| NewPage Corporation
February 7, 2007
Hon. Charles B. Rangel
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Rangel:
On behalf of NewPage Corporation (“NewPage”), we submit
these comments in response to the Advisory from the Committee on Ways and
Means, dated January 31, 2007, requesting public comment on what action, if
any, the Committee should take with respect to the modification the Department
of Commerce (“Commerce”) has proposed to its calculation of weighted average
dumping margins in investigations. NewPage urges the Committee to express its
disapproval of the substance and proposed implementation of Commerce’s
modification.
NewPage Corporation, headquartered in Dayton, Ohio, is
a leading U.S. producer of coated papers. With more than 4,300 employees, the
company operates integrated pulp and paper manufacturing mills located in
Escanaba, Michigan; Luke, Maryland; Rumford, Maine; and Wickliffe, Kentucky.
Despite NewPage’s modern and highly efficient production facilities,
competition with unfairly traded imports has resulted in plant closures and
layoffs of many employees. Consequently, in October 2006, NewPage filed
antidumping and countervailing duty petitions against imports of coated free
sheet paper from China, Indonesia, and Korea.
The Committee Should Express Its Disagreement With The
Substance Of The Proposed Modification
NewPage agrees with the comments submitted by the
Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws (“CSUSTL”). In particular, NewPage
agrees, for the reasons discussed in CSUSTL’s separate comments, that
Commerce’s proposed modification violates section 777A(d) of the Tariff Act, 19
U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d). NewPage also agrees that the proposed methodology – by
offsetting dumped imports with “non-dumped” imports – would mask injurious
dumping, making it far more difficult for victims of unfair trade practices to
obtain necessary relief.
The Committee Should Express Its Disagreement With The
Proposed Implementation Of The Modification
Commerce’s proposed implementation
of the policy is unfair to NewPage and many other domestic producers. In March
2006, Commerce assured the public that any methodological change regarding
“zeroing” would be applied only to investigations “initiated on the basis of petitions received on or after the first day of
the month following the date of publication of the Department’s final notice of
the new weighted average dumping margin calculation methodology.”[1]
NewPage relied upon this assurance when filing antidumping duty petitions in
October 2006, and prepared and structured these cases – including major
decisions about which countries and which products should be covered by the
relief sought – under the expectation that dumping margins would be calculated
under the then existing methodology. Needless to say, NewPage was dismayed to
learn on December 27, 2006 that Commerce had changed its mind and decided to
apply the new methodology retroactively to all pending investigations,
including the three investigations of coated free sheet paper.[2]
This retroactive application of the new methodology is
unfair and illegal. The URAA contains no
express authority for the application of policy changes to investigations that
have already been initiated at the time of the modification. To the contrary,
the statute seeks to limit the application of new policy modifications
prospectively.[3] Commerce’s
proposal to apply its proposed modification to pending investigations – some of
which have already been ongoing for many months – thus violates the URAA and
NewPage urges the Committee to express its disagreement with the
retroactive application of the proposed modification to investigations pending
as of February 22, 2007.
The Committee Should Urge Commerce To Develop and Utilize
Already-Permitted Methodologies Where the Absence of Zeroing Will Mask Dumping
There already exists a provision
in the law to calculate dumping margins in investigations by comparing
individual export prices to weighted-average normal values where “there is a
pattern of export prices … that differ significantly among purchasers, regions,
or periods of time.”[4] This “targeted” or “strategic” dumping
methodology, if appropriately developed and employed, could help offset the
negative consequences of the Department’s proposed modification, where the
absence of zeroing will significantly mask dumping practices. The European
Communities (“EC”), for example, have developed and utilized a “targeted
dumping” provision, consistent with the WTO Antidumping Agreement, and the
United States should do the same.
The Committee should urge
Commerce to adopt broad standards for finding “patterns of export prices,” and
to apply the targeted dumping methodology whenever using weighted-average to
weighted-average methodology is clearly masking dumping practices. Moreover,
the Committee should urge the Department to refrain from implementing the
decision to eliminate the zeroing methodology until it has been able to develop
a methodology for dealing with targeted dumping.
NewPage is grateful for the opportunity to provide
these comments, and appreciates the Committee’s attention to this important matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Gilbert
B. Kaplan
[1]
Antidumping Proceedings:
Calculation of the Weighted Average Dumping Margin During an Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 71 Fed. Reg. 11189 (March 6, 2006).
[2]
Antidumping Proceedings:
Calculation of the Weighted–Average Dumping Margin During an Antidumping
Investigation; Final Modification, 71 Fed. Reg. 77722, 77723 (Dec. 27,
2006).
[3]
19 U.S.C. § 3533(g)(2) (stating that modifications may not go
into effect until after the end of the 60-day period for consultations).
[4]
19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B).
| 
