[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37718-37723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13381]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-821]
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind
in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier
bags from Thailand. The review covers 17 exporters/producers. The
period of review is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made at
prices below normal value by various companies subject to this review.
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments in this review are requested to
submit with each argument (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief
summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3174 and (202) 482-4477, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 9, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from
Thailand. See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags
from Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004). In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), we received requests for an administrative review for 17
companies. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(g) and 19 CFR 351.221(b),
we published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of
these companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 57465, 57466 (September 29, 2006)
(Initiation Notice).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We stated that the review covers the following companies:
Advance Polybag Inc., Alpine Plastics Inc., APEC Film Ltd., API
Enterprises Inc., Apple Film Co., Ltd., CP Packaging Industry Co.,
Ltd., King Pak Ind. Co. Ltd., Multibax Public Co., Ltd., Naraipak
Co., Ltd., Polyplast (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Sahachit Watana Plastic
Ind. Co., Ltd., Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd., Thantawan
Industry Public Co., Ltd., U. Yong Ltd., Part., U Yong Industry Co.,
Ltd., Universal Polybag Co., Ltd., and Winner's Pack Co., Ltd. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the large number of firms requested for this administrative
review and the resulting administrative burden to review each company
for which a request has been made, the Department is exercising its
authority to limit the number of respondents selected for review. Where
it is not practicable to examine all known exporters/producers of
subject merchandise because of the large number of such companies,
section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
permits the Department to limit its examination to either a sample of
exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid
based on the information available at the time of selection or
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of subject
merchandise from the exporting country that can be examined reasonably.
Accordingly, on October 10, 2006, we requested information concerning
the quantity and value of sales to the United States from the 17
exporters/producers listed in the Initiation Notice. We received
responses from all of the exporters/producers. We also examined import
data from CBP concerning unliquidated entries of merchandise subject to
the antidumping duty order. Based on our analysis of the responses and
import data obtained from CBP, we determined that Advance Polybag Inc.,
Alpine Plastics Inc., API Enterprises Inc., and Universal Polybag Co.,
Ltd. (collectively UPC/API), CP Packaging Industry Co., Ltd. (CP
Packaging), King Pak Ind. Co., Ltd. (King Pak), and Thai Plastic Bags
Industries Co., Ltd., APEC Film Ltd., and Winner's Pack Co., Ltd.
(collectively TPBG), were the four largest exporters/producers during
the period of review (POR). Specifically, we determined that these
exporters/producers accounted for 90.8 percent of the total reported
quantity of imports of the subject merchandise from the requested
companies to the United States during the POR and 83.4 percent of the
total quantity from the requested companies reported in the CBP data.
Accordingly, we chose to examine these four companies. See Memorandum
to Laurie Parkhill entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Thailand - Respondent Selection'' dated November 9, 2006. For the
companies under review which we did not select as mandatory
respondents, we have calculated a weighted average of the weighted-
average margins we have established for the four mandatory respondents
excluding de minimis rates and rates based on adverse facts available
(AFA).
Since initiation of the review, we extended the due date for
completion of these preliminary results from May 2, 2007, to July 2,
2007. See Notice of
[[Page 37719]]
Extension of Deadline for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand,
72 FR 16766 (April 5, 2007). We have conducted this review in
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is
polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) which may be referred to as t-
shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The
subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with
handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded
closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of
polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889
mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or
width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6
cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer
than 40 inches (101.6 cm).
PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and
free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug,
convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and
restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased
products. The scope of the order excludes (1) polyethylene bags that
are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with
drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that
are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific
end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail
establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.
As a result of recent changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are
currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the
HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
of this order is dispositive.
Intent to Rescind Review in Part
In an October 24, 2006, submission, Multibax Public Co., Ltd.
(Multibax), indicated that it had no shipments of subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR. Our review of information from CBP
supports Multibax's claim that there were no entries of its merchandise
subject to the order into the United States during the POR. See
Memorandum to the File, ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,''
dated November 8, 2006. Because we preliminarily find that there were
no imports from Multibax during the POR, we intend to rescind the
administrative review with respect to this company. If we continue to
find at the time of our final results of administrative review that
there were no imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand
from Multibax, we will rescind our review of Multibax.
Duty Absorption
On October 30, 2006, the petitioners \2\ requested that the
Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed
during the POR by the respondents. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act
provides for the Department to determine, if requested, during an
administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication
of the order whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign
producer or exporter if the subject merchandise is sold in the United
States through an affiliated importer. Because UPC/API is the sole
respondent which sold to unaffiliated customers in the United States
through itself as the importer of record and because this review was
initiated two years after the publication of the order, we have made a
duty-absorption determination concerning UPC/API in this segment of the
proceeding in accordance with section 751(a)(4) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The petitioners are the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag
Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and
Superbag Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the antidumping duties have been absorbed by
the respondent during the POR, we presume the duties will be absorbed
for those sales that have been made at less than normal value. This
presumption can be rebutted with evidence (e.g., an agreement between
the affiliated importer and unaffiliated purchaser) that the
unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on
the subject merchandise. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld
Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind, 70 FR 39735,
39737 (July 11, 2005). On May 22, 2007, the Department requested
evidence from UPC/API to demonstrate that its U.S. purchasers will pay
any antidumping duties ultimately assessed on entries during the POR.
UPC/API did not provide any such evidence. Because UPC/API did not
rebut the duty-absorption presumption with evidence that the
unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on
the subject merchandise, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties
have been absorbed by UPC/API on all U.S. sales made through its
importer of record.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified
information provided by UPC/API using standard verification procedures,
including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and the selection
of original documentation containing relevant information. Our
verification results are outlined in the public version of the
verification report dated June 12, 2007, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit, room B-099.
Use of Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if necessary information
is not available on the record or if an interested party: (1) withholds
information that has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to
provide such information by the deadlines established, or in the form
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section
782 of the Act; (3) significantly impedes the proceeding; or (4)
provides such information, but the information cannot be verified, the
Department shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, the facts
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not
decline to consider submitted information if that information is
necessary to the determination but does not meet all of the
requirements established by the Department, provided that all of the
following requirements are met: (1) the information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties. Section
782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a
response to a request for information does not comply with the request,
the Department shall promptly inform the person submitting the response
of the nature of the deficiency and shall provide that person, to the
extent practicable, with an opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency in light of the time limits established for the completion
of the administrative review.
[[Page 37720]]
In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to
the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. The purpose
of the adverse call, as explained in the Statement of Administrative
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 316,
Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (SAA), is ``to ensure that the party does not
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate {to the best of
its ability{time} than if it had cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870.
Further, as explained in the SAA, in employing adverse inferences the
Department will consider ``the extent to which a party may benefit from
its own lack of cooperation.'' Id.
On November 9, 2006, we sent a questionnaire to King Pak, one of
the companies for which the petitioners requested an administrative
review, seeking information related to King Pak's corporate structure
and its production and sales of PRCBs. King Pak did not respond to the
questionnaire. Because King Pak did not respond, on December 21, 2006,
we sent a letter to King Pak requesting that it respond to our November
9, 2006, questionnaire, thus providing King Pak a second opportunity to
respond to the questionnaire. The information requested in the
questionnaire is necessary for us to complete the administrative
review. King Pak has not responded to our November 9, 2006,
questionnaire or to our December 21, 2006, letter. Because King Pak has
failed to provide the information requested and thus has significantly
impeded this proceeding, we must use facts available. See section
776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, because King Pak could have provided
correct and verifiable data about its corporate structure, production,
and sales but did not do so, we determine that King Pak has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. Therefore, we
conclude that the use of an adverse inference is warranted. See section
776(b) of the Act and Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d
1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
As total AFA, we have preliminarily assigned King Pak the highest
rate found in the less-than-fair-value investigation, which was 122.88
percent. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 34122,
34125 (June 18, 2004) (Final LTFV). We applied this rate to Zippac Co.,
Ltd. (Zippac) during the less-than-fair-value investigation. Id. 69 FR
at 34123. We also applied this rate to King Pak, which we collapsed
with Zippac, in the preceding administrative review. See Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982, 1982-83 (January 17, 2007),
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 53405, 53406 (September
11, 2006) (collapsing King Pak, Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd., Zippac, and
King Bag Co.). The rate has not yet induced King Pak's compliance,
cooperation, and participation in the administrative-review process.
When a respondent is not cooperative, like King Pak here, the
Department has the discretion to presume that the highest prior margin
reflects the current margins. If this were not the case, the party
would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.
See Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899
F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Further, by using the highest prior
antidumping duty rate we offer the assurance that the exporter will not
benefit from refusing to provide information and we apply an
antidumping duty rate that bears some relationship to past practices by
this company as it is part of the industry in question. See Shanghai
Taoen Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348
(CIT 2005) (citing D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1223
(Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, to the extent practicable,
the Department corroborate secondary information from independent
sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is
defined as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to
the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the
subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751
concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. As clarified in
the SAA, ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself
that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA
at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will
examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of
the information. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and F.Lii de Cecco di Filippo
Fara S. Martino, S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027, 1030 (2000).
As emphasized in the SAA, however, the Department need not prove that
the selected facts available are the best alternative information. See
SAA at 869. Further, independent sources used to corroborate such
evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official
import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular investigation or review. See
19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870.
With respect to the reliability aspect of corroboration, the
Department found the rate of 122.88 percent to be reliable in the
investigation. See Final LTFV, 69 FR at 34123-24. There, the Department
pointed out that the rate was calculated from source documents included
with the petition, namely, a price quotation for various sizes of PRCBs
commonly produced in Thailand, import statistics, and affidavits from
company officials, all from a different Thai producer of subject
merchandise. Because the information is supported by source documents,
we preliminarily determine that the information is still reliable. See
Memorandum to the File entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Thailand: Inclusion of Memorandum, dated August 31, 2006, to the record
of this administrative review'' dated July 2, 2007.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. In the
investigation, the Department determined that, because the price quote
reflected commercial practices of the particular industry during the
period of investigation, the information was relevant to mandatory
respondents which refused to participate in the investigation. See
Final LTFV, 69 FR at 34123-24. No party, including Zippac, contested
the application of that rate in the investigation. Id. Furthermore, the
rate of 122.88 percent is King Pak's current rate and has been applied
to Zippac since the less-than-fair-value investigation. Therefore, we
find this rate to continue to have relevance.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and (b) of
the Act, as appropriate. We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed
F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or
for exportation to, the United States. See section 772(c) of the Act.
We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts and rebates. See
section 772(d) of the Act. We also made deductions for any movement
expenses
[[Page 37721]]
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA, we
calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with
economic activities occurring in the United States, which includes
commissions, direct selling expenses, and U.S. repacking expenses. In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those
indirect selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring
in the United States and the profit allocated to expenses deducted
under section 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and
772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we
computed profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both
the U.S. and comparison markets, less all expenses associated with
those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect
to U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to
total expenses for both the U.S. and comparison markets.
Comparison-Market Sales
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of comparison-
market and U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular
market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper
comparison, with the exception of UPC/API, we determined that the
quantity of foreign like product sold by all respondents in Thailand
was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the
subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of
the Act. With the exception of UPC/API, each company's quantity of
sales in Thailand was greater than five percent of its sales to the
U.S. market. See section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, with the exception
of UPC/API, we based normal value on the prices at which the foreign
like product was first sold for consumption in Thailand in the usual
commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the
extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP sales.
Although UPC/API did not have a viable home market within the
meaning of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act, Canada was a viable
third-country market for UPC/API under section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Therefore, we based normal value for UPC/API's U.S. sales on the prices
at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in
Canada in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of
trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the
CEP sales. See section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded below-
cost sales in the less-than-fair-value investigation of PRCBs from
Thailand sold by TPBG. See Final LFTV, 69 FR at 34124. Therefore, we
have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that TPBG's sales of the
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of
normal value in this review may have been made at prices below the cost
of production (COP) as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, in this review we
have conducted a COP investigation of TPBG's sales in the comparison
market.
The petitioners in this proceeding filed allegations that UPC/API
and CP Packaging made sales below COP in their respective comparison
markets. Based on the information in the allegations, we found that we
had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign
like product were made by UPC/API and CP Packaging at prices that are
less than the COP of the product. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill
entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand - Request to
Initiate Cost Investigation for Universal Polybag Co., Ltd., Advance
Polybag Inc., API Enterprises Inc., and Alpine Plastics, Inc.,'' dated
January 24, 2007; Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled ``Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand - Request to Initiate Cost
Investigation for CP Packaging Industry Co., Ltd.,'' dated January 26,
2007. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted
COP investigations of sales by these firms in their respective
comparison markets.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed
in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental
to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the
comparison-market sales and COP information provided by each respondent
in its questionnaire responses.
After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of
the Act, we tested whether comparison-market sales of the foreign like
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section
773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported
comparison-market prices less any applicable movement charges,
discounts, and rebates.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities
within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices
less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they
were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time
pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based
on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we
determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See the Department's analysis
memoranda for TPBG, UPC/API, and CP Packaging dated July 2, 2007. Based
on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to TPBG,
UPC/API, and CP Packaging.
Model-Match Methodology
We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in
the comparison market. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used
the following methodology. If an identical comparison-market model was
reported, we made comparisons to weighted-average comparison-market
prices that were based on all sales which passed the COP test of the
identical product during the relevant or contemporary month. We
calculated the weighted-average comparison-market prices on a level of
trade-specific basis. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an
identical model, we identified the most similar comparison-market
model. To determine the most similar model, we matched the foreign like
product based on the physical characteristics reported by the
respondents in the following order of importance: (1) quality; (2) bag
type; (3) length; (4) width; (5) gusset; (6) thickness; (7) percentage
of high-density resin; (8) percentage of low-density resin; (9)
percentage of linear low-density resin; (10) percentage of color
concentrate; (11) percentage of ink coverage; (12) number of ink
colors; and (13) number of sides printed.
[[Page 37722]]
Normal Value
Comparison-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory, or
delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of
the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for
differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP,
we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market
direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to
normal value. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale
adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from
normal value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for
comparison-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions
in EP and CEP calculations and for U.S. indirect selling expenses to
offset comparison-market commissions.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based
normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of
trade as the EP or CEP. If normal value was calculated at a different
level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible,
in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See the Level of
Trade section below.
The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an
affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the
affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to
parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales at
arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where affiliated-party
sales were reported, we excluded from our analysis sales to affiliated
customers for consumption in the comparison market that we determined
not to be at arm's-length prices. To test whether these sales were made
at arm's-length prices, the Department compared the prices of sales of
comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of
all rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when
the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98
and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for
merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we
determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length
prices. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002) (explaining
the Department's practice). We included in our calculations of normal
value those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length
prices.
Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used
constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no
usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. We
calculated constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the
Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses,
U.S. packing expenses, and profit in the calculation of constructed
value. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based
SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by each
respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the
comparison market.
When appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19
CFR 351.412 for circumstance-of-sale differences and level-of-trade
differences. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale
adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to constructed value. For
comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by
deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from constructed
value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for comparison-market
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP
comparisons.
When possible, we calculated constructed value at the same level of
trade as the EP or CEP. If constructed value was calculated at a
different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if
possible, in accordance with sections 773(a)(7) and (8) of the Act.
Level of Trade
To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When
there were no sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales
to comparison-market sales at a different level of trade. The normal-
value level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the
comparison market. When normal value is based on constructed value, the
level of trade is that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and
profit.
To determine whether comparison-market sales are at a different
level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the unaffiliated customer.
No company reported any significant differences in selling
functions between different channels of distribution or customer type
in either the comparison or U.S. markets. Therefore, for each
respondent, we determined that all comparison-market sales were made at
one level of trade. Moreover, for each respondent that had EP sales, we
determined that all comparison-market sales were made at the same level
of trade as the EP customer.
UPC/API was the only respondent with CEP sales. We found that the
comparison-market level of trade was equivalent to the CEP level of
trade.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following percentage weighted-average dumping margins on PRCBs from
Thailand exist for the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/Exporter Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPBG................................................ 0.87
UPC/API............................................. 1.52
CP Packaging........................................ 0.74
King Pak............................................ 122.88
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the
Following Companies:\3\............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The petitioners are the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and
its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/Exporter Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Film Co., Ltd................................. 1.13
Naraipak Co., Ltd................................... 1.13
Polyplast (Thailand) Co., Ltd....................... 1.13
Sahachit Watana Plastic Ind. Co., Ltd............... 1.13
Thantawan Industry Public Co., Ltd.................. 1.13
U. Yong Ltd., Part.................................. 1.13
U. Yong Industry Co., Ltd........................... 1.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to this review
[[Page 37723]]
within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310. Interested parties who
wish to request a hearing or to participate in a hearing if a hearing
is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of
this notice. Requests should contain the following: (1) the party's
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants;
(3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from
interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice of preliminary results of review.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs from interested parties,
limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted not
later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or
comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested,
any hearing will be held two days after the scheduled date for
submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties who
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested
to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the
arguments not exceeding five pages, and a table of statutes,
regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). The Department
will issue the final results of this administrative review, including
the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs
or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of
publication of this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/
importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for
merchandise subject to this review.
For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual
review, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted
average of the weighted-average margins we calculated for the companies
selected for individual review, excluding any which are de minimis or
determined entirely on AFA.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
of Antidumping Duties). This clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in
these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies
did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Assessment of Antidumping Duties. We will issue
liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final
results of review.
Export-Price Sales
With respect to EP sales, for these preliminary results, we divided
the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal
value and EP) for each exporter's importer or customer by the total
number of units the exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will
direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each
unit of merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries
during the review period.
Constructed Export-Price Sales
For CEP sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the
reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for
each importer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting percentage
margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise
on each of that importer's entries during the review period. See 19 CFR
351.212(b).
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for
all shipments of polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1)
the cash-deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates
established in the final results of this review except if the rate is
less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of
19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash-deposit rate will be zero;
(2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above,
the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value
investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has
its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 2.80 percent, the ``all
others'' rate for this proceeding. These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importer
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: July 2, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-13381 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S