[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