Specific 

Information is not Available 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Should Make an Adjustment to 

Reported Export Quantities from 

Malaysia in the WTA Data 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
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