[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 186 (Monday, September 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59223-59226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24160]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-560-823]


Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics 
Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce determines that certain coated 
paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses 
(certain coated paper) from Indonesia is being, or is likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value (LTFV), as provided 
in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final 
Determination Margins'' section of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: September 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gemal Brangman or Brian Smith, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3773 and (202) 482-1766, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 6, 2010, the Department of Commerce (Department) published 
in the Federal Register the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV 
in the antidumping duty investigation of certain coated paper from 
Indonesia. See Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print 
Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination, 75 FR 24885 (May 6, 2010) (Preliminary 
Determination).
    On May 10, 2010, the respondents\1\ in this investigation alleged a 
ministerial error in the Department's preliminary margin calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The respondents are: PT. Pindo Deli Pulp & Paper Mills (PD), 
PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia, Tbk (TK), PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper 
Tbk (IK) (collectively PD/TK/IK). In the preliminary determination, 
we determined it appropriate to treat PD, TK, and IK as one entity 
for margin calculation purposes because they met the regulatory 
criteria for collapsing. See Memorandum to John M. Andersen, Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from the Team 
entitled, ``Whether To Treat Respondents as a Single Entity for 
Margin Calculation Purposes in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using 
Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia,'' dated April 21, 2010. No party 
commented on this preliminary determination and we found nothing at 
verification that would otherwise compel us to reverse this 
determination. Therefore, we have continued to treat these 
affiliated companies as one entity in the final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 14, 2010, the Department issued a post-preliminary analysis 
for PD/TK/IK evaluating whether the use of quarterly cost averaging 
periods was warranted in this investigation. See Memorandum to Neal 
Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled ``Alternative Cost 
Averaging Period Analysis Memorandum--PT Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia 
Tbk., PT Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills, and PT Indah Kiat Pulp Tbk,'' 
dated May 14, 2010. Based on the data and methodology described in this 
memorandum, we found that the change in the total cost of manufacturing 
recognized by PD/TK/IK during the period of investigation (POI) for its 
highest-volume products sold in the U.S. and home markets did not meet 
the Department's standard for significance (i.e., greater than 25 
percent

[[Page 59224]]

change from the high to the low quarter). See Certain Welded Stainless 
Steel Pipes From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 31242 (June 30, 2009) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Therefore, we 
determined that no change to our normal POI-average cost methodology 
was warranted in this case.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ No party commented on the Department's post-preliminary 
quarterly cost analysis and we found nothing at verification that 
warrants the reversal of this determination. Therefore, we have 
continued to apply our normal POI-average cost methodology in the 
final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 11, 2010, we issued the cost verification agenda to PD/TK/
IK.
    On May 19, 2010, we determined that the error alleged by PD/TK/IK 
in its May 10, 2010, submission was a ministerial error, but not a 
significant ministerial error as defined by 19 CFR 351.224(g), and 
stated that we would correct this error for purposes of the final 
determination. See Memorandum from The Team to James Maeder, Director, 
AD/CVD Operations Office 2, entitled ``Respondent's Allegation of 
Ministerial Error in the Preliminary Determination,'' dated May 19, 
2010.
    On June 1, 2010, we issued a sales supplemental questionnaire to 
PD/TK/IK and received PD/TK/IK's response to this questionnaire on June 
16, 2010.
    On June 4, 2010, we issued the sales verification agenda to PD/TK/
IK.
    During May and June 2010, we verified the sales and cost of 
production (COP) questionnaire responses of PD/TK/IK. During June and 
July 2010, we issued the COP and sales verification reports. See 
Memorandum to The File entitled ``Verification of the Cost Response of 
PT Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk., PT Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills, 
and PT Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk. in the Antidumping Investigation 
of Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using 
Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia,'' dated June 29, 2010; Memorandum to 
The File entitled ``Verification of the Sales Response of (Affiliated 
Company) in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Coated Paper 
Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 
(Coated Paper) From Indonesia,'' dated July 26, 2010; Memorandum to The 
File entitled ``Verification of the Sales Response of PT Pindo Deli 
Pulp & Paper Mills and PT Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia, Tbk in the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 
High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses (Coated Paper) From 
Indonesia,'' dated July 26, 2010; Memorandum to The File entitled 
``Verification of the Sales Response of PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Tbk. 
and (Affiliated Company) in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using 
Sheet-Fed Presses (Coated Paper) From Indonesia,'' dated July 30, 2010; 
and Memorandum to The File entitled ``Verification of the Sales 
Response of (Affiliated Company) in the Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using 
Sheet-Fed Presses (Coated Paper) From Indonesia,'' dated July 30, 2010.
    On August 3, 2010, we issued a memorandum addressing certain scope 
issues in this investigation. See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Susan 
Kuhbach, Director, Office 1, entitled ``Scope'' (August 3, 2010 Scope 
Memorandum).
    On August 10 and 16, 2010, respectively, the petitioners\3\ in this 
investigation and PD/TK/IK each submitted case and rebuttal briefs on 
all issues excluding scope. On August 18 and 25, 2010, the Department 
met with the petitioners' and PD/TK/IK's counsels, respectively, to 
discuss the issues raised in these case and rebuttal briefs. See the 
Department's memoranda to the file entitled, ``Meeting With 
Petitioner's Counsel,'' dated August 18, 2010, and ``Meeting With the 
Respondent Counsel,'' dated August 25, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The petitioners include the following companies: 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 20, 2010, PD/TK/TK filed its case brief on scope issues, 
and on August 24, 2010, the petitioners filed their rebuttal brief on 
scope issues.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. This period corresponds 
to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the 
filing of the petition. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise under investigation includes certain coated paper 
and paperboard\4\ 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; \5\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ `` `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.' ''
    \5\ 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 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

[[Page 59225]]

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 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.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues (except scope issues) raised in the case and rebuttal 
briefs submitted by the parties to this investigation are addressed in 
the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the 
Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 
High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia'' 
from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (Decision Memo), 
dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this 
notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we 
have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to 
this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding 
recommendations in the Decision Memo, which is on file in the Central 
Records Unit, Room 1117 of the Commerce Department. In addition, a 
complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the 
Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version 
of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and 
COP information submitted by PD/TK/IK for use in our final 
determination. We used standard verification procedures including an 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original 
source documents provided by the respondent. Our sales and cost 
verification results are outlined in separate verification reports. See 
``Background'' section above for a list of verification reports the 
Department has issued in this investigation. The verification reports 
are on file and available in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the 
Commerce Department.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at 
verification, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations 
for PD/TK/IK. For a discussion of these changes, see the ``Margin 
Calculations'' section of the Decision Memo.

Targeted Dumping

    The statute allows the Department to employ the average-to-
transaction margin calculation methodology under the following 
circumstances: (1) There is a pattern of export prices that differ 
significantly among purchasers, regions or periods of time; and (2) the 
Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into account 
using the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction methodology. 
See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In the Preliminary Determination, we conducted customer, regional, 
and time-period targeted dumping analyses based on timely allegations 
of targeted dumping filed by the petitioners, using the methodology 
adopted in Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 
(June 16, 2008), and Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 
16, 2008), and applied in more recent investigations.\6\ As a result, 
we preliminarily determined that, with respect to sales by PD/TK/IK for 
certain customers, regions and time periods, there was a pattern of 
prices that differed significantly. However, we also found that these 
differences could be taken into account using the average-to-average 
methodology because the average-to-average methodology did not conceal 
differences in the patterns of prices between the targeted and non-
targeted groups by averaging low-priced sales to the targeted group 
with high-priced sales to the non-targeted group. We stated further 
that the standard average-to-average methodology took into account the 
price difference because the alternative average-to-transaction 
methodology yielded no difference in the margin or yielded a difference 
in the margin that was so insignificant relative to the size of the 
resulting margin as to be immaterial. Therefore, for the preliminary 
determination, we applied the standard average-to-average methodology 
to all of PD/TK/IK's U.S. sales. See Preliminary Determination at 75 FR 
24887-24888.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These investigations include Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 
from Taiwan, 75 FR 14569 (March 26, 2010), Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bags from Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 16431 (April 1, 2010), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; and Certain Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final Determination of 
Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the final determination, we performed our targeted-dumping 
analysis following the methodology employed in the Preliminary 
Determination, after making certain revisions to PD/TK/IK's reported 
data based on verification findings and the comments submitted by the 
parties, as enumerated in the ``Margin Calculations'' section of the 
Decision Memo. Because the results of our final targeted-dumping 
analysis were consistent with those of our preliminary targeted-dumping 
analysis, we have continued to apply the standard average-to-average 
methodology to all of PD/TK/IK's U.S. sales in the final

[[Page 59226]]

determination. For further discussion, see the Decision Memo at Comment 
1.

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 that are 
entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 6, 
2010, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the 
Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the 
estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown below. The suspension 
of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

Final Determination Margins

    We determine that the weighted-average dumping margins are as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Weighted-Average margin
             Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk./PT. Pindo                       20.13
 Deli Pulp and Paper/PT. Indah Kiat Pulp and
 Paper Tbk.....................................
All Others.....................................                    20.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated ``All 
Others'' rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the 
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters 
and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de 
minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 
of the Act. PD/TK/IK is the only respondent in this investigation for 
which the Department calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for 
purposes of determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section 
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping 
margin calculated for PD/TK/IK, as referenced above. See, e.g., Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 30750, 30755 (June 8, 
1999); Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination, 72 FR 30753, 30757 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated 
Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 60636 (October 25, 2007); and 
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from Mexico: Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 45097 (August 2, 
2010).

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).

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our 
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine within 45 
days whether imports of the subject merchandise are causing material 
injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United 
States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of 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, for 
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to 
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 return/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.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

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

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memo

Comments

Comment 1: Targeted Dumping
Comment 2: Capitalization of Foreign Exchange Losses in Log Costs
Comment 3: Market Price for Certain Logs
Comment 4: Inclusion of Sawmill Logs in Log Costs
Comment 5: Transfer Price for Logs
Comment 6: IK's Pulp Costs
Comment 7: General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses
Comment 8: Financial Expenses
Comment 9: Unreported Sales to Puerto Rico
Comment 10: Treatment of Bank Charges, Loading Fees, Administrative 
(ADM) Fees, and Automatic Manifest System (AMS) Fees
Comment 11: Billing Adjustments
Comment 12: Rebates
Comment 13: Freight Revenue
Comment 14: International Freight
Comment 15: Foreign Inland Freight
Comment 16: Treatment of Certain U.S. Sales

[FR Doc. 2010-24160 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P