Notice2024-20798
Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2022-2023
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 13, 2024
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils (pencils) from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR) December 1, 2022, through November 30, 2023.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 178 (Friday, September 13, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74894-74895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20798]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-827]
Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China:
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2022-2023
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased
pencils (pencils) from the People's Republic of China (China) for the
period of review (POR) December 1, 2022, through November 30, 2023.
DATES: Applicable September 13, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations,
Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 28, 1994, Commerce published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on pencils from China.\1\ On December 1,
2023, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order.\2\ Based
on timely requests for review from Dixon Ticonderoga Company (the
petitioner) and Aloha Pencil Co. (Aloha), in accordance with
351.221(c)(1)(i) and section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), Commerce published the initiation of this
administrative review on February 8, 2024, with respect to 17
companies.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Cased Pencils from the
People's Republic of China, 59 FR 66909 (December 28, 1994) (Order).
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review and Join Annual Inquiry Service List, 88 FR 83917 (December
1, 2023).
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 89 FR 8641, 8643 (February 8, 2024)
(Initiation Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 14, 2024, Commerce released the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) data to all interested parties under an administrative
protective order and requested comments regarding the data and
respondent selection.\4\ We received no comments from interested
parties on the CBP data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum, ``Release of Customs Entry Data,'' dated
February 14, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 7, 2024, the petitioner submitted an objection to Aloha's
request for administrative review alleging that Aloha did not qualify
for producer, manufacturer, or wholesaler status during the POR.\5\ In
the Initiation Notice, Commerce required that interested parties submit
a separate rate application (SRA) or separate rate certification (SRC)
within 30 days of publication of the Initiation Notice.\6\ Because of
the petitioner's objection to Aloha's request for review, we extended
the deadline for parties to file an SRA or SRC multiple times.\7\
However, no party submitted an SRA or SRC within the extended time
frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Refiled Dixon's Objection to
Aloha Pencil Co.'s Request for Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Cased Pencils from the People's Republic
of China,'' dated March 7, 2024.
\6\ See Initiation Notice, 89 FR at 8642 (``Exporters and
producers must file a timely Separate Rate Application or
Certification if they want to be considered for individual
examination.'').
\7\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Extension for Separate Rate
Application or Certification,'' dated March 6, 2024; ``Extension for
Separate Rate Application or Certification,'' dated March 21, 2024;
and ``Extension for Separate Rate Application or Certification,''
dated April 3, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 13, 2024, Commerce issued a questionnaire to Aloha to
assess its standing as a domestic producer, manufacturer, or wholesaler
of pencils during the POR.\8\ On March 25, 2024, Aloha timely submitted
its response.\9\ On March 29, 2024, the petitioner submitted rebuttal
factual information regarding Aloha's standing questionnaire
response.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Standing Questionnaire,'' dated
March 13, 2024.
\9\ See Aloha's Letter, ``Standing Questionnaire Response,''
dated March 25, 2024 (Standing Questionnaire Response).
\10\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Dixon's Rebuttal to Aloha Pencil
Co.'s Standing Questionnaire Responses,'' dated March 29, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 9, 2024, based on the information on the record, Commerce
determined that Aloha was not a bona fide producer, manufacturer, or
wholesaler of a domestic like product during the POR.\11\ As a result,
Commerce declined to find that Aloha is a domestic interested party and
stated that it was: (1) treating Aloha's review request as void; and
(2) preliminarily rescinding this administrative review with respect to
any company for which Aloha was the sole requestor.\12\ Consequently,
because Aloha's request for review of 14 companies was void, and it was
the sole party requesting a review of these companies, only three
companies remained under review: (1) Shandong Wah Yuen Stationery Co.
Ltd.; Wah Yuen Stationery Co. Ltd.; (2) Tianjin Tonghe Stationery Co.,
Ltd.; and (3) Ningbo Homey Union Co., Ltd.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Memorandum, ``Aloha Pencil Company's Standing to
Request Review,'' dated April 9, 2024 (Standing Determination).
\12\ Id.
\13\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Request for Administrative
Review,'' dated January 2, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2024, we received comments from Aloha on the Standing
Determination, arguing that Aloha had provided sufficient information
to support its claims that it was a bona fide producer or manufacturer,
and requesting that Commerce expedite its final decision.\14\ On May 9,
2024, the petitioner submitted rebuttal comments supporting the
Standing Determination and requesting that Commerce reject Aloha's
request to expedite its final decision.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Aloha's Letter, ``Request for Reconsideration and
Alternative Request to Expedite Final Decision on Domestic Party
Standing and Publish Final Partial Rescission in the Federal
Register,'' dated May 2, 2024.
\15\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Dixon's Response to Aloha Pencil
Co.'s Request for Reconsideration,'' dated May 9, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 2024, Commerce notified all interested parties of its
intent to rescind this review in full because there were no reviewable,
suspended entries of subject merchandise from the three remaining
companies under review and invited comments from interested
[[Page 74895]]
parties.\16\ On June 14, 2024, we received comments from Aloha, again
arguing that Commerce should reconsider its standing as a domestic
interested party.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Memorandum, ``Notice of Intent to Rescind Review,''
dated June 7, 2024.
\17\ See Aloha's Letter, ``Comments on Commerce Intent to
Rescind,'' dated June 14, 2024 (Aloha's Reconsideration Request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this
administrative proceeding by seven days. The deadline for the
preliminary results is now September 9, 2024.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings,'' dated July 22, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aloha's Reconsideration Request
We continue to determine that Aloha is not a bona fide producer or
manufacturer.\19\ Thus, we do not find that Aloha has the requisite
standing to be considered a domestic interested party and, therefore,
its review request continues to be void. We disagree with Aloha's
contention that Commerce overlooked record information and drew
unsupported inferences in making its Standing Determination.\20\ We
note that Aloha's Reconsideration Request primarily summarizes
information that Commerce already considered in its Standing
Determination and Commerce reasonably drew its conclusions concerning
Aloha's standing based on that record information.\21\ Further, nothing
in Aloha's Reconsideration Request warrants a reversal of that
decision. For instance, Aloha summarizes its corporate history, which
Commerce already considered in its Standing Determination, and as
explained in that determination, Aloha's corporate history throughout
the POR is extremely limited to an extent that undermines its bona
fides claim.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has noted that
parties requesting standing pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act
must have a ``stake'' in the result of an investigation. See Brother
Indus. (USA) v. United States, 801 F. Supp. 751, 757 (CIT 1992)
(``The language in the legislative history is broad and unqualified.
It contrasts industries suffering adverse affect with those having
no stake: the former have standing; the latter do not.'') (italics
in original).
\20\ See Aloha's Reconsideration Request at 2-7.
\21\ See Standing Determination.
\22\ Id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aloha also contends that Commerce failed to seek clarification of
any ambiguities in Aloha's questionnaire response.\23\ However,
Commerce did not find Aloha's submission ambiguous or deficient, as
there were no gaps in the record and the evidence Aloha submitted was
adequate for Commerce to make a standing determination.\24\ Aloha
itself also notes that a number of documents did not even exist at
either the time it requested this administrative review or when it
received the questionnaire, and indicates that Aloha possibly possessed
additional documents that it chose not to submit.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Aloha's Reconsideration Request at 7-11.
\24\ See, generally, Standing Determination.
\25\ Aloha's Reconsideration Request at 9, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aloha's Reconsideration Request also does not specify where such
supposed deficiencies exist. Ultimately, the burden of creating an
adequate record lies with the interested party.\26\ Further, the
requirements under section 782(d) of the Act concerning deficient
submissions are not applicable here, as Aloha complied with Commerce's
requests for information, even stating where information and
documentation Commerce requested simply did not exist.\27\ Commerce in
its Standing Determination examined Aloha's status as a domestic
interested party during the POR. Aloha's Reconsideration Request
primarily refers to facts and documents that do not affect Aloha's
standing as an interested party during the POR.\28\ Lastly, each
standing determination is a case-by-case, fact intensive analysis, and
Commerce's determination is consistent with its practice with respect
to its prior standing determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d
1378, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
\27\ See Standing Questionnaire Response at 6-8, stating, e.g.,
that ``Aloha Pencil incorporated as an LLC in the state of
Hawai[revaps]i in November 2023, and does not have any business
documents prior to that time.'' The CIT has found that, where a
party responding to a questionnaire states such documentation does
not exist, Commerce need not issue a deficiency notice and an
opportunity to remedy. See Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo & Wood Indus. Co.
v. United States, 651 F. Supp. 1348, 1368 (CIT 2023).
\28\ See Aloha's Reconsideration Request, generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rescission of Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to
rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order when
there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR
for which liquidation is suspended.\29\ Normally, upon completion of an
administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the
antidumping duty assessment rate calculated for the review period.\30\
Therefore, for an administrative review to be conducted, there must be
a reviewable, suspended entry that Commerce can instruct CBP to
liquidate at the antidumping duty assessment rate calculated for the
review period.\31\ As explained above, because Commerce declined to
find that Aloha is a domestic interested party, its request for review
of 14 companies is void and there were no reviewable, suspended entries
of subject merchandise in the CBP data for the three companies
remaining companies under review during the POR. Accordingly, in the
absence of suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR, we
are hereby rescinding this administrative review, in its entirety, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See, e.g., Dioctyl Terephthalate from the Republic of
Korea: Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2021-2022,
88 FR 24758 (April 24, 2023); see also Certain Carbon and Alloy
Steel Cut- to Length Plate from the Federal Republic of Germany:
Recission of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2020-2021, 88 FR
4157 (January 24, 2023); and Lightweight Thermal Paper from Japan:
Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2022-2023, 89 FR
18373 (March 13, 2024).
\30\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\31\ See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries.
Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash
deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry,
or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions
to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this
rescission notice in the Federal Register.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject
to sanction.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: September 6, 2024.
Scot Fullerton,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2024-20798 Filed 9-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 13, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.