VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION
Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of coated free sheet paper (“CFSP”) imported from China, Indonesia, and Korea that is allegedly subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). 1
THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS
The legal standard for preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations requires the Commission to determine, based upon the information available at the time of the preliminary determination, whether there is a reasonable indication that a domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded, by reason of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.2 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence before it and determines whether “(1) the record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that there is no material injury or threat of such injury; and (2) no likelihood exists that contrary evidence will arise in a final investigation.”3
CFSP is a type of graphic paper (i.e., paper or paperboard intended for writing, printing, or other graphic purposes). CFSP contains no more than 10 percent by weight mechanical pulp; that is, it is made from a minimum of 90 percent chemical pulp.4 (Chemical pulp is produced by cooking wood chips in a chemical solution, while mechanical pulp is obtained through mechanical means, by grinding wood).5 The coating on CFSP usually consists of kaolin, although a variety of other substances may also be used.6 CFSP typically is used to print materials with high-gloss pages, for example, annual reports, high-end catalogues and magazines, high-impact direct mail, posters, signage, playing cards, and packaging.7 CFSP is sold in two principal forms: web rolls and sheets (the latter encompasses sheeter rolls).8
The petition in these investigations was filed on October 31, 2006, by New Page Corporation of Dayton, Ohio (“Petitioner” or “New Page”), a domestic producer of CFSP.9 The following respondents participated in the staff conference and filed briefs in the preliminary phase of these investigations: (1) a
1 Chairman Pearson dissents from these determinations but joins in Sections I through VI.A. of these views. Commissioner Hillman did not participate in these determinations.
2 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a) (2000); see also Am. Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-04 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Aristech Chem. Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 353, 354-55 (1996). No party argued that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded by reason of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.
3 Am. Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at 1001; see also Tex. Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Transcript of Staff Conference (“Transcript”) at 19-21 (Tyrone, New Page). Confidential Report (“CR”) at I-10 and I-14 n.37, Public Report (“PR”) at I-8 and I-10 n.37. CR at I-11, PR at I-8-9. CR at I-17 and II-1, PR at I-12 and II-1. CR at II-1, PR at II-12.
9 In addition to New Page, the domestic industry consists of nine other producers of CFSP that operate plants in ten states. CR/PR at Table III-1