exceed Commerce statistics for China and Indonesia.7 A portion of the apparent over-count is almost certainly due to the double-counting described above. That said, the bulk of the subject merchandise is imported by a relatively small number of firms and questionnaire coverage was high.
Exports of subject merchandise to the United States is, of course, the corresponding measure to U.S. imports.8 Exports of Chinese-produced CFS paper, in terms of quantity,9 reported in response to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire also substantially exceed U.S. imports reported in official Commerce statistics for the HTS reporting numbers listed in the petition. This suggests that the discrepancy in import data discussed above cannot be solely attributed to double-counting. By way of contrast, there is a very close correlation between Korean-reported export data and U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Korea. While there is a close correlation between Indonesian-reported export data and official Commerce statistics for 2003 and 2004, there is a significant discrepancy for 2005 and, to a lesser extent, for January-September 2006 where foreign exports of the subject merchandise again exceed U.S. imports compiled from official Commerce statistics. 10
In response to a request for assistance in resolving the seeming discrepancy with respect to shipments of the subject merchandise from China, counsel for the Chinese manufacturers indicated that U.S. imports of CFS paper from China are believed to be entering under two HTS statistical reporting numbers (4811.59.2000 and 4811.90.8000) in addition to those identified in Commerce’s initiation notices.11 Counsel further stated that “this appears to be an issue that is unique to China, with only a small volume of imports from Indonesia and Korea having been reported under those headings. We have no reason to believe that the small quantity of imports from Indonesia or Korea that entered under HTS headings 4811.59.2000 and 4811.90.8000 is subject merchandise.”12
The following tabulation presents data measuring the flow of CFS paper from the subject sources as reported in Commerce statistics and in response to Commission questionnaires (in short tons):
7 Commission staff attempted to identify and minimize double-counting by, as shown in the notes to table IV-1, not including data provided by certain firms in the import totals. However, it was not possible in the time available to edit questionnaire data submitted by firms that, while they were shown in Customs documents as the bonafide importer (“consignee”), appeared to overstate their U.S. imports (most probably by not being able to separate their direct imports from their purchase of imports). These firms are listed in table IV-1 (see footnote 2). Note, however, that (as an additional complication) the edits shown in table IV-1 are based on value. Using value eliminates the need to convert the kilograms reported in Customs documents into the short tons requested in the questionnaire data but may not be the best point of comparison.
8 Such exports are addressed in detail along with the operations of the subject manufacturers in part VII of this report.
Value data were not gathered in the foreign producer questionnaire.
10 A review of monthly export data provided by the Indonesian industry indicates that the discrepancies in the later periods between official Commerce statistics and export data provided in response to the foreign producer’s questionnaire, are not associated with end-of-period shipment lags. E-mail from Adams Lee, White & Case, December 7, 2006.
11 NewPage stated in its petition that CFS from China previously had been misclassified under HTSUS subheading 4811.90 (in particular, under reporting numbers 4811.90.8000 and 4811.90.9000 which were basket categories in existence during 2003-05). NewPage further notes that reporting number. 4811.90.9000 was eliminated effective July 1, 2005 and replaced by 4811.90.9090. Petitioner also indicated that it understood that the misclassification was “not a continuing problem.” Petition, pp. 4-5 and n. 3.
E-mail from counsel to the Chinese manufacturers, November 29, 2006.