Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 1982-1984 [E7-552]

Download as PDF 1982 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–549–821 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the 2004/2005 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and an examination of our calculations, we have made certain changes for the final results. The final weighted–average dumping margins for the respondents are listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of the Review’’ section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer at (202) 482–0410 or Richard Rimlinger at (202) 482–4477, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Background On September 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 53405 (September 11, 2006) (Preliminary Results) in the Federal Register. The period of review is January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005. We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On October 11, 2006, we received case briefs from the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation (collectively, the petitioners) and respondents CP Packaging Co., Ltd. (CP), King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd., Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd., Zippac Co., Ltd., and King Bag Co., Ltd. (collectively, King Pac), Sahachit Watana Plastic Ind. Co., Ltd. (Sahachit), and Universal Polybag Co., Ltd., Alpine Plastics, Inc., Advance Polybag Inc., and API Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, UPC/ API). On October 19, 2006, the petitioners, CP, King Pac, and UPC/API VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:58 Jan 16, 2007 Jkt 211001 filed rebuttal briefs. At the request of certain parties, we held a hearing on October 25, 2006. We have conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of Order The merchandise subject to this 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. Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This subheading also covers products that are outside the scope of the order. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the January 9, 2007, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand for the period of review January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005 (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department’s Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of the main Department building (CRU). In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since The Preliminary Results With respect to CP, in the Preliminary Results, we used, as adverse facts available for CP’s inland–freight expense incurred on its U.S. sales, the highest expense which CP reported. For these final results of review, we used a simple average of the three highest per– kilogram freight expenses reported by other respondents in this review. With respect to UPC/API, in the Preliminary Results, we adjusted the market prices of UPC’s direct purchases from unaffiliated suppliers by UPC’s affiliates’ selling, general, and administrative expenses and then compared the transfer price UPC paid to its affiliated suppliers to these adjusted market prices. For these final results of review, we compared the transfer price UPC paid to its affiliated suppliers to the unadjusted market price of UPC’s direct purchases from unaffiliated suppliers. We then valued the inputs UPC received from its affiliated reseller at the higher of market price or transfer price. In doing this, we corrected a ministerial error we made in the Preliminary Results by ensuring that the total value of HDPE resin is included in the numerator to derive the cost–ofmanufacturing (COM) adjustment factor. Further, in the Preliminary Results, we added additional costs to COM in error when disallowing UPC/API’s claimed shutdown adjustment. For these final results of review, although we have not changed our position regarding UPC/API’s claimed shutdown adjustment, we corrected the error by not adding back additional shutdown cost fields to COM. See Comment 5 of the Decision Memorandum concerning allegations of other ministerial errors. Cost of Production Pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and (b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the cost of production (COP), we did not disregard any below– cost sales of that product because we E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM 17JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Notices determined that the below–cost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of a respondent’s sales of a given product during the period of review were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ See sections 773(b)(1) and (b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below–cost sales occurring during the entire period of review. We compared the prices of below–cost sales to the weighted– average per–unit COP for the period of review to determine whether such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the comparison–market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below– cost sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities by the following respondents: CP, UPC/API, Thai Plastic Bags Industries Company Ltd. and APEC Film Ltd. (collectively, TPBG), Apple Film Co., Ltd. (Apple), and Naraipak Co., Ltd., and Narai Packaging (Thailand) Ltd. (collectively, Naraipak). In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining normal value in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Final Results of the Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following percentage weighted–average dumping margins exist on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand for the period January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005: Company Margin (percent) mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES UPC/API ....................... TPBG ............................ Apple ............................. CP Packaging ............... King Pac ....................... Naraipak ....................... Sahachit ........................ 11.75 1.41 16.43 6.10 122.88 1.69 6.34 Assessment Rates The Department will determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer–specific duty VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:58 Jan 16, 2007 Jkt 211001 assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. 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–Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) 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 intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment–Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. a. Export Price With respect to export–price sales, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and the export price) 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 on each of that importer’s or customer’s entries during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). b. Constructed Export Price For constructed export–price 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)(1). Cash–Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1983 consumption on or after the date of publication, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash–deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above; (2) for previously 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 or the original less–than-fair– value (LTFV) 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) the cash–deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 2.80 percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate from the amended final determination of the LTFV investigation published on July 15, 2004. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand, 69 FR 42419 (July 15, 2004). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice serves as a 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. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: January 9, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Comments and Responses 1. CP - Direct–Material Costs 2. CP - Inland–Freight Expenses 3. UPC/API - Cost Issues E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM 17JAN1 1984 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Notices A. Quarterly Costs vs. Period Costs B. Shutdown Costs C. Major–Input Purchases 4. UPC/API - Contract Sales 5. UPC/API - Offsetting of Negative Margins 6. UPC/API - Ministerial Errors 7. King Pac - Adverse Facts Available 8. King Pac - Application of Provisional–Measures Cap 9. Sahachit - G&A Calculation [FR Doc. E7–552 Filed 1–16–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Sea Scallops Amendment 10 Data Collection National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Ryan Silva, 978–281–9326 or Ryan.Silva@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES I. Abstract The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northeast Region manages the Atlantic sea scallop (scallop) fishery of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the East Coast under the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The regulations implementing the FMP are at 50 CFR part 648. This collection, Amendment 10, was merged with Framework Adjustments 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the FMP. Amendment 10 included new access area broken trip notification VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:02 Jan 16, 2007 Jkt 211001 requirements and access area trip exchange procedures for limited access vessels participating in the Area Access Program. Framework Adjustments 14 and 15 required occasional scallop vessels that participate in the Area Access Program to install a vessel monitoring system (VMS) unit. Framework Adjustment 16 required the installation of VMS units on general category scallop vessels participating in the Area Access Program. These vessels are required to declare an access area trip prior to departure and to report daily catch information while on an access area trip. Framework Adjustment 17 extended the VMS reporting requirements to include the general category vessels that possess or land more than 40 lbs. of scallop meats. The VMS is required to be fully automatic and operational at all times, unless exempted under the power-down exemption. These vessels are required to declare a trip prior to departure and to report daily catch information while on an access area trip. Framework Adjustment 18 required vessels taking broken trip compensation trips to enter a unique trip identification code into their VMS units prior to departure. II. Method of Collection VMS transmissions, paper applications, telephone calls and/or E-mail are required from participants. Facsimile transmission of paper forms, mail, E-mail, and/or express mail are the methods of information submittal. III. Data OMB Number: 0648–0491. Form Number: None. Type of Review: Regular submission. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,296. Estimated Total Responses: 235,998. Estimated Time Per Response: 2 minutes. Estimated Total Hours: 7,837. Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,242,440. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: January 11, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7–488 Filed 1–16–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request Corporation for National and Community Service. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the ‘‘Corporation’’), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Corporation is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of its Senior Corps Project Progress Report (PPR)—reference OMB Control Number 3045–0033, with an expiration date of August 31, 2007. In conjunction with the PPR renewal, the Corporation proposes to make several modifications: • Streamline the ‘‘Data Demographic’’ section of the collection instrument to reduce frequency and eliminate redundancy; and • Modify the PPR datasheet frequency schedule from biennial to annual. Copies of the information collection requests can be obtained by contacting E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM 17JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1982-1984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-552]



[[Page 1982]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-549-821


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce published 
the preliminary results of the 2004/2005 administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from 
Thailand. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and 
an examination of our calculations, we have made certain changes for 
the final results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the 
respondents are listed below in the ``Final Results of the Review'' 
section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer at (202) 482-0410 or 
Richard Rimlinger at (202) 482-4477, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 53405 
(September 11, 2006) (Preliminary Results) in the Federal Register. The 
period of review is January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005.
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On 
October 11, 2006, we received case briefs from the Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, 
and Superbag Corporation (collectively, the petitioners) and 
respondents CP Packaging Co., Ltd. (CP), King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd., 
Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd., Zippac Co., Ltd., and King Bag Co., Ltd. 
(collectively, King Pac), Sahachit Watana Plastic Ind. Co., Ltd. 
(Sahachit), and Universal Polybag Co., Ltd., Alpine Plastics, Inc., 
Advance Polybag Inc., and API Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, UPC/
API). On October 19, 2006, the petitioners, CP, King Pac, and UPC/API 
filed rebuttal briefs. At the request of certain parties, we held a 
hearing on October 25, 2006.
    We have conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of Order

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

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the January 9, 2007, Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand for the period of review 
January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005 (Decision Memorandum), which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix 
is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have 
responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete 
discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the 
Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department 
building (CRU). In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since The Preliminary Results

    With respect to CP, in the Preliminary Results, we used, as adverse 
facts available for CP's inland-freight expense incurred on its U.S. 
sales, the highest expense which CP reported. For these final results 
of review, we used a simple average of the three highest per-kilogram 
freight expenses reported by other respondents in this review.
    With respect to UPC/API, in the Preliminary Results, we adjusted 
the market prices of UPC's direct purchases from unaffiliated suppliers 
by UPC's affiliates' selling, general, and administrative expenses and 
then compared the transfer price UPC paid to its affiliated suppliers 
to these adjusted market prices. For these final results of review, we 
compared the transfer price UPC paid to its affiliated suppliers to the 
unadjusted market price of UPC's direct purchases from unaffiliated 
suppliers. We then valued the inputs UPC received from its affiliated 
reseller at the higher of market price or transfer price. In doing 
this, we corrected a ministerial error we made in the Preliminary 
Results by ensuring that the total value of HDPE resin is included in 
the numerator to derive the cost-of-manufacturing (COM) adjustment 
factor.
    Further, in the Preliminary Results, we added additional costs to 
COM in error when disallowing UPC/API's claimed shutdown adjustment. 
For these final results of review, although we have not changed our 
position regarding UPC/API's claimed shutdown adjustment, we corrected 
the error by not adding back additional shutdown cost fields to COM. 
See Comment 5 of the Decision Memorandum concerning allegations of 
other ministerial errors.

Cost of Production

    Pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and (b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where 
less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the cost of production (COP), we did not disregard any below-cost 
sales of that product because we

[[Page 1983]]

determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the period of review were at prices less than the 
COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' See sections 773(b)(1) and (b)(2)(C) of the Act. The 
sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales 
occurring during the entire period of review. We compared the prices of 
below-cost sales to the weighted-average per-unit COP for the period of 
review to determine whether such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the 
comparison-market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the 
below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities by the following respondents: CP, UPC/API, Thai 
Plastic Bags Industries Company Ltd. and APEC Film Ltd. (collectively, 
TPBG), Apple Film Co., Ltd. (Apple), and Naraipak Co., Ltd., and Narai 
Packaging (Thailand) Ltd. (collectively, Naraipak). In addition, these 
sales were made at prices that did not provide for the recovery of 
costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these 
sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for 
determining normal value in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
percentage weighted-average dumping margins exist on polyethylene 
retail carrier bags from Thailand for the period January 26, 2004, 
through July 31, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                         Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPC/API.............................................               11.75
TPBG................................................                1.41
Apple...............................................               16.43
CP Packaging........................................                6.10
King Pac............................................              122.88
Naraipak............................................                1.69
Sahachit............................................                6.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated 
importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of 
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that 
importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will 
instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by 
that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions 
to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of 
review. 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-Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to 
entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by 
companies included in these final results of review for which the 
reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it sold to the 
intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) 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 intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment-
Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

a. Export Price

    With respect to export-price sales, we divided the total dumping 
margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and the 
export price) 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 on each of that importer's or customer's entries 
during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

b. Constructed Export Price

    For constructed export-price 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)(1).

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, 
consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash-deposit 
rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above; (2) for 
previously 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 or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 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) 
the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 2.80 percent, the ``All Others'' rate from the amended 
final determination of the LTFV investigation published on July 15, 
2004. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand, 69 FR 42419 
(July 15, 2004).
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a 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.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the 
return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.We are 
issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: January 9, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

Comments and Responses

1. CP - Direct-Material Costs
2. CP - Inland-Freight Expenses
3. UPC/API - Cost Issues

[[Page 1984]]

     A. Quarterly Costs vs. Period Costs
     B. Shutdown Costs
     C. Major-Input Purchases
4. UPC/API - Contract Sales
5. UPC/API - Offsetting of Negative Margins
6. UPC/API - Ministerial Errors
7. King Pac - Adverse Facts Available
8. King Pac - Application of Provisional-Measures Cap
9. Sahachit - G&A Calculation
[FR Doc. E7-552 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.