Federal Register, Volume 74 Issue 64 (Monday, April 6, 2009)

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 64 (Monday, April 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15449-15458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7688]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-894]

Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2007-2008
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part

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

[[Page 15450]]

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is currently
conducting the 2007-2008 administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on certain tissue paper products from the People's Republic of
China (PRC). We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below
normal value (NV) with respect to Max Fortune Industrial Limited and
Max Fortune (FETDE) Paper Products Co., Ltd. (collectively, Max
Fortune). Accordingly, we preliminarily find that Max Fortune does not
qualify for revocation under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).
In addition, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with
respect to six companies which reported they made no exports of subject
merchandise during the period of review (POR), as confirmed by our
review of import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
this review, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject merchandise made during the period of
review (POR).
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Brandon Custard, 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-
1766 or (202) 482-1823, respectively.

Case History

On March 30, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper products from the
PRC. 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)
(Tissue Paper Order).
On March 3, 2008, the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain tissue paper products from the PRC. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 11389 (March 3,
2008).
On March 31, 2008, the Department received a timely request for an
administrative review of this antidumping duty order in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213 from Max Fortune. On March 31, 2008, the Department also
received a timely request from the petitioner \1\ for an administrative
review of nine companies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The petitioner is the Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts,
Inc.
\2\ These companies are as follows: (1) Max Fortune; (2) Guilin
Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd. (Guilin Qifeng); (3) Vietnam Quijiang Paper
Co., Ltd. (Qujiang); (4) Foshan Sansico Co., Ltd. (Foshan Sansico);
(5) Sansico Asia Pacific Limited (Sansico Asia); (6) PT Grafitecindo
Ciptaprima (Grafitecindo); (7) PT Printec Perkasa (Printec I); (8)
PT Printec Perkasa II (Printec II); and (9) PT Sansico Utama
(Sansico Utama).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On April 25, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register
a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on certain tissue paper products from the PRC for nine
individually named firms covering the period March 1, 2007, through
February 29, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, FR
22337 (April 25, 2008) (Initiation Notice).
On May 2, 2008, the Department placed on the record the CBP data
for U.S. imports of subject merchandise from the PRC during the POR. In
its May 2, 2009 letter to the interested parties in this review, the
Department stated that it intended to select respondents for individual
review based on the CBP import data and provided parties with an
opportunity to comment on the CBP import data and respondent selection.
On May 9 and 12, 2008, Max Fortune and the petitioner, respectively,
submitted comments to the Department on the respondent selection
process.
On June 9, 2008, we requested that the Import Administration's
Office of Policy (the Office of Policy) issue a surrogate-country
memorandum for the selection of the appropriate surrogate country in
this review.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Request for
Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated June 9, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the comments received from the parties regarding
respondent selection, on June 10, 2008, the Department issued letters
to each of the nine companies for which a review was initiated
requesting that each: (1) Provide POR quantity and value data and
complete a separate-rate certification or application; or (2) submit a
no-shipment statement if applicable.
On June 12, 2008, the Office of Policy provided us with a list of
five countries at a level of economic development comparable to that of
the PRC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the
People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate
Countries,'' dated August 7, 2008 (Policy Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 24, 2008, the Department received submissions from eight
companies. One of those companies (i.e., Max Fortune) provided its
quantity and value data. Seven companies \5\ certified that they had no
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR and one of these seven
companies, Quijiang, requested that the Department rescind the review
with respect to it based on its POR no-shipment claim. Also on June 24,
2008, seven of these eight companies submitted their separate-rate
certifications in response to the Department's request.\6\ On June 27,
2008, the remaining company for which a review was requested, Guilin
Qifeng, informed the Department that it would not be participating in
this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The seven companies claiming no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR are Quijiang, Foshan Sansico, Sansico
Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec I, Printec II, and Sansico Utama.
\6\ The seven companies submitting separate rate certifications
are Max Fortune, Foshan Sansico, Sansico Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec
I, Printec II, and Sansico Utama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On July 2, 2008, we issued Max Fortune the antidumping duty
questionnaire. On July 9, 2008, we also issued Quijiang the antidumping
duty questionnaire and informed it, with respect to its sales
reporting, that the POR had been expanded back to September 5, 2006.\7\
See July 9, 2008 cover letter to questionnaire issued to Quijiang.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ The normal POR in this case is March 1, 2007 through
February 29, 2008. However, we expanded the POR with respect to
Quijiang back to September 5, 2006, in order to include Quijiang's
entries of tissue paper products covered by the Department's
preliminary determination in an anti-circumvention inquiry which was
ongoing at that time. See Certain Tissue Paper Products from the
People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order and Extension of Final
Determination, 73 FR 21580 (April 22, 2008). In that proceeding, the
Department found that Quijiang had circumvented the order by
exporting tissue paper products to the United States that were
processed in Vietnam using PRC-origin jumbo rolls of tissue paper
produced by its parent company (Guilin Qifeng). See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On July 10, 2008, the Department invited interested parties
participating in this review to submit comments on surrogate-country
selection and to submit publicly available information as

[[Page 15451]]

surrogate values (SVs) for purposes of calculating NV.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See the Department's letter regarding, ``2007-2008
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper
Products from the People's Republic of China,'' requesting parties
to provide comments on surrogate-country selection and provide
surrogate factors of production values from the potential surrogate
countries (i.e., India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia and
Thailand).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On August 8, 2008, Quijiang informed the Department that it would
not be responding to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire,
arguing that it was prematurely issued pending the Department's final
determination in the anti-circumvention inquiry involving Quijiang.
During August 2008, Max Fortune submitted its responses to the
antidumping duty questionnaire.
On August 14 and September 19, 2008, the petitioner submitted
surrogate-country comments and publicly available surrogate value
information (PAI), respectively, in this administrative review.
Upon the completion of the Department's final circumvention
determination involving Quijiang, on September 23, 2008, the Department
provided Quijiang one final opportunity to respond to the antidumping
questionnaire issued on July 9, 2008. On October 3, 2008, Quijiang
submitted a letter stating that it had not issued any certifications
pursuant to the certification procedures outlined in the Department's
affirmative preliminary and final determinations of circumvention
involving Quijiang. As Quijiang's letter lacked the necessary
certifications, the Department informed Quijiang on October 8, 2008,
that it needed to resubmit its October 3, 2009, letter with the
required certifications. On October 9, 2008, Quijiang submitted another
letter stating that it had closed its factory as of April 20, 2008, and
would not be participating in this review.
On October 24, 2009, the Department discontinued the certification
program for Quijiang's U.S. entries of tissue paper products based on
its non-participation in this administrative review.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See October 24, 2008, memorandum entitled ``Discontinuation
of Certification Program for Quijiang.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On November 20, 2008, the Department postponed the preliminary
results of this review until March 31, 2009. See Certain Tissue Paper
Products From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit
for Preliminary Results of 2007-2008 Administrative Review, 73 FR 70323
(November 20, 2008).
The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Max Fortune
on December 17, 2008, and received Max Fortune's supplemental
questionnaire response on January 5, 2009. Max Fortune submitted
additional information related to its January 5, 2009, response on
January 19, 2009.
On January 29, 2009, the Department issued Max Fortune the
verification outline. Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), the Department conducted verification of
the questionnaire responses submitted by Max Fortune in February 2008.
See Memorandum to The File from Case Analysts entitled ``Verification
of the Questionnaire Responses of Max Fortune Industrial Limited and
Max Fortune (FETDE) Paper Products Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper Products from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated March 31, 2009 (Verification
Report). The verification report is on file and available in the
Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the Department's main
building.
On March 13, 2009, the petitioner submitted additional PAI for
consideration in the preliminary results.

Period of Review

The POR is March 1, 2007, through February 29, 2008.

Scope of the Order

The tissue paper products covered by 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, 4802.50.00, 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ On 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).

Separate Rates

In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, the
Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control, and thus, should
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate unless an exporter
can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in
law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to its export
activities. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May
6, 1991). In this review, in support of its claim for a separate rate,
Max Fortune reported that it is a wholly foreign-owned company
registered and located in Hong Kong. See August 1, 2008, Section A
Response (Section A Response) at page 2. Our verification findings
corroborated Max Fortune's separate-rate claim. See Verification Report
at pages 2-11. Consequently, no additional separate-rate analysis is
necessary for Max Fortune. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China,
61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996).

[[Page 15452]]

Application of Adverse Facts Available

For the reasons outlined below, we have preliminarily applied
adverse facts available (AFA) to the PRC-wide entity which includes
Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang. 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
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching
the applicable determination.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states 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 from the administering authority * * *, the administering
authority * * *, in reaching the applicable determination under this
title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that
party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.'' See also
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994) (SAA). It is the
Department's practice to make an adverse inference ``to ensure that the
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate
than if it had cooperated fully.'' Id. An adverse inference may include
reliance on information derived from the petition, the final
determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other
information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act.
In this administrative review, Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang failed to
respond to the Department's questionnaires. Specifically, we issued a
quantity and value questionnaire along with a separate-rates
application and certification form to Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang for
purposes of selecting the mandatory respondents in this review. See
June 10, 2008, letters to Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang. However, Guilin
Qifeng subsequently stated that it would not be participating in this
review. See June 27, 2008, letter from Guilin Qifeng. Although Quijiang
initially submitted a no-shipment response to the Department's quantity
and value questionnaire on June 24, 2008, we subsequently issued an
antidumping duty questionnaire to Quijiang for purposes of reporting
its sales tissue paper products exported from Vietnam which were
produced with PRC-origin jumbo rolls during the period September 5,
2006, through February 29, 2008. See July 9, 2008, letter to Quijiang.
We gave Quijiang a second and final opportunity to respond to this
questionnaire on September 23, 2008. See September 23, 2008, letter to
Quijiang. In response, Quijiang stated that it had closed its factory
and would no longer be participating in this review. See October 9,
2008, letter from Quijiang.
Because Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang did not demonstrate that they
qualify for separate-rate status, we consider both entities to be part
of the PRC-wide entity for purposes of this review. In the Initiation
Notice, the Department stated that if one of the companies on which we
initiated a review does not qualify for a separate rate, all other
exporters of tissue paper products from the PRC which have not
qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be part of the single PRC-
wide entity of which the named exporter is a part. See Initiation
Notice, 73 FR at 22338. Based upon the failure of Guilin Qifeng and
Quijiang, as part of the PRC-wide entity, to submit responses to the
Department's questionnaires, the Department finds that the PRC-wide
entity withheld requested information, failed to provide the
information in a timely manner and in the form requested, and
significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act. Therefore, the Department must
rely on the facts otherwise available in order to determine a margin
for the PRC-wide entity, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C)
of the Act. See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 69546 (December 1, 2006), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
Because the PRC-wide entity, including Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang,
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in providing the
requested information in this review, as discussed above, we find it
necessary, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), as well as
section 776(b), of the Act, to use total adverse facts available (AFA)
as the basis for these preliminary results of review for the PRC-wide
entity. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and
New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 2007) (decision to
apply total AFA to the NME-wide entity unchanged in Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results
of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and First New
Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12, 2007)).

Selection of Adverse Facts Available Rate

As discussed above, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the
Department to use, as AFA, information derived from the petition, the
final determination in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation,
any previous administrative review, or any information placed on the
record. In selecting an AFA rate in reviews, the Department's practice
has been to assign the highest margin on the record of any segment of
the proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003). The Court of
International Trade (CIT) and the Federal Circuit have consistently
upheld the Department's practice in this regard. See Rhone Poulenc,
Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Rhone
Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT
2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available
dumping margin from a different respondent in a LTFV investigation);
see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 689
(July 31, 2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest
available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative
respondent); and Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 360 F. Supp 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different respondent in a previous administrative review).
The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts
available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 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 SAA at 870; see also Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen

[[Page 15453]]

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23,
2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 22.
In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with
an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is
reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity,
selecting the highest prior margin ``reflects a common sense inference
that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current
margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule,
would have produced current information showing the margin to be
less.'' Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190.
Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and our normal
practice, as AFA, we are assigning the PRC-wide entity, which includes
Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang, the highest rate on the record of any
segment of this proceeding, i.e., 112.64 percent. As discussed further
below, this rate has been corroborated.

Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department selects
from among the facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary
information,'' the Department shall, to the extent practicable,
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the
Department's disposal. To corroborate the information, the Department
seeks to determine that the information used has probative value. See
SAA at 870. The Department has determined that to have probative value,
information must be reliable and relevant. See Certain Tissue Paper
Products from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final
Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
58642 (October 16, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6.
To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both
reliable and relevant. The AFA rate of 112.64 percent that we are
applying in the current review represents the highest rate from the
petition in the LTFV investigation segment of this proceeding. See
Tissue Paper Order. The Department corroborated the information used to
calculate the 112.64 percent rate in the LTFV investigation. See Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue
Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 7475
(February 14, 2005). Furthermore, the AFA rate we are applying for the
current review was applied in a review subsequent to the LTFV
investigation, and no information has been presented in the current
review that calls into question the reliability of this information.
See Certain Tissue Paper from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 17477, 17480-17481 (April 9, 2007)
(unchanged in Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic
of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72FR 58642, 58644-58645 (October 16,
2007)). Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22,
1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case
as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts
available) because the margin was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense, resulting in an unusually high
margin). Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has
been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220,
1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (finding that the Department cannot use a margin
that has been judicially invalidated in its calculations). The AFA rate
we are applying for the instant review was calculated based on export
price information and production data from the petition, as well as the
most appropriate surrogate value information available to the
Department during the LTFV investigation. As there is no information on
the record of this review that demonstrates this rate is not
appropriate for use as AFA, we determine this rate has relevance.
Because the AFA rate, 112.64 percent, is both reliable and
relevant, we determine that it has probative value. As a result, we
determine that the 112.64 percent rate is corroborated to the extent
practicable for the purposes of this administrative review, in
accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, and may reasonably be
applied to the exports of the subject merchandise by the PRC-wide
entity as AFA.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2007-2008 Administrative Review

With respect to Foshan Sansico, Sansico Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec
I, Printec II, and Sansico Utama, each of these companies informed the
Department that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR.
Based on the record of this review, including the CBP data provided
to the parties on May 2, 2009, we conclude preliminarily that Foshan
Sansico, Sansico Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec I, Printec II, and Sansico
Utama did not export subject merchandise to the United States during
the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are
preliminarily rescinding this administrative review for Foshan Sansico,
Sansico Asia, Grafitecindo, Printec I, Printec II, and Sansico Utama.

Non-Market Economy Country

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 58672 (October 7, 2005)
(unchanged in Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic
of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006)). None of the parties in this
administrative review has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on
the NME producer's factors of production (FOPs), valued in a surrogate
market-economy (ME) country or countries considered to be appropriate
by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in
valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1)
At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME
country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal
Value'' section below. See also the

[[Page 15454]]

Department's memorandum entitled, ``Preliminary Results of the 2007-
2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Factor
Valuation for the Preliminary Results,'' dated March 31, 2009
(Surrogate Value Memorandum).
The Department determined that India, Indonesia, the Philippines,
Colombia and Thailand are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of
economic development. See Policy Memorandum. Customarily, we select an
appropriate surrogate country from the Policy Memorandum based on the
availability and reliability of data from the countries that are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, we found
that India is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC;
is a significant producer of the subject merchandise (i.e., tissue
paper); and has publicly-available and reliable data. See March 31,
2009, Memorandum to the File entitled ``2007-2008 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review on Certain Tissue Paper Products from the
People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country''
(Surrogate Country Memorandum).
Accordingly, we selected India as the primary surrogate country for
purposes of valuing the FOPs in the calculation of NV because it meets
the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. See
Surrogate Country Memorandum. We obtained and relied upon publicly-
available information wherever possible.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
in antidumping administrative reviews, interested parties may submit
publicly-available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary results.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Max
Fortune to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared
Max Fortune's export prices (EPs) to NV, as described in the ``Export
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice below, pursuant to
section 773 of the Act.

Export Price

Because Max Fortune sold subject merchandise to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation into the United
States and use of a constructed-export-price methodology was not
otherwise indicated, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act.
We calculated EP based on the reported terms of delivery to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate,
we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for
foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in
the PRC pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.\11\ Because
foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were
provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based
those charges on surrogate rates from India. See ``Factor Valuations''
section below for further discussion of surrogate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``2007-2008
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results Margin Calculation for Max Fortune Industrial
Limited and Max Fortune (FETDE) Paper Products Co., Ltd.
(collectively referred to as Max Fortune),'' dated March 31, 2009
(Max Fortune Calculation Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In determining the most appropriate surrogate values (SVs) to use
in a given case, the Department's practice is to use review period-wide
price averages, prices specific to the input in question, prices that
are net of taxes and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous
with the POR, and publicly-available data. See, e.g. Certain Cased
Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July
6, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
The data we used for brokerage and handling expenses fulfill all of
the foregoing criteria except that they are not specific to the subject
merchandise. There is no information of that type on the record of this
review. Therefore, the Department used three sources to calculate an SV
for domestic brokerage expenses: (1) Data from Kejriwal Paper Ltd.
(Kejriwal) for the period of investigation July 1, 2004, to June 30,
2005 (see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain
Lined Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006)
(unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at less Than Fair
Value and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006)); (2)
data from Essar Steel Limited (Essar) for the POR July 1, 2004, through
June 30, 2005 (see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
71 FR 2018, 2021 (January 12, 2006) (unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006)); and (3) data
from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. for the POR February 1, 2004, through
January 31, 2005 (see Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
10597 (March 4, 2005) (unchanged in Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
37757 (June 30, 2005)). Because these values were not concurrent with
the period of this administrative review, we adjusted them for
inflation using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for India as published
in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial
Statistics, available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and then calculated a
simple average of the three companies' brokerage expense data.
The Department valued inland truck freight expenses using a per-
unit average rate calculated from data on the following Web site:
http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section
of this Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large
Indian cities. Because this rate is not contemporaneous with the POR,
we deflated it using WPI data. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.

Normal Value

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME,
the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit
the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices,
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department
will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on
various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation
of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. Therefore,
we calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with sections 773(c)(3)
and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC FOPs in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. The FOPs include: (1)
Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3)
amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative
capital costs, including

[[Page 15455]]

depreciation. We used the FOPs reported by Max Fortune for materials,
energy, labor, and packing. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act.
In examining SVs, we selected, where possible, the publicly-
available value, which was an average non-export value, representative
of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the
POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004)
(unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China,
70 FR 24502 (May 10, 2005)). For a detailed explanation of the
methodology used to calculate SVs, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.

Factor Valuations

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the FOPs reported by Max Fortune for the POR. We relied on the
factor-specific data submitted by Max Fortune for the production inputs
in its questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses, where
applicable, for purposes of selecting SVs. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per-unit factor consumption rates by publicly-
available Indian SVs for all but two inputs.
Max Fortune reported that it purchased two inputs (i.e., pulpboard
and cartons), which it consumed in the production of the subject
merchandise under review from a ME supplier and paid for in a market-
economy currency. Section 773(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1)
requires the Department to accept input prices to value the FOPs when
the input is purchased from a ME supplier and paid for in a ME
currency. Furthermore, consistent with the Department's stated policy
reflected in Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected
Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback: and Request for Comments, 71
FR 61716 (October 19, 2006) (2006 Statement of Policy), when a
sufficient proportion of an input is purchased from a ME, the
Department will use the reported ME price to value the input if it was
paid for in a ME currency. For purposes of the preliminary results, we
have determined that Max Fortune's reported ME purchases of the two
inputs identified above accounted for a significant portion of its
total purchases of these two inputs and, therefore, have used the
reported purchase prices to value these two inputs in our NV
calculation. See Max Fortune Calculation Memo for further discussion on
the valuation of cartons.
Normally, the Department prefers to use FOP data that accurately
represent the quantity of inputs consumed on a control number (CONNUM)-
specific basis. In this review, Max Fortune has indicated that it
started maintaining records for dye and ink consumption in the paper-
making and printing stages of production on a product-specific and
color-specific basis in November 2007 for purposes of reporting its FOP
data in a manner consistent with the Department's instructions in the
prior review segment. See January 5, 2009, supplemental response at
pages 11-14. Accordingly, for the last four months of the POR (November
2007 through February 2008), Max Fortune reported its paper-making dye
consumption amounts and printing ink consumption amounts on a product-
code-specific and color-specific basis. However, for the portion of the
POR prior to the Department's instruction (March 2007 through February
2008), Max Fortune did not report these consumption amounts on a
product-specific and color-specific basis. In addition, Max Fortune did
not provide product-specific and color-specific printing dye
consumption amounts for any portion of the POR.
At verification, we examined Max Fortune's ink and dye consumption
records and confirmed that it started maintaining consumption records
for dyes used for paper-making and inks used for printing on both a
color-specific and product-specific basis as of November 2007. However,
Max Fortune did not maintain these records before that date. See
Verification Report at pages 22-24. The Department finds such
information necessary in order to accurately value the FOPs utilized in
tissue paper production. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of
the Act, because necessary information relevant to the Department's
analysis is not on the record, the Department has determined it
necessary to apply facts otherwise available to value Max Fortune's dye
and ink consumption factors which were not reported on a color-specific
and product-specific basis. Consistent with the Department's decisions
in prior segments of this review, as facts available, the Department
has preliminarily determined it appropriate to rely on the aggregate,
non-color-specific paper-making dye consumption factors reported by Max
Fortune prior to November 2007. The Department valued such dye
consumption using an average of Indian import values for different dye
types commonly used in tissue-paper production. For dyes used in
printing, as facts available, for the entire POR, the Department has
preliminarily determined it appropriate to accept Max Fortune's
aggregate, non-color specific print dye consumption factors. The
Department valued print dye consumption using an average Indian import
value for non-black printing dyes. For inks used for printing, while
Max Fortune reported product-specific and color-specific ink
consumption factors as of November 2007, the Department has been unable
to obtain color-specific ink values. Thus, we have valued all ink
consumption using a non-color-specific average Indian import value.
In selecting the SVs, consistent with our past practice, we
considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.
See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic
of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71
FR 71509 (December 11, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 9. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we
added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter
of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or
the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). See
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
When we used non-import surrogate values for factors sourced
domestically by PRC suppliers (e.g., ME-purchased inputs), we based
freight for these inputs on the actual distance from the input supplier
to the site at which the input was consumed. Where necessary, we
adjusted the SVs for inflation/deflation using the WPI as published in
the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics,
available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf.
We valued the raw material and packing material inputs, and the by-
product (i.e., paper scrap) using weighted-average unit import values
derived from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India
(MSFTI), as published by the Directorate General of Commercial
Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India, and compiled by the World Trade Atlas (WTA),
available at http:www.gtis.com/

[[Page 15456]]

wta.htm. The Indian WTA import data are reported in rupees and are
contemporaneous with the POR.\12\ Indian SVs denominated in Indian
rupees were converted to U.S. dollars using the applicable daily
exchange rate for India for the POR. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. Where appropriate, we converted the units of
measure to kilograms. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, with regard to the WTA Indian import-based SVs, we
disregarded prices from NME countries \13\ and those we have reason to
believe or suspect may be subsidized, because we have found in other
proceedings that these exporting countries maintain broadly available,
non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, there is reason
to believe or suspect that all exports to all markets from such
countries may be subsidized.\14\ We are also guided by the statute's
legislative history that explains that it is not necessary to conduct a
formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See
H.R. Rep. No. 576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 590-91 (1988). Rather, the
Department was instructed by Congress to base its decision on
information that is available to it at the time it is making its
determination. Therefore, we excluded export prices from Indonesia,
South Korea, Thailand, and India when calculating the Indian import-
based SVs. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. Finally, we excluded imports
that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country from
the average Indian import values, because we could not be certain that
they were not from either an NME or a country with general export
subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, PRC, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
\14\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of
the 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review,
and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January
10, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of
1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and
Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15,
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1;
and China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293
F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal
Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed above, the Department valued surrogate truck freight
cost by using a deflated per-unit average rate calculated from data on
the following web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm.
See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
73 FR 52282, 52286 (September 9, 2008) (and unchanged in Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 (February 11,
2009); and Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 8.
We valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation because it includes a wide range of industrial
water tariffs. This source provides 378 industrial water rates within
the Maharashtra province from July 2007; 189 for the ``inside
industrial areas'' usage category; and 189 for the ``outside industrial
areas'' usage category.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Web site available at http://www.midcindia.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department calculated a simple average price for domestic coal
using data obtained from Coal India Limited. Because these data were
not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the average value for
inflation using WPI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 6.
To value electricity, the Department used July 2006 electricity
price rates from Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of
Electricity Supply in India, published by the Central Electricity
Authority of the Government of India. Because these data were not
contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the average value for
inflation using WPI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 5.
For direct labor, indirect labor and packing labor, consistent with
19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rates
reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national
income in ME countries as reported on Import Administration's Web site.
See ``Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries'' (revised January 2007)
(available at http://www.trade.gov/ia/). For further details on the
labor calculation, see Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 8.
Because the regression-based wage rates do not separate the labor rates
into different skill levels or types of labor, we applied the same wage
rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by Max Fortune.
Max Fortune reported that during the manufacturing process, its
subject merchandise was transported from its paper-making facility to
its tissue paper-processing facility. Using Max Fortune's reported
distance and the reported weight of its tissue paper products, we
valued the other PRC distance (i.e., domestic inland freight cost of
transporting paper from Max Fortune's Putian facility to Max Fortune's
Mawei processing facility) with the surrogate truck rate discussed
above. This additional freight value was added to the cost of
manufacture (COM). See Max Fortune Calculation Memorandum.
For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses
(SG&A), and profit values, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), we
used the public information from the 2007-2008 annual report of
Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. (Pudumjee).\16\ From this information,
we were able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total
raw materials, labor, and energy (ML&E) costs; SG&A as a percentage of
ML&E plus overhead (i.e., COM); and the profit rate as a percentage of
the COM plus SG&A. Where appropriate, we did not include in the
surrogate overhead and SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed
in the financial report. For a full discussion of the calculation of
these ratios, see Surrogate Value Memorandum and its accompanying
calculation worksheets at Attachment 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 18497, 18502 (April 4,
2008) (unchanged in Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 58113 (October 6,
2008) (Tissue Paper AR2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by Max Fortune for use in our preliminary
results. We used standard verification procedures including an
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original
source documents provided by Max Fortune. See Verification Report.

Intent Not To Revoke Order In Part

On March 31, 2008, Max Fortune requested, that pursuant to 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2), the Department revoke it from the antidumping duty order
on certain tissue paper products from the PRC at the conclusion of this
administrative review. Max Fortune submitted along with its revocation
request a certification stating that: (1) The company sold subject
merchandise at not less than NV during the POR, and that in the future
it would not sell such merchandise at less than NV (see 19 CFR
351.222(e)(1)(i)); (2) the company has sold the subject merchandise to
the

[[Page 15457]]

United States in commercial quantities during each of the past three
years (see 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii)); and (3) the company agrees to
immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, if the
Department concludes that the company, subsequent to revocation, sold
the subject merchandise at less than NV (see CFR 351.222(e)(1)(iii)).
In determining whether or not to revoke an antidumping duty order
with respect to a particular producer/exporter under 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2), the Department considers whether: (1) The producer/
exporter has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV for a
period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the producer/exporter
has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department
finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; and (3) the
continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset
dumping. In this case, our preliminary margin calculation shows that
Max Fortune sold the subject merchandise at less than NV during the
current review period. See ``Preliminary Results of the Review''
section below. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Max Fortune does
not qualify for revocation from the order, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2).

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on
the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period March 1, 2007, through February
29, 2008:

Certain Tissue Paper Products from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Individually reviewed exporter 2007-2008 administrative percent
review margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Fortune................................................. 4.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate Margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate (including Guilin Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd. and 112.64
Vietnam Quijiang Paper Co., Ltd.)..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30
days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue,
and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are requested to
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Additionally, parties are
requested to provide their case brief and rebuttal briefs in electronic
format (e.g., Microsoft Word, pdf, etc.). Interested parties who wish
to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit
a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be
discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be
limited to those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. The Department
will issue the final results of this review, including the results of
its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the
hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication
of this notice.

Assessment Rates

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for
Max Fortune, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment
rates for the merchandise subject to this review. Because we do not
have entered values on the record for Max Fortune's sales, we
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping
duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where
an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
With respect to the PRC-wide entity (including Guilin Qifeng and
Quijiang), we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries at the
PRC-wide rate of 112.64 percent.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ All entries of certain tissue paper products from Quijiang
will be presumed to be of PRC origin regardless of whether they are
declared to be of Vietnamese or Chinese origin. See October 24,
2008, memorandum entitled ``Discontinuation of Certification Program
for Quijiang.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results of the administrative review
for all shipments of certain tissue paper products from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1) A cash deposit rate of 4.13 percent will be required for certain
tissue paper products from the PRC exported by Max Fortune; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that
have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all
other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, which have not been found
to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be PRC-
wide rate of 112.64 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable
to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.

[[Page 15458]]

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

Dated: March 31, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-7688 Filed 4-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P