29172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

1Sunlake is a company located in Thailand. 

producer combinations listed in the 

table above that have been granted 

separate rates, we have assigned the 

initiation rate. Therefore, for 

merchandise under consideration from 

these exporter producer combinations, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of this final 

determination, we will instruct CBP to 

require an antidumping cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond for each entry 

equal to 154.72 percent, as indicated 

above. The cash deposit rate for 

Superpower, Princeway, and other 

exporter–producer combinations is 

386.28 percent, as indicated above. 

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 as described in the ‘‘Scope 

of the Investigation’’ section, that are 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after January 28, 

2009, which is the date of publication 

of the Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to require a cash deposit or the posting 

of a bond equal to the weighted–average 

dumping margin amount by which the 

NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) 

the rate for the exporter/producer 

combination listed in the chart above 

will be the rate we have determined in 

this final determination; (2) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash–deposit rate will be the PRC–wide 

entity rate; and (3) for all non–PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash–deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporter/producer 

combination that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These suspension–ofliquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

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 of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will 

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise 

within 45 days of this final 

determination. If the ITC determines 

that material injury or threat of material 

injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess upon further instruction by the 

Department 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. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. This 

determination and notice are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 12, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Parties’ Comments 

Comment 1: Whether to retain 

Superpower’s Business Proprietary 

Information (‘‘BPI’’) data 

Comment 2: Whether to assign the PRC– 

wide rate as total adverse facts available 

to both mandatory respondents 

Comment 3: Whether to assign the PRC– 

wide rate to the separate rate 

respondents 

Comment 4: Whether to clarify the 

scope language for hitches 

Comment 5: Whether to amend the 

preliminary determination for 

Princeway 

[FR Doc. E9–14470 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–894 

Certain Tissue Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Affirmative Final Determination of 

Circumvention of the Antidumping 

Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FINAL DETERMINATION We determine that 

certain tissue paper products exported 

to the United States from Thailand by 

Sunlake De ́cor Co., Ltd. (Sunlake)1 are 

made from jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets 

of tissue paper produced in the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC), and are 

circumventing the antidumping duty 

order on certain tissue paper products 

from the PRC, as provided in section 

781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). See Notice of 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 16223 (March 

30, 2005) (Order). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2009. 

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 or (202) 482– 

1776, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 30, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) issued its 

affirmative preliminary determination 

that certain tissue paper products 

produced in, and exported from, 

Thailand by Sunlake using PRC–origin 

jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets of tissue 

paper are circumventing the 

antidumping duty order on tissue paper 

from the PRC, as provided in section 

781(b) of the Act. See Certain Tissue 

Paper from the People’s Republic of 

China: Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Circumvention of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 20915 

(May 6, 2009) (Preliminary 

Determination). 

On May 1, 2009, the Department 

notified the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (ITC) of its affirmative 

preliminary determination of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 29173 

2On January 30, 2007, at the direction of CBP, the 

Department added the following HTSUS 

classifications to the AD/CVD module for tissue 

paper: 4802.54.3100, 4802.54.6100, and 

4823.90.6700. However, we note that the six-digit 

classifications for these numbers were already listed 

in the scope. 

circumvention of the antidumping duty 

order on certain tissue paper products 

from the PRC by Sunlake, in accordance 

with section 781(e) of the Act. On May 

27, 2009, the ITC notified the 

Department that it would not be 

requesting consultations concerning the 

Department’s preliminary 

circumvention finding, pursuant to 

section 781(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.225(f)(7)(i)(B). 

After receipt of notification from the 

ITC and consistent with the Preliminary 

Determination, on May 29, 2009, we 

instructed U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation 

and to require a cash deposit of 

estimated duties, at the rate of 112.64 

percent, on all unliquidated entries of 

certain tissue paper products produced 

in and exported from Thailand by 

Sunlake that were entered or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after October 21, 2008, the date of 

initiation of the circumvention inquiry. 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary 

Determination. Comments were due 

June 5, 2009; however, no interested 

party submitted comments. We have 

conducted this inquiry in accordance 

with section 781(b) of the Act. 

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order 

The tissue paper products subject to 

this order are cut–to-length sheets of 

tissue paper having a basis weight not 

exceeding 29 grams per square meter. 

Tissue paper products subject to this 

order may or may not be bleached, dye– 

colored, surface–colored, glazed, surface 

decorated or printed, sequined, 

crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The 

tissue paper subject to this order is in 

the form of cut–to-length sheets of tissue 

paper with a width equal to or greater 

than one–half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue 

paper may be flat or folded, and may be 

packaged by banding or wrapping with 

paper or film, by placing in plastic or 

film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for 

distribution and use by the ultimate 

consumer. Packages of tissue paper 

subject to this order may consist solely 

of tissue paper of one color and/or style, 

or may contain multiple colors and/or 

styles. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

does not have specific classification 

numbers assigned to them under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Subject 

merchandise may be under one or more 

of several different subheadings, 

including: 4802.30; 4802.54; 4802.61; 

4802.62; 4802.69; 4804.31.1000; 

4804.31.2000; 4804.31.4020; 

4804.31.4040; 4804.31.6000; 4804.39; 

4805.91.1090; 4805.91.5000; 

4805.91.7000; 4806.40; 4808.30; 

4808.90; 4811.90; 4823.90; 4820.50.00; 

4802.90.00; 4805.91.90; 9505.90.40. The 

tariff classifications are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive.2

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are the following tissue paper products: 

(1) tissue paper products that are coated 

in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of a kind 

used in floral and food service 

applications; (2) tissue paper products 

that have been perforated, embossed, or 

die–cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., 

disposable sanitary covers for toilet 

seats; (3) toilet or facial tissue stock, 

towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind 

used for household or sanitary 

purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs 

of cellulose fibers (HTSUS 

4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00). 

Scope of the Circumvention Inquiry 

The products covered by this inquiry 

are tissue paper products, as described 

above in the ‘‘Scope of the Antidumping 

Duty Order’’ section, which are 

produced in Thailand from PRC–origin 

jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets of tissue 

paper, and exported to the United States 

from Thailand by Sunlake. 

Statutory Provisions Regarding 

Circumvention 

Section 781(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may find 

circumvention of an antidumping duty 

order when merchandise of the same 

class or kind subject to the order is 

completed or assembled in a foreign 

country other than the country to which 

the order applies. In conducting 

circumvention inquiries under section 

781(b) of the Act, the Department relies 

upon the following criteria: (A) 

merchandise imported into the United 

States is of the same class or kind as any 

merchandise produced in a foreign 

country that is subject to an 

antidumping duty order; (B) before 

importation into the United States, such 

imported merchandise is completed or 

assembled in another foreign country 

from merchandise which is subject to 

the order or produced in the foreign 

country that is subject to the order; (C) 

the process of assembly or completion 

in the foreign country referred to in (B) 

is minor or insignificant; (D) the value 

of the merchandise produced in the 

foreign country to which the 

antidumping duty order applies is a 

significant portion of the total value of 

the merchandise exported to the United 

States; and (E) the administering 

authority determines that action is 

appropriate to prevent evasion of such 

order. 

The Department’s questionnaire 

issued to Sunlake was designed to elicit 

information for purposes of conducting 

both qualitative and quantitative 

analyses in accordance with the criteria 

enumerated in section 781(b) of the Act, 

as outlined above. This approach is 

consistent with our analyses in prior 

circumvention inquiries. See, e.g., 

Certain Tissue Paper Products From the 

People’s Republic of China: Affirmative 

Final Determination of Circumvention 

of the Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 

57591 (October 3, 2008); and 

Circumvention and Scope Inquiries on 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Partial Affirmative 

Final Determination of Circumvention 

of the Antidumping Duty Order, Partial 

Final Termination of Circumvention 

Inquiry and Final Rescission of Scope 

Inquiry, 71 FR 38608 (July 7, 2006). 

Sunlake failed to provide any of the 

information requested in the 

Department’s questionnaire. 

Final Determination 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party: (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department; (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to section 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that, if the Department finds 

that an interested party ‘‘has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information,’’ the Department may use 

information that is adverse to the 

interests of that party as facts otherwise 

available. Adverse inferences are 

appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. 

Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). 

Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of 

bad faith on the part of a respondent is 

not required before the Department may 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

29174 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 

(May 19, 1997). See also Nippon Steel 

Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 

1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

As discussed in detail in the 

Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 

20916–20918, Sunlake refused to 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire despite being given ample 

opportunity to do so by the Department. 

Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), 

(B), and (C) of the Act, the Department 

found that the use of facts available was 

appropriate for Sunlake in this 

circumvention proceeding. 

Furthermore, the Department found that 

Sunlake had not acted to the best of its 

ability in this circumvention proceeding 

within the meaning of section 776(b) of 

the Act. Accordingly, we preliminarily 

applied adverse facts available (AFA) to 

Sunlake. Specifically, we preliminarily 

considered all of Sunlake’s exports of 

tissue paper products from Thailand to 

be of PRC origin and concluded that 

Sunlake is circumventing the Order. We 

also assigned Sunlake a margin of 

112.64 percent, which is the highest 

corroborated rate on the record in any 

completed segment of the tissue paper 

proceeding. 

No party filed comments objecting to 

the Department’s Preliminary 

Determination and no further 

information has come to the 

Department’s attention warranting 

reconsideration of that determination. 

Therefore, we continue to find that the 

application of facts available is 

necessary pursuant to section 776(a) of 

the Act, and that Sunlake has failed to 

act to the best of its ability in this 

circumvention proceeding, warranting 

the use of an adverse inference under 

section 776(b) of the Act. Thus, as AFA, 

we continue to determine that all of 

Sunlake’s exports of tissue paper 

products from Thailand to the United 

States are, in fact, of PRC origin, and 

that Sunlake is circumventing the 

Order. 

Accordingly, for this final 

determination, we are applying to 

Sunlake a margin of 112.64 percent, as 

AFA. This margin is the highest rate on 

the record in any completed segment of 

this proceeding (i.e., the LTFV 

investigation, and the first and second 

administrative reviews) and it has been 

corroborated in accordance with section 

776(c) of the Act, as discussed in detail 

in the Preliminary Determination, 74 FR 

at 20918. 

Suspension of Liquidation and Cash 

Deposit Requirement 

In accordance with section 19 CFR 

351.225(l), the Department will direct 

CBP to continue to suspend liquidation 

and to require a cash deposit of 

estimated duties, at the rate of 112.64 

percent, on all unliquidated entries of 

certain tissue paper products produced 

in and exported from Thailand by 

Sunlake that were entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after October 21, 

2008, the date of initiation of the 

circumvention inquiry. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulation and terms of an APO 

is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This affirmative final circumvention 

determination is published in 

accordance with section 781(b) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.225. 

Dated: June 12, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–14359 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 13th 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting the 

administrative review (AR) and new 

shipper reviews (NSRs) of the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) covering the period of review 

(POR) of November 1, 2006 through 

October 31, 2007. As discussed below, 

we determine that sales have been made 

in the United States at prices below 

normal value (NV) with respect to 

certain exporters who participated fully 

and are entitled to a separate rate in the 

AR or NSRs. In addition, we are 

rescinding the NSRs for two companies. 

Finally, the Department is rescinding 

the antidumping duty AR of companies 

that timely certified that they had no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. We 

intend to instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

importer-specific assessment rates are 

above de minimis. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 19, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay, Nicholas Czajkowski, or 

Summer Avery, 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) 

482–0780, (202) 482–1395, and (202) 

482–4052, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 8, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the AR and NSRs 

of the antidumping duty order on fresh 

garlic from the PRC. See Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews and Intent to Rescind, in Part, 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

and New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 74462 

(December 8, 2008) (Preliminary 

Results). Since the Preliminary Results, 

the following events have occurred. 

Shandong Chenhe International 

Trading Co., Ltd. (Chenhe) filed letters 

on December 12 and December 31, 

requesting that the Department rescind 

this AR with respect to Chenhe and 

remove it from the list of companies 

subject to the PRC-wide rate, as 

determined in the Preliminary Results. 

On December 15, Shenzhen Greening 

Trading Co., Ltd. (Greening) also filed a 

letter seeking removal from the list of 

companies subject to the PRC-wide rate 

and revised publication of the 

Preliminary Results. On December 18, 

the Department notified parties that case 

briefs would be due seven days after the 

last verification report was issued. On 

December 19 and 23, the Fresh Garlic 

Producers Association (FGPA) and its 

individual members (Christopher Ranch 

LLC, the Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, 

and Vessey and Company, Inc.) 

(collectively, Petitioners), filed letters in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES