Notice2026-09240
Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia; Denial of Request To Institute a Section 751(b) Review Concerning the Commission's Affirmative Determinations
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
May 11, 2026
Issuing agencies
International Trade Commission
Abstract
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has declined to institute a review pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)) (the Act).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 90 (Monday, May 11, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 90 (Monday, May 11, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25596-25598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09240]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-471 and 731-TA-1170 (Final)]
Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using
Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia; Denial of Request To Institute a
Section 751(b) Review Concerning the Commission's Affirmative
Determinations
AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it has declined to
institute a review pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1675(b)) (the Act).
DATES: April 28, 2026
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celia Feldpausch (202-205-2387),
Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain
information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal
on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need
special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact
the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its
internet server (<a href="http://www.usitc.gov">http://www.usitc.gov</a>). The public record for this
matter may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
<a href="http://edis.usitc.gov">http://edis.usitc.gov</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background.--In November 2010, the Commission determined that an
industry in the United States was threatened with material injury by
reason of imports of certain coated paper (``CCP'') from China and
Indonesia (75 FR 70289, November 17, 2010) that had been found by the
U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United States
at less than fair value (LTFV), and that had been found by Commerce to
be subsidized by the governments of China and Indonesia (75 FR 59209,
75 FR 59212, 75 FR 59217, and 75 FR 59223, September 27, 2010).
Effective November 17, 2010, Commerce issued antidumping and
countervailing duty orders (75 FR 70201, 75 FR 70203, 75 FR 70205, and
75 FR 70206, November 17, 2010).
Following affirmative determinations in the first five-year reviews
by Commerce and the Commission, effective January 6, 2017, Commerce
issued a continuation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders
on imports of CCP from China and Indonesia (82 FR 1692, January 6,
2017). Following affirmative determinations in the second five-year
reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective June 13, 2022,
Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping and countervailing
duty orders on imports of CCP from China and Indonesia (87 FR 35733,
June 13, 2022).
On December 3, 2025, the Commission received a request to review
its affirmative determinations in investigation Nos. 701-TA-471 and
731-TA-1170 (Final) pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1675(b)). The request was filed by PT. Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills
(``Pindo Deli'') and PT. Indah Kiat Pulp
[[Page 25597]]
& Paper Tbk. (``Indah Kiat'') (for purposes of this notice,
collectively ``Requestors''). Requestors argue that structural changes
sufficient to warrant a changed circumstances review have occurred
within the Indonesian industry since the Commission determined that the
domestic industry was threatened with material injury by reason of
subject imports from Indonesia. Requestors contend that there has been
a ``significant'' and ``permanent'' reduction in the capacity to
produce the subject merchandise by the industry in Indonesia, which
they assert has contracted to only two producers. Requestors further
contend that there has been a ``marked shift away from exports toward
home market sales'' such that, in their view, the Indonesian industry
producing the subject merchandise ``is no longer export oriented.''
They argue that these changes have not been the ``natural and direct
result'' of the subject orders but rather of market factors leading to
the shifting of capacity and increasing focus on home market sales.
On January 14, 2026, the Commission published a Federal Register
notice inviting comments from the public on whether changed
circumstances exist sufficient to warrant the institution of a changed
circumstances review (91 FR 1557, Jan. 14, 2026). Comments in response
to this notice were filed on March 4, 2026. The Commission received
comments in support of the request from Requestors and comments in
opposition to the request from Billerud Americas Corporation and Sappi
North America, a petitioner and a successor-in-interest to petitioner
NewPage Corp.\1\ Requestors also submitted a separate submission in
favor of instituting a changed circumstances review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The original petitioner, NewPage Corp., was acquired by
Verso Paper Corporation in January 2015, and in March 2022, Billerud
Americas Corporation acquired Verso Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis
In considering whether to institute a review investigation under
section 751(b), the Commission will not institute such an investigation
unless it is persuaded there is sufficient information demonstrating:
(1) that there are significant changed circumstances from those in
existence at the time of the original investigation;
(2) that those changed circumstances are not the natural and direct
result of the imposition of the antidumping duty order; and
(3) that the changed circumstances, allegedly indicating that
revocation of the order would not be likely to lead to the continuation
or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry, warrant a
full {review{time} investigation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Mexico, 66 FR
65740, 65741 (Dec. 20, 2001). See, generally, A. Hirsh, Inc. v.
United States, 737 F. Supp. 1186 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1990); Avesta AB
v. United States, 724 F. Supp. 974 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1989), aff'd,
914 F.2d 232 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1308 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After consideration of the request for review and the responses to
the notice inviting comments, the Commission has determined, pursuant
to section 751(b) of the Act and Commission rule 207.45, that the
information available to the Commission does not show significant
changed circumstances sufficient to warrant institution of an
investigation to review the Commission's affirmative determinations in
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-471 and 731-TA-1170: Certain Coated Paper
Suitable for-Quality Printing Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from
Indonesia.
The decision to undertake a review is ``a threshold question . . .
[which] may be made only when it reasonably appears that positive
evidence adduced by the petitioner together with other evidence
gathered by the Commission leads the ITC to believe that there are
changed circumstances sufficient to warrant review.'' \3\ A party
requesting a review must ``present facts, which when weighed against
the other facts presented, would convince a reasonable decision-maker
that a full investigation is necessary to establish whether or not
changed circumstances have obviated the need for the order in its
present form.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Avesta AB v. United States, 689 F. Supp. 1173, 1180-81 (Ct.
Int'l Trade 1988); A Hirsh, Inc. v. United States, 729 F. Supp.
1360, 1363 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1990), aff'd following remand, 737 F.
Supp. at 1188 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1990).
\4\ A. Hirsh, 729 F. Supp. at 1363.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requestors allege that CCP production in Indonesia has permanently
and significantly declined since the original investigations and that
the Indonesian industry is no longer export oriented. The statute calls
upon the Commission to ``determine whether revocation of the order or
finding is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material
injury.'' \5\ Requestors have failed to present evidence indicating
that the alleged changes to the capacity and export orientation of
Indonesian CCP producers are significant changed circumstances to
warrant a review. First, with respect to an alleged decline in
production, Requestors' assertions are largely unsubstantiated.
Specifically, Requestors rely on: (1) a declaration containing
unsubstantiated statements regarding one Indonesian firm's purported
conversion to manufacturing other products; and (2) tables summarizing
the sales and production data for the remaining Indonesian firms that
contain no explanation of the methodology that Requestors followed in
preparing the tables or any supporting information. Requestors also did
not provide any information indicating whether the remaining two firms'
alleged decline in CCP production and production capacity is permanent
or whether the firms have converted their CCP production to other uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 19 U.S.C.Sec. 1675(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, with respect to Requestors' assertions that the Indonesian
CCP industry is no longer export oriented, these too are largely
unsubstantiated. As discussed above, the Indonesian Industry's tables
summarizing producers' sales records from 2021 to the present do not
contain any supporting documentation or a sufficient explanation of the
methodology used to prepare them. Nor did Requestors submit any other
evidence indicating that they would not resume exports to the United
States if the orders were revoked or other evidence indicating that
they have otherwise reoriented production towards domestic customers in
a manner that would preclude export activity.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In the first reviews, which were the last full reviews of
the orders, relying on testimony from a respondent industry
representative, the Commission noted that ``{i{time} t is . . .
undisputed that the Indonesian Industry intends to resume shipping
free sheet CCP to the U.S. market if the orders are revoked.''
Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using
Sheet-Fed Presses from China and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-470-471
and 731-TA-1169-1170 (Review), USITC Pub. 4656 (Dec. 2016) (``First
Reviews'') at 17 & n.89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to not adequately substantiating their assertions,
Requestors have not explained why any of the alleged reduction in
capacity and/or their export orientation would even rise to the level
of changed circumstances indicating that revocation of the orders would
not be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material
injury to the domestic industry. For example, in prior reviews, the
Commission has found the fact that subject Indonesian and Chinese
producers demonstrated ``a degree of export orientation,'' rather than
a specific percentage, to be a sufficient basis for continuing the
orders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ First Reviews, USITC Pub. 4656 at 33-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Requestors have not adequately explained why the
Commission should find that a firm's decision that it would be more
[[Page 25598]]
beneficial to either shift focus to more home market sales or to shift
production capacity to more profitable products after the antidumping
and countervailing orders were imposed are not the natural consequence
of the orders.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Avesta, 689 F. Supp. at 1184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, the Commission has determined that the petition does not
show changed circumstances sufficient to warrant institution of a
review investigation and has, therefore, dismissed the petition. The
Commission notes that the third five-year reviews of the orders on
imports of CCP from China and Indonesia are scheduled to commence in
May 2027. The Commission's denial of the instant request in no manner
prejudges the upcoming five-year reviews.
Authority: This notice is published pursuant to section 207.45 of
the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: May 6, 2026.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2026-09240 Filed 5-8-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 11, 2026.
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.