Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54021-54029 [E6-15214]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 13, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54021-54029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-15214]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-886]


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene 
retail carrier bags (``PRCBs'') from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') covering the period January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005. 
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal 
value (``NV'') by Crown Polyethylene Products (International) Ltd. 
(``Crown''), High Den Enterprises Ltd. (``High Den''), and Dongguan 
Nozawa Plastic Products Co. Ltd. and United Power Packaging Ltd. 
(collectively, ``Nozawa'').\1\ If these preliminary results are adopted 
in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the period of review 
(``POR'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 
56634, 56635 (September 28, 2005) (``Initiation Notice'') refers to 
Nozawa with the following names: Dongguan Nozawa Plastics and United 
Power Packaging (collectively ``Nozawa''), Dongguan Nozawa Plastics, 
Dongguan Nozawa Plastic Co., Ltd., Dong Guan (Dong Wan) Nozawa 
Plastic Co., Ltd., Dongguan Nozawa Plastic Products Co., Ltd., 
United Power Packaging, United Power Packaging Limited, United Power 
Packaging Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days 
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 13, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution

[[Page 54022]]

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243 or (202) 
482-4551, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 9, 2004, the Department published 
the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty 
Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People's Republic of 
China, 69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004).
    On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 
2005). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the following requests 
were made: (1) on August 12, 2005, Crown, a Chinese producer and 
exporter of the subject merchandise, requested that the Department 
conduct an administrative review of its sales; (2) on August 26, 2005, 
Nozawa, a Chinese producer and exporter of the subject merchandise, 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its 
sales; (3) on August 29, 2005, Rally Plastics Co., Ltd. (``Rally''), 
Sea Lake Polyethylene Enterprise Ltd. (``Sea Lake''), Shanghai Glopack, 
Inc. (``Glopack''), and High Den, Chinese producers and/or exporters of 
the subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of their sales; (4) on August 29, 2005, High Den 
also requested a new shipper review; (5) on August 30, 2005, Shanghai 
New Ai Lian Import & Export Co., Ltd. (``New Ai Lian''), a Hong Kong 
company that exported PRCBs that were manufactured in the PRC, 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its 
sales to the United States; and, (6) on August 31, 2005, Ampac 
Packaging (Nanjing) Co. (``Ampac'') requested that the Department 
conduct a new shipper review and, in the alternative, an administrative 
review of its sales during the POR. On September 20, 2005, High Den 
withdrew its request for a new shipper review of its sales to the 
United States during the POR.
    On September 28, 2005, the Department initiated this administrative 
review with respect to Nozawa, Crown, Rally, Sea Lake, Glopack, High 
Den, and New Ai Lian. See Initiation Notice.
    On September 30, 2005, the Department issued a letter denying 
Ampac's request for a new shipper review and stating that it would 
conduct an administrative review of Ampac's sales during the POR. The 
Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to all of the above-
named respondents on October 21, 2005. On October 25, 2005, the 
Department amended its initiation to include Ampac, which was 
inadvertently omitted from the September 28, 2005, initiation notice. 
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 70 FR 61601 (October 25, 2005).
    On November 11, 2005, Nozawa, High Den, Glopack, Sea Lake and Crown 
submitted Section A questionnaire responses (``AQRs''). On November 16, 
2005, New Ai Lian withdrew its request for an administrative review. On 
November 22, 2005, Rally withdrew its request for an administrative 
review. On November 29, 2005, Nozawa submitted comments arguing that it 
was unnecessary for its U.S. affiliate, Packaging Solutions Inc. 
(``PSI''), to submit Section E information concerning further 
manufacturing that occurred in the United States during the POR.
    On December 19, 2005, the Department requested the Office of Policy 
to provide a list of surrogate countries for this review. See 
Memorandum to Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, through 
Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, from Matthew Quigley, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags from the People's Republic of China: Request for Surrogate Country 
Selection'' (December 19, 2005). On December 20, 2005, the Office of 
Policy issued its list of surrogate countries. See the Memorandum from 
Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy Frankel, Director, 
China/NME Group, Office 8, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags (``Bags'') from the People's Republic 
of China (``PRC''): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries'' 
(December 20, 2005) (``Policy Memorandum'').
    On December 23, 2005, High Den, Crown, Glopack, Sea Lake and Nozawa 
submitted Sections C and D questionnaire responses (``CQR'' and 
``DQR''). On the same date, Crown submitted a sales and factors of 
production reconciliation under a separate cover, and Nozawa submitted 
a Section E questionnaire response (``EQR''). On December 27, 2005, Sea 
Lake and Glopack withdrew their requests for an administrative review.
    On January 6, 2006, a domestic interested party, the Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bag Committee (``PRCB Committee'') and its individual 
members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC and Superbag Corp., requested that the 
Department verify Crown, High Den and Nozawa. On February 23, 2006, 
Ampac withdrew its request for an administrative review.
    The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Crown and High 
Den on March 15, 2006. On March 24, 2006, the PRCB Committee, Crown, 
and High Den provided information concerning the appropriate surrogate 
values to use in valuing respondents' factors of production (``FOP''). 
No other parties submitted information concerning the valuation of 
respondents' FOPs during the POR.
    On April 12, 2006, High Den and Crown submitted supplemental 
questionnaire responses (``SQRs''). On April 14, 2006, the Department 
issued a supplemental questionnaire to Nozawa. On April 21, 2006, the 
PRCB Committee submitted comments concerning the surrogate country 
selection. No other interested party submitted surrogate country 
selection comments. The PRCB Committee, on April 28, 2006, submitted an 
allegation that High Den's sales to the United States during the POR 
were not bona fide.
    On April 27, 2006, the Department published a notice extending the 
deadline for the preliminary results of this administrative review. See 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: 
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 24839 (April 27, 2006). On May 24, 2006, 
the Department published a partial rescission of the instant 
administrative review with respect to Sea Lake, Glopack, Shanghai New 
Ai Lian, Rally and Ampac. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 29915 (May 24, 2006).
    On June 5, 2006, Nozawa submitted its SQR and on June 6, 2006, it 
provided revisions to that submission. On July 17, 2006, the Department 
issued a third supplemental questionnaire to High Den. On July 26, 
2006, Nozawa provided the publicly available audited financial 
statements of four Indian producers of identical or comparable 
merchandise which it proposed be used as the basis of surrogate 
financial ratios in the calculation of the antidumping duty margin. On 
August 7, 2006, the PRCB Committee provided publicly available factual 
information concerning the Indian producers referenced in Nozawa's July 
26, 2006, submission. In addition, on August 7, 2006, Nozawa provided 
additional information concerning the source and public availability of 
the financial statements

[[Page 54023]]

provided in its July 26, 2006, submission.
    On August 23, 2006, the Department further extended the deadline 
for the preliminary results of this administrative review. See 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: 
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Review, 71 FR 49417 (August 23, 2006).

Period of Review

    The POR is January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is 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 investigation 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.
    Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under 
statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (HTSUS).\2\ This subheading may also cover products 
that are outside the scope of this investigation. Furthermore, although 
the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Until July 1, 2005, these products were classifiable under 
HTSUS 3923.21.0090 (Sacks and bags of polymers of ethylene, other). 
See Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2005)- 
Supplement 1 Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes Change 
Record - 17th Edition - Supplement 1, available at https://
hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/0510/0510chgs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. 
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a 
foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked 
by the administering authority. See e.g., Brake Rotors From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission 
of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Preliminary Notice of Intent 
To Rescind the 2004/2005 New Shipper Review 71 FR 26736, 26739 (May 8, 
2006) (unchanged in final results) and Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and 
Preliminary Partial Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond 
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China 70 FR 
77121, 77124 (December 29, 2005) (unchanged in final determination). No 
interested party in this case has contested this treatment. 
Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the 
Act, which applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on 
the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market-economy country 
or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the 
Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of 
the FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are: (1) at a 
level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; 
and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of 
the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' 
section below and in the Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita and Matthew 
Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analysts, through Charles 
Riggle, Program Manager, to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 8, ``Preliminary Results of the 2004-2005 Administrative Review 
of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of 
China: Surrogate Value Memorandum'' (August 31, 2006) (``Surrogate 
Value Memorandum'').
    The Department has determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 
Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of 
economic development. See Policy Memorandum. Customarily, we select an 
appropriate surrogate country from the Policy Memorandum based on the 
availability and reliability of data from the countries that are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, we have 
found that: 1) India is at a level of economic development comparable 
to that of the PRC; and 2) India is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise, and 3) India provides the best opportunity to 
use quality, publicly available data to value the FOPs. See Memorandum 
from Laurel LaCivita and Matthew Quigley, International Trade 
Compliance Analysts, through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, to Wendy 
Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, ``Antidumping 
Administrative Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags: Selection of 
a Surrogate Country,'' (August 31, 2006) (``Surrogate Country 
Memorandum'').
    The Department used India as the primary surrogate country and, 
accordingly, has calculated NV using Indian prices to value the PRC 
producers' FOPs, when available and appropriate. See Surrogate Country 
Memorandum and Surrogate Value Memorandum. We have obtained and relied 
upon publicly available information wherever possible.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the 
date of publication of the preliminary results of review.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control, and thus, should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of subject merchandise subject to review in an NME 
country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a 
separate rate. See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 74764, 74765 (December 16, 2005) 
(unchanged in final results); and Certain Cased Pencils from the 
People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

[[Page 54024]]

Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76758 
(December 28, 2005) (unchanged in final results).
    To determine whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes the exporter in light of select criteria, discussed below. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20585, 22587 (May 6, 1991) 
(``Sparklers''); and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 
(May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). Under this test, exporters in NME 
countries receive separate, company-specific margins when they can 
demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law 
(``de jure'') and in fact (``de facto'').
    We have considered whether the companies under review are eligible 
for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to determine 
whether the exporters are independent from government control does not 
consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export 
licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these 
controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 
controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making 
process at the individual firm level. See, e.g., Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 
62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Honey from the People's Republic of 
China, 60 FR 14725,14727-28 (March 20, 1995) (unchanged in final 
determination).
    Crown, High Den and Nozawa each provided company-specific separate-
rate information and stated that each met the standards for the 
assignment of separate rates. Crown, High Den and Nozawa all reported 
that they are privately owned trading companies based in Hong Kong, and 
that their suppliers are wholly foreign-owned enterprises. Therefore, 
an additional separate-rates analysis is not necessary to determine 
whether Crown's, High Den's and Nozawa's export activities are 
independent from government control. See e.g., Brake Rotors From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Tenth New 
Shipper Review, 69 FR 30875, 30876 (June 1, 2004) (unchanged in final 
results); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 
71104 (December 20, 1999); Preliminary Results of First New Shipper 
Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 66703, 
66705 (November 7, 2000) (unchanged in final results of review); and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 
30, 1996) (``Bicycles''). Further, the producers in the PRC are wholly 
owned by Crown, High Den and Nozawa, respectively, and are incorporated 
in the PRC as wholly foreign-owned companies. See Crown's QR at 2-6; 
High Den's AQR at 2-5; and Nozawa's AQR at 3-11.

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that:
    in identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or 
foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of 
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the 
normal course of business. However, the Secretary may use a date other 
than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different 
date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer 
establishes the material terms of sale.
    See also, Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. 
Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001) (upholding the Department's 
rebuttable presumption that invoice date is the appropriate date of 
sale). No party has suggested the use of a date of sale other than the 
invoice date. See Crown's CQR at C-10; High Den's CQR at C-15; and 
Nozawa's CQR at C-12. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), we will 
use the invoice date as the date of sale for all companies in this 
review.

Bona Fide Sales

    In response to allegations by the PRCB Committee on April 28, 2006, 
we examined the record of this review to determine whether the sales 
made by High Den during the POR were bona fide. Concurrent with this 
notice, we are issuing a memorandum detailing our analysis of the bona 
fides of High Den's sales to the United States during the POR. See 
Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita, Senior International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, to Wendy J. Frankel, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8 ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the 
People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Nature of the Sales in the 2004-
2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of High Den Enterprises, 
Ltd.'' (August 31, 2006) (``Bona Fide Sales Memorandum'').
    In evaluating whether or not a sale is commercially reasonable and, 
therefore, bona fide, the Department has considered, inter alia, such 
factors as (1) the timing of the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) 
the expenses arising from the transaction; (4) whether the goods were 
resold at a profit; and (5) whether the transaction was at arm's 
length. See e.g., Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 
366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1249 (CIT 2005) (``TTPC''), citing American 
Silicon Technologies. v. U.S., 110 F. Supp. 2d 992,995 (CIT 2000). 
However, the analysis is not limited to these factors alone. The 
Department examines a number of factors, all of which may speak to the 
commercial realities surrounding the sale of subject merchandise. While 
some bona fides issues may share commonalities across various 
Department cases, each one is company-specific and may vary with the 
facts surrounding each sale. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 
New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 
2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 20. The 
weight given to each factor considered will depend on the circumstances 
surrounding the sale. See TTPC, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1263.
    As discussed in detail in the Bona Fide Sales Memorandum, the 
Department based its preliminary determination that the sales made by 
High Den were bona fide on the following: (1) the prices of High Den's 
sales were within the range of the prices of other entries of subject 
merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the POR; (2) the 
quantity of High Den's sales were within the range of the quantities of 
other entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United 
States during the POR; (3) High Den's sales were made to an 
unaffiliated party at arm's length; and (4) there is no record evidence 
that indicates that High Den's sales were not made based on commercial 
principles.

Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person (A) withholds

[[Page 54025]]

information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information 
within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested 
by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of 
the Act. Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested 
party, promptly after receiving a request from the Department for 
information, notifies the Department that such party is unable to 
submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, 
together with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in 
which such party is able to submit the information, the Department may 
modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on 
that party. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall 
not decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' if: (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.
    In section C (IV) (Field 2) of the November 10, 2005, 
questionnaire, the Department requested that Nozawa:
    Assign a control number to each unique product reported in the 
section C sales data file. Identical products should be assigned the 
same control number in each record in every file in which the product 
is referenced. Each unique combination of product characteristics based 
only on fields 3.1 - 3.n should be assigned a unique control number. If 
the product is further manufactured in the United Sates, report the 
control number of the product imported, not the product sold.
    On December 23, 2005, Nozawa submitted a questionnaire response to 
section C and responded that the control number (``CONNUMs'') and 
physical characteristics were ``N/A'' for some sales. On April 14, 
2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting 
that Nozawa provide CONNUMs and physical characteristics for all sales. 
One June 5, 2006, Nozawa reported CONNUMs with uniquely defined 
physical characteristics for all sales but did not report factors of 
production (FOP) data for all CONNUMs. On July 26, 2006, the Department 
issued its second supplemental questionnaire requesting that Nozawa 
report FOP data for all CONNUMs.
    In the narrative of Nozawa's August 7, 2006, second supplemental 
questionnaire response (``SSQR''), Nozawa stated that it had ``revised 
the FOP databases so that they contain matching CONNUMs for all sales 
reported in the combined U.S. sales database'' SSQR at 1. However, 
instead of providing the FOPs that had previously been missing (i.e. 
for the CONNUM's the Department had identified in the second 
supplemental questionnaire), Nozawa collapsed multiple CONNUMs in the 
U.S. sales database, thereby matching sales of products that should 
fall under different CONNUMs to single CONNUMs in the FOP database. 
Specifically, in the U.S. sales database, Nozawa collapsed 115 unique 
CONNUMs into 53 CONNUMS. Therefore, the Department finds that 1) Nozawa 
has failed to submit certain information that has been requested; 2) 
Nozawa also failed to submit information in the form and manner 
requested; and 3) Nozawa did not, as required by section 782(c)(1) of 
the Act, inform the Department that it was having difficulties 
reporting the information in the form and manner requested, nor did it 
suggest an alternative method of reporting to the Department. Instead 
Nozawa altered the database in a manner which is inconsistent with the 
Department's instruction, and which misidentifies the CONNUMs for at 
least 62 products. Consequently, the Department cannot use the 
submitted information without undue difficulties. Specifically, we find 
that, we are unable to identify which products within the collapsed 
CONNUMs are matched to appropriate FOP data and we have no FOP data for 
at least 62 CONNUMs. Nozawa has significantly impeded this proceeding 
because it has prevented the Department from calculating a dumping 
margin based on FOP data for each product with unique physical 
characteristics.
    Therefore, pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department is 
not using the information in Nozawa's SSQR, with respect to these 
CONNUMs, as a basis for determining Nozawa's preliminary antidumping 
duty margin, and pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the 
Act, the Department has determined to apply partial facts available for 
all U.S. sales for which Nozawa failed to report uniquely defined 
control numbers.

Use of Adverse Inferences

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, upon having determined to 
apply facts available pursuant to the statutory requirements of the 
Act, the Department may use adverse inferences in selecting among the 
facts otherwise available if the Department determines that the 
respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with a request for information from the Department. Section 
776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse 
facts available (AFA) information derived from the petition, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
has held that the ``best of its ability'' standard ``requires the 
respondent to do the maximum it is able to do.'' See Nippon Steel Corp. 
v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed Cir. 2003) (Nippon Steel).
    While the standard does not require perfection and recognizes that 
mistakes sometimes occur, it does not condone inattentiveness, 
carelessness, or inadequate record keeping. It assumes that importers 
are familiar with the rules and regulations that apply to the import 
activities undertaken and requires that importers, to avoid a risk of 
an adverse inference determination in responding to Commerce's 
inquiries: (a) take reasonable steps to keep and maintain full and 
complete records documenting the information that a reasonable importer 
should anticipate being called upon to produce; (b) have familiarity 
with all of the records it maintains in its possession, custody, or 
control; and (c) conduct prompt, careful, and comprehensive 
investigations of all relevant records that refer or relate to the 
imports in question to the full extent of the importers' ability to do 
so.
    Id., at 1382.
    The Department has determined that Nozawa did not act to the best 
of its ability because it neither reported uniquely defined CONNUMs, 
although it had the ability to do so, nor notified the Department that 
it would not report uniquely defined CONNUMs.\3\ The ability to report 
uniquely defined CONNUMs was within Nozawa's control as evidenced by 
the fact that it reported the physical characteristics of each sale. In 
this case, CONNUMs are created by combining the quantitative values 
which represent 13 distinct physical characteristics. Nozawa's failure 
to create CONNUMs for these products, while reporting physical

[[Page 54026]]

characteristics for all products, demonstrates that Nozawa did not do 
the maximum it was able to do in responding to the Department's 
questionnaires. See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382; see also, Gourmet 
Equip. Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 572, 574 (2000) (holding that the 
respondent must provide the Department with the most accurate, 
credible, and verifiable information); Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. 
v. United States, 806 F. Supp. 1008 (CIT 1992) (finding that ultimately 
the burden of creating an adequate record lies with the respondents not 
the Department). Furthermore, Nozawa did not report FOP data for the 
merchandise for which it failed to report uniquely defined CONNUMs. 
Again, this data was clearly within Nozawa's control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See November 10, 2005, Questionnaire, General Instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on 
information derived from: (1) the petition; (2) the final determination 
in the investigation; (3) any previous administrative review or 
determination; or (4) any other information placed on the record. The 
Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the 
possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feburary 23, 1998). 
The Department's practice also ensures that ``the party does not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870. In order to effectuate the purposes 
of AFA and in accordance with section 776(b), as AFA for the 
preliminary results, the Department is applying the highest rate 
determined in the less than fair value investigation to Nozawa's sales 
which lack uniquely defined CONNUMs.

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as 
``[i]nformation 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 Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d 
Cong., 2d Sess. Vol.1 at 870 (1994). 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, to the extent practicable, examine 
the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA 
emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the 
selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA 
at 869.
    For the preliminary results, in accordance with section 776(c) of 
the Act, we corroborated our AFA margin using information submitted by 
Crown and Nozawa. See Memorandum to the File from Laurel LaCivita and 
Matthew Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analysts, through 
Charles Riggle, Program Manager, China/NME Group, ``2004-2005 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags from the People's Republic of China: Corroboration of Adverse 
Facts Available'' (August 31, 2006), regarding the corroboration of the 
AFA rate. We found that the margin of 77.57 percent has probative 
value. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 77.57 percent is 
corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PRCBs to the United States by Crown, 
High Den and Nozawa were made at less than NV, we compared export price 
(``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') to NV, as described in 
the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice, pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act. For 
High Den, we calculated per-unit cash deposit and assessment rates 
rather than ad valorem rates. Due to the proprietary nature of this 
information, please see the Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita, Senior 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Charles Riggle, Program 
Manager, to Wendy J. Frankel, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8 ``Analysis 
for the Preliminary Results of the 2004-2005 Administrative Review of 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: 
High Den Enterprises, Ltd.'' (August 31, 2006).

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in 
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the 
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 
with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772 (c) and 
(d) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used 
CEP for certain of Nozawa's sales because Nozawa sold its subject 
merchandise to its affiliated companies in the United States, Kal Pac 
Corporation (``Kal Pac'') and PSI, which, in turn, made the first sales 
of subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. In addition, 
Nozawa reported that PSI made sales of subject merchandise which it 
further manufactured in the United States.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made deductions 
from the starting price for early payment discounts, rebates, 
commissions, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
exportation, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage 
and handling, U.S. duty, devanning, and inland freight from the 
warehouse to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. In accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department additionally deducted credit 
expenses, inventory carrying costs and U.S. indirect selling expenses 
from the U.S. price, all of which relate to commercial activity in the 
United States. We calculated Nozawa's credit expenses and inventory 
carrying costs based on the Federal Reserve short-term rate because 
Nozawa reported that neither Kal Pac nor PSI had short-term borrowing 
during the POR. We also deducted an amount for further-manufacturing 
costs, where applicable, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the 
Act. To calculate the cost of further manufacturing in the United 
States, we relied on PSI's reported cost of materials, labor, and 
overhead, general and administrative expenses (``G&A'') and financial 
expenses of the further manufactured materials. In addition, we 
deducted CEP profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of 
the Act. We also added 11 types of miscellaneous revenue to the gross 
unit price. See Memorandum to the File from Matthew Quigley, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Charles Riggle, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, ``Analysis for the Preliminary 
Results of the 2004-2005 Administrative Review of Polyethylene

[[Page 54027]]

Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Dongguan 
Nozawa Plastic Products Co. Ltd. and United Power Packaging 
(collectively, ``Nozawa'')'' (August 31, 2006) (``Nozawa Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum'').

Export Price

    Because Crown, High Den and Nozawa sold subject merchandise to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into 
the United States (or to unaffiliated resellers outside the United 
States with knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United 
States) and use of a CEP methodology is not otherwise indicated, we 
have used EP for these transactions in accordance with section 772(a) 
of the Act.
    We calculated EP based on the FOB or delivered price to 
unaffiliated purchasers for Crown, High Den and Nozawa. From this 
price, we deducted amounts for foreign inland freight, brokerage and 
handling, and, where applicable, ocean freight and air freight, 
discounts and rebates pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See 
Memorandum to the File from Laurel LaCivita, Senior International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, ``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 
2004-2005 Administrative Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 
from the People's Republic of China: Crown Polyethylene Products 
(International) Ltd. (``Crown'')'' (August 31, 2006) (``Crown 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum''); Memorandum to the File from Laurel 
LaCivita, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, through 
Charles Riggle, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, 
``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 2004-2005 Administrative 
Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic 
of China: High Den Enterprises Ltd. (``High Den'')'' (August 21, 2006) 
(``High Den Preliminary Analysis Memorandum''); and Nozawa Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum.

Surrogate Values for Expenses Incurred in the PRC for U.S. Sales

    No party provided surrogate values for domestic brokerage and 
handling on the record of this review. Therefore, to calculate the 
surrogate value for domestic brokerage and handling, the Department 
used the information available to it contained in the public version of 
two questionnaire responses placed on the record of separate 
proceedings. The first source was December 2003-November 2004 data 
contained in the public version of Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, 
questionnaire response submitted in the antidumping duty administrative 
review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. See Certain 
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 
12, 2006) (unchanged in final results); and Certain Preserved Mushrooms 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial 
Rescission of the Sixth Administrative Review, 71 FR 40477, (July 17, 
2006). This value was averaged with the February 2004-January 2005 data 
contained in the public version of Agro Dutch Industries Limited's 
(``Agro Dutch'') May 24, 2005, questionnaire response submitted in the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
preserved mushrooms from India. See Fresh Garlic from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Reviews, 71 
FR 26329 (May 4, 2006); Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 
30, 2005) (utilizing these same data). The brokerage expense data 
reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in their public versions are 
ranged data. The Department first derived an average per-unit amount 
from each source. Then the Department adjusted each average rate for 
inflation using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published 
on the Reserve Bank of India (``RBI'') website available at 
www.rbi.org.in. Finally, the Department averaged the two per-unit 
amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POR. See Surrogate 
Value Memorandum at 8 and Attachment XII.
    To value truck freight, we used the freight rates published by 
Indian Freight Exchange, available at https://www.infreight.com. The 
truck freight rates are contemporaneous with the POR; therefore, we 
made no adjustments for inflation. Because there are no known Indian 
air freight providers that ship merchandise from the PRC to the United 
States, we valued air freight, where applicable, using the rates 
published in the UPS website: https://www.ups.com. Because the surrogate 
values for air freight were derived from U.S. sources, we adjusted them 
for inflation using the U.S. Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. 
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, available on https://
data.bls.gov. This is consistent with the methodology employed in 
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2905 
(January 18, 2006) (``Tables and Chairs'') and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7-8 
and Attachment XIII.
    We compared individual EP and CEP transactions to NV, in accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, 
the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department 
will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on 
various aspects of these economies renders prices and the calculation 
of production costs invalid under our normal methodology. Therefore, we 
calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and 
(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
    The FOPs for PRCBs include: (1) hours of labor required; (2) 
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other 
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. We used the 
FOPs reported by respondents for materials, energy, labor, by-products, 
and packing.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a producer sources an 
input from a market-economy country and pays for it in market-economy 
currency, the Department will normally value the factor using the 
actual price paid for the input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also, 
Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. 
Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to 
value certain FOPs). Where a portion of the input is purchased from a 
market-economy supplier and the remainder from an NME supplier, the 
Department will normally use the price paid for the inputs sourced from 
market-economy suppliers to value all of the input, provided the volume 
of the market-economy inputs as a share of total purchases from all 
sources is ``meaningful.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997); Shakeproof v. 
United States, 268 F. 3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(1).

[[Page 54028]]

    With regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate values and 
the market-economy input values, we have disregarded prices that we 
have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. See Omnibus Trade 
and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (``OCTA''), Conference Report to 
Accompany H.R. 3, H. Report No. 100-578, 590-91, 1988 U.S. Code and 
Adm. N. 1547, 1623 (1988) (``H.R. Rep. 100-578 (1988)''); Tables and 
Chairs at Comment 6; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 
Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 
(November 15, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1. We have found that India, Indonesia, South Korea, and 
Thailand maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies, and it is reasonable to infer that exports to all markets 
from these countries may be subsidized. See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results 
and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011 (September 13, 2005) (unchanged in final 
results); and China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. 
United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), aff'd 104 Fed. Appx. 
183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
    We are also guided by the statute's legislative history that 
explains that it is not necessary to conduct a formal investigation to 
ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-578 
(1988). Rather, the Department bases its decision on information that 
is available to it at the time it is making its determination. Id. 
Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in 
calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in calculating 
market-economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input 
was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used 
Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. See Crown 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum, High Den Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum and Nozawa Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, 
we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly 
available Indian surrogate values (except as noted below). In selecting 
the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices 
by including freight costs to render them delivered prices. 
Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate 
freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the 
domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory where appropriate (i.e., where the sales terms 
for the market-economy inputs were not delivered to the factory). This 
adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the Federal Circuit in 
Sigma Corp. v. United States. Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 
1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all 
surrogate values used for respondents, see the Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.
    Except as noted below, we valued raw material inputs using the 
weighted-average unit import values derived from the Monthly Statistics 
of the Foreign Trade of India, as published by the Directorate General 
of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce 
and Industry, Government of India, and used in the World Trade Atlas, 
available at https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm (``WTA''). The WTA data are 
reported in rupees and are generally contemporaneous with the POR. See 
also, Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment V. Where necessary, we 
adjusted the surrogate values to reflect inflation/deflation using the 
Indian WPI as published on the RBI website, available at 
www.rbi.org.in. We further adjusted these prices to account for freight 
costs incurred between the supplier and respondent. For a complete 
description of the factor values we used, see the Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.
    Crown, High Den and Nozawa reported that a meaningful portion of 
their purchases of the following inputs were sourced from market-
economy countries and paid for in market-economy currencies: high-
density polyethylene (``HDPE') resin, low-density polyethylene 
(``LDPE'') resin, linear low density (``LLD'') resin, master batch, 
master batch additive, pigment, solvent, varnish, matt paste, hot 
stamps, black ink, color ink, and cardboard inserts. See Crown's DQR at 
D-4 and Exhibit 5; High Den's DQR at D-4 and Exhibit D4-1; and Nozawa's 
SQR at 37 and Exhibit D-17. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), we used 
the actual price paid by respondents for inputs purchased from a 
market-economy supplier and paid for in a market-economy currency. 
However, we have disregarded any market-economy prices that we have 
reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. Where applicable, we 
also adjusted these values to account for freight costs incurred 
between the supplier and respondent. See Surrogate Value Memorandum, 
Crown Preliminary Analysis Memorandum, High Den Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum and Nozawa Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
    To value diesel oil, we used per-kilogram values obtained from 
Bharat Petroleum, an Indian petroleum company, published in December 
2003, and used in Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 39726, 39732 (July 11, 2005) (unchanged in 
the final). We also made adjustments to account for inflation and 
freight costs incurred between the supplier and respondent.
    To value electricity, we used the 2000 electricity price data from 
International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes - Quarterly 
Statistics (First Quarter 2006), available at https://www.eia.doe.gov/
emeu/international/elecprii.html, adjusted for inflation.
    For direct labor, indirect labor and packing labor, consistent with 
19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as 
reported on Import Administration's home page. See Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries (revised November 2005) (available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The source of these wage rate data on the Import 
Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003, 
ILO, (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of 
the reported wage rates range from 1998 to 2003. Because this 
regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into 
different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage 
rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by each 
respondent.
    For factory overhead, SG&A, and profit values, we used information 
from A.P. Polyplast Pvt. Ltd., Arvind Chemi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Jain 
Raffia Industries, and Kuloday Technopak Pvt. Ltd. for the year ending 
March 31, 2005. From this information, we were able to determine 
factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, labor and 
energy (``ML&E'') costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead 
(i.e., cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the 
cost of manufacture plus SG&A. See Surrogate Value Memorandum for a 
full discussion of the calculation of these ratios.

[[Page 54029]]

    For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained 
from the WTA and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred 
between the PRC supplier and respondent.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average 
dumping margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crown...............................................                8.63
Nozawa..............................................               12.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Margin (U.S.
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  dollars per bag)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Den............................................                0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to 
comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or 
written comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, 
may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. See 
19 CFR 351.309(d). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 
days of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, 
if requested, will be held 42 days after the date of publication of 
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). The Department requests that 
parties submitting written comments also provide the Department with an 
additional copy of those comments on diskette. The Department will 
issue the final results of this administrative review, which will 
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, 
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue, as 
appropriate, appraisement instructions directly to CBP within 15 days 
of publication of these final results of administrative review. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we calculated exporter/importer- (or 
customer-) specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to 
this review. For Crown and Nozawa, where the respondent has reported 
entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer)-specific ad 
valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all 
U.S. sales to the importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by 
the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer). 
Where an importer- (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater 
than de minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value 
of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. For 
Crown and Nozawa, where we do not have entered values for all U.S. 
sales and for all of High Den's sales, we calculated a per-unit 
assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. 
sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the 
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). To determine 
whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with 
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated 
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates based on the estimated 
entered value. Where an importer- (or customer)-specific ad valorem 
rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the above-
listed respondents, which have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate 
will be the company-specific rate established in the final results of 
review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will 
be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-
PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 77.57 percent; and 
(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not 
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    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 Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-15214 Filed 9-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S