Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 52282-52288 [E8-20919]
Download as PDF
52282
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the
exporters listed above, the cash deposit
rate will be established in the final
results of this review (except, if the rate
is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent, no cash deposit will be
required for that company); (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
Preliminary Results of Review
that have separate rates, the cash
We preliminarily determine that the
deposit rate will continue to be the
following antidumping duty margins
exporter-specific rate published for the
exist:
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
Exporter
Margin (percent)
have not been found to be entitled to a
Forever Holdings ..........
0% separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent
Since Hardware
(see Ironing Tables Order); and (4) for
(Guangzhou) Co.,
Ltd. ............................
1.53 % all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received
For details on the calculation of the
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will
antidumping duty weighted-average
be the rate applicable to the PRC
margin for Since Hardware and Forever
exporters that supplied that non-PRC
Holdings, see the respective Since
exporter. These deposit requirements,
Hardware Analysis Memorandum and
when imposed, shall remain in effect
the Forever Holdings Analysis
until publication of the final results of
Memorandum. Public versions of these
the next administrative review.
memoranda are on file in the
Schedule for Final Results of Review
Department’s Central Records Unit,
The Department will disclose
Room 1117 of the main commerce
calculations performed in connection
building (‘‘CRU’’).
with the preliminary results of this
Assessment Rates
review within five days of the date of
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
publication of this notice in accordance
Department will determine, and CBP
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
party may request a hearing within 30
appropriate entries. The Department
days of publication of this notice in
will issue appropriate assessment
accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c).
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
Any hearing will be held 37 days after
after the date of publication of the final
the publication of this notice, or the first
results of this review. For assessment
workday thereafter unless the
purposes, where possible, we calculated Department alters the date pursuant to
importer-specific ad valorem
19 CFR 351.310(d). Individuals who
assessment rates for ironing tables from
wish to request a hearing must submit
the PRC based on the ratio of the total
a written request within 30 days of the
publication of this notice in the Federal
amount of the dumping duties
Register to the Assistant Secretary for
calculated for the examined sales to the
Import Administration, U.S. Department
total entered value of those same sales.
of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street
We will instruct CBP to assess
and Constitution Avenue, NW,
antidumping duties on all appropriate
Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a
entries covered by this review if any
public hearing should contain: (1) the
assessment rate calculated in the final
party’s name, address, and telephone
results of this review is above de
minimis. The final results of this review number; (2) the number of participants;
and (3) to the extent practicable, an
shall be the basis for the assessment of
identification of the arguments to be
antidumping duties on entries of
merchandise covered by the final results raised at the hearing.
Unless otherwise notified by the
of these reviews and for future deposits
Department, interested parties may
of estimated duties, where applicable.
submit case briefs within 30 days of the
Cash Deposit Requirements
date of publication of this notice in
The following cash deposit
accordance with 19 CFR
requirements will be effective upon
351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case
publication of the final results of this
brief, parties are encouraged to provide
administrative review for all shipments
a summary of the arguments not to
of the subject merchandise entered, or
exceed five pages and a table of statutes,
withdrawn from warehouse, for
regulations, and cases cited in
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
memo at Comment 5. See also Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
this administrative review, interested
parties may submit publicly available
information to value the factors of
production until 20 days following the
date of publication of these preliminary
results.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited
to issues raised in the case briefs, must
be filed within five days after the case
brief is filed in accordance with 19 CFR
351.309(d). If a hearing is held, an
interested party may make an
affirmative presentation only on
arguments included in that party’s case
brief and may make a rebuttal
presentation only on arguments
included in that party’s rebuttal brief in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Parties should confirm by telephone the
time, date, and place of the hearing
within 48 hours before the scheduled
time. The Department will issue the
final results of this review, which will
include the results of its analysis of
issues raised in the briefs, not later than
120 days after the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(h)(1).
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 these review
periods. 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.
These preliminary results of
administrative review are issued and
this notice is published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: September 2, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–20921 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
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
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is
conducting an administrative review of
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
the antidumping duty order on
polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs)
from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC). The review covers various
exporters. The period of review (POR) is
August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007.
We have preliminarily determined
that sales have been made at prices
below normal value by companies
subject to this review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of administrative review,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments in this
review are requested to submit with
each argument (1) a statement of the
issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin Case (Nozawa), George Callen
(Rally), or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3174, (202) 482–
0180, or (202) 482–1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
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). In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), the Department received
requests for review for the following
producers/exporters: Crown
Polyethylene Products International
Limited (Crown), Dongguan Qiatou
Samson Plastic Manufactory Co.
(Samson), Everfaith International
(Shanghai) Ltd. (Everfaith), Sea Lake
Polyethylene Enterprises, Ltd. (Sea
Lake), Shanghai Glopack, Inc. (Glopack),
Shanghai Hua Yue Packaging Products
(Hua Yue), Shanghai Yafu Plastics
Industry Co., Ltd. (Yafu), Dongguan
Nozawa Plastics Products Co., Ltd., and
United Power Packaging, Ltd.
(collectively, Nozawa), and Rally
Plastics Co., Ltd. (Rally). In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(g) and 19 CFR
351.221(b) we published a notice of
initiation of administrative review of
these companies. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 54428
(September 25, 2007) (Initiation Notice).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
On September 28, 2007, Crown
withdrew its request for review. On
October 22, 2007, Everfaith and Hua
Yue withdrew their requests for review.
On December 26, 2007, Sea Lake and
Glopack withdrew their requests for
review. Also, on January 17, 2008, Asia
Dynamics, Inc., withdrew its request for
review of Yafu. In accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(d)(1), we rescinded this
administrative review with respect to
Crown, Everfaith, Hua Yue, Sea Lake,
Glopack, and Yafu. See Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 8031
(February 12, 2008).
Since initiation of the review, we
extended the due date for completion of
these preliminary results from May 2,
2008, to September 2, 2008. See
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
the People’s Republic of China; Notice
of Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
22337 (April 25, 2008).
The POR is August 1, 2006, through
July 31, 2007. We are conducting this
review in accordance with section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act).
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52283
from retail establishments, e.g., garbage
bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.
As a result of changes to the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS), imports of the
subject merchandise are currently
classifiable under statistical category
3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS.
Furthermore, although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of this order is
dispositive.
Selection of Respondents
Due to the large number of firms
requested for this administrative review
and the resulting administrative burden
to review each company for which a
request has been made, the Department
is exercising its authority to limit the
number of respondents selected for
individual examination. Where it is not
practicable to examine all known
exporters/producers of subject
merchandise because of the large
number of such companies, section
777A(c)(2) of the Act, permits the
Department to limit its examination to
either a sample of exporters, producers,
or types of products that is statistically
valid based on the information available
at the time of selection or exporters and
producers accounting for the largest
volume of subject merchandise from the
exporting country that can be examined
reasonably. Accordingly, on September
18, 2007, we requested information
concerning the quantity and value of
sales to the United States from the nine
exporters/producers listed in the
Initiation Notice. Based upon responses
to the Q&V questionnaires, the
Department selected Nozawa and Rally
for individual examination in this
administrative review on October 31,
2007. See Memorandum to Abdelali
Elouradia entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s
Republic of China: Selection of
Mandatory Respondents’’ dated October
31, 2007.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we have verified information
provided by Nozawa using standard
verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s
facilities, the examination of relevant
sales and financial records, and the
examination of records pertaining to
further-manufacturing operations. Our
verification results are outlined in the
public versions of the verification
reports, which are on file in the Central
Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main
Department building.
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
52284
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
NME Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non-marketeconomy (NME) country. In accordance
with 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 Brake Rotors From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of the
2004/2005 Administrative Review and
Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New
Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304
(November 14, 2006). None of the
parties to this proceeding has contested
such treatment. Accordingly, we have
calculated normal value in accordance
with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Separate Rates
As explained above, a designation of
a country as an NME remains in effect
until it is revoked by the Department.
See section 771(18)(C) of the Act.
Accordingly, there is a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within
the PRC are subject to government
control and, thus, should be assessed a
single antidumping duty rate. It is the
Department’s standard policy to assign
all exporters of the merchandise subject
to review in NME countries a single rate
unless an exporter can affirmatively
demonstrate an absence of government
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact
(de facto), with respect to exports. To
establish whether a company is
sufficiently independent to be entitled
to a separate, company-specific rate, the
Department analyzes each exporting
entity in an NME country under the test
established in the Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People’s Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as
amplified by the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994).
The Department’s separate-rate test
determines whether the exporters are
independent from government control
and does not consider, in general,
macroeconomic or 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.,
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November
19, 1997), and 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).
Firms that were assigned a separate
rate in the most recent segment of this
proceeding in which they participated
can provide certification that they
continue to meet the criteria for
obtaining a separate rate. Nozawa and
Rally participated in the 2005–2006
administrative review of the order on
PRCBs from the PRC and received
separate rates. For this review Nozawa
and Rally provided certifications that
they continue to meet the criteria for
obtaining a separate rate. See Nozawa’s
and Rally’s October 15, 2007, separaterate certifications.
On September 18, 2007, the
Department issued a separate-rate
certification/application to Samson. See
2006–2007 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
the People’s Republic of China, dated
September 18, 2007 (separate-rate
letter). On October 16, 2007, the
Department received a separate-rate
application from Samson. The
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Samson concerning its
separate-rate application on March 25,
2008. The due date for responding to the
supplemental questionnaire was April
8, 2008. Samson did not respond to the
supplemental questionnaire. In our
September 18, 2007, letter, we notified
applicants that incomplete applications
may demonstrate that the applicant does
not qualify for a separate rate. See
separate-rate letter, Attachment 2, at 5.
Because Samson did not respond to the
supplemental questionnaire, we have
preliminarily determined that Samson is
not separate from the PRC-wide entity
and thus will receive the PRC-wide rate.
Surrogate Country
When the Department analyzes
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base
normal value, in most circumstances, on
the NME producer’s factors of
production (FOP), 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
FOPs in one or more market-economy
countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
NME country and significant producers
of comparable merchandise. On March
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18, 2008, the Department’s Office of
Policy issued a memorandum
identifying India as being at a level of
economic development comparable to
the PRC for the POR. See Memorandum
entitled ‘‘Administrative Review of
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
the People’s Republic of China: Request
for a List of Surrogate Countries,’’ dated
March 18, 2008.
In the Department’s March 26, 2008,
letter to interested parties requesting
surrogate-country and surrogate-value
comments, the Department indicated
that India is among the countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of
overall economic development. In
addition, based on publicly available
information placed on the record (i.e.,
export data), India is a significant
producer of the subject merchandise.
See Memorandum entitled
‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
the People’s Republic of China:
Selection of a Surrogate Country,’’ dated
August 28, 2008.
Furthermore, India has been the
primary surrogate country in
determinations for past segments of this
proceeding and both Nozawa and the
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag
Committee1 submitted surrogate values
based on Indian data that are
contemporaneous to the POR, giving
further credence to the use of India as
a surrogate country. See, e.g.,
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 72 FR 51588
(September 10, 2007). The sources of the
surrogate factor values are discussed
under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section
below and in the Memorandum entitled
‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
the People’s Republic of China:
Surrogate-Values Memorandum,’’ dated
September 2, 2008 (Surrogate-Value
Memorandum).
U.S. Price
A.Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we based U.S. price on the
export price (EP) for sales to the United
States by Rally and certain sales by
Nozawa because the first sale to an
unaffiliated party was made before the
date of importation and the use of
constructed EP (CEP) was not otherwise
warranted. We calculated EP for
Nozawa and Rally based on the prices
to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States.
1 Consisting of Hilex Poly Company, LLC, and the
Superbag Corporation (collectively, the petitioners).
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
For Nozawa, in accordance with
section 772(c) of the Act, we first added
gross unit price adjustments and then
deducted from the price to unaffiliated
purchasers, where appropriate, foreign
inland freight, brokerage and handling,
international freight, and marine
insurance. See Memorandum from
Kristin Case to the File, ‘‘Administrative
Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier
Bags from the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results Analysis
Memorandum for Dongguan Nozawa
Plastic Products Co., Ltd. and United
Power Packaging Ltd.,’’ dated
September 2, 2008 (Nozawa Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum).
For Rally, also in accordance with
section 772(c) of the Act, we first added
gross unit price adjustments and then
deducted from the price to unaffiliated
purchasers, where appropriate, foreign
inland freight, brokerage and handling,
international freight, and marine
insurance. See Memorandum from
George Callen to the File,
‘‘Administrative Review of Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
Analysis Memorandum for Rally
Plastics Co., Ltd.,’’ dated September 2,
2008. Consistent with Certain Orange
Juice from Brazil: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 46584
(August 11, 2008) (OJ Brazil Final), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 7, we have
incorporated freight-related revenues as
offsets to movement expenses because
they relate to the movement and
transportation of subject merchandise.
We also incorporated packing-related
revenue as an offset to packing expenses
because these items relate to the packing
of subject merchandise (see OJ Brazil
Final).
B. 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 Packaging Solutions, Inc. (PSI),
which, in turn, made the first sales of
subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S.
customers. In addition, Nozawa
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
reported that PSI made sales of subject
merchandise which it further
manufactured in the United States.
We added various revenue items to
the gross unit price. See Nozawa
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at
2. Consistent with OJ Brazil Final, we
have incorporated freight-related
revenues as offsets to movement
expenses because they relate to the
movement and transportation of subject
merchandise. In accordance with
section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made
deductions from Nozawa’s starting price
for early-payment discounts, rebates,
foreign inland freight from the plant to
the port of exportation, international
freight, marine insurance, brokerage and
handling, U.S. devanning expense, U.S.
duty, inland freight from the warehouse
to the unaffiliated U.S. customer,
commissions, warranties, and return
adjustments. Where foreign movement
expenses or international movement
expenses were provided by NME service
providers or for which Nozawa paid in
an NME currency, we valued these
services using surrogate values. See
Surrogate-Value Memorandum. For
those expenses that were provided by a
market-economy provider and for which
Nozawa paid in market-economy
currency, we deducted the actual
expenses incurred. See Nozawa
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the
Act, the Department 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
borrowings 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,
overhead, general and administrative
expenses, 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.
C. Surrogate Values for Expenses
Incurred in the PRC for U.S. Sales
Nozawa and Rally reported that, for
certain U.S. sales, foreign inland freight
was provided by an NME vendor or they
paid for freight using an NME currency.
In such instances, we based the
deduction of these charges on surrogate
values. We valued foreign inland freight
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52285
with the surrogate value for truck
freight. For foreign brokerage and
handling, marine insurance, and
international freight, Nozawa and Rally
reported using market-economy vendors
and stated that they paid these expenses
in a market-economy currency. Where
movement services were provided by a
market-economy vendor and the
respondents paid in a market-economy
currency, we deducted the actual cost
per kilogram of the freight. See
Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
Normal Value
A. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act
provides that the Department shall
determine the normal value using an
FOP methodology if the merchandise is
exported from a NME country and the
information does not permit the
calculation of normal value using homemarket prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. The Department bases
normal value on the FOPs because the
presence of government controls on
various aspects of NME countries
renders price comparisons and the
calculation of production costs invalid
under the Department’s normal
methodologies. See Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or
Unfinished, From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind
in Part, 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005)
(unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of 2003–2004
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517
(January 16, 2006)) (Tapered Roller
Bearings).
The FOPs for PRCBs include the
following elements: (1) quantities of raw
materials employed; (2) hours of labor
required; (3) amounts of energy and
other utilities consumed; (4)
representative capital and selling costs;
(5) packing materials. We used the FOPs
reported by the respondents for
materials, labor, energy, 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 a marketeconomy 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
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52286
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
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 marketeconomy 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), and
Shakeproof v. United States, 268 F.3d
1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also 19
CFR 351.408(c)(1).
B. Factor Methodology
During the POR, Nozawa did not
produce certain types of merchandise
that it sold during the POR.
Consequently, the original FOP database
Nozawa submitted did not contain FOPs
for those models sold but not produced
by Nozawa during this POR. Because
the vast majority of the models Nozawa
sold were produced during this POR or
the prior POR, Nozawa also submitted
on the record of this review the FOP
database from the prior review (i.e., the
2005/2006 review). In addition, Nozawa
submitted an FOP database
incorporating the FOPs for all models
sold during the POR, using both
production data from this and the prior
POR. Therefore, for purposes of factor
valuation, the Department has used the
FOP database incorporating all models
sold during the POR. Nozawa based
certain FOP data on similar models
where it did not produce the model in
either this or the prior POR.
The Department reviewed Nozawa’s
identification of the most similar
matches for the models it sold but did
not produce during the previous or this
POR. In doing so, we determined the
product characteristics which have the
most significant impact on the cost of
materials and then compared all
product characteristics of the actual
models to the product characteristics of
the proposed matching models. We
found that Nozawa’s proposed matches
were identical in the most significant
product characteristics and had some
insignificant differences in other
characteristics. Therefore, we accepted
Nozawa’s assignment of the most
similar model designations for those
products it sold but did not produce
during the POR. See Nozawa
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
C. FOP Valuation
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated normal value
based on the FOPs reported by
respondents for the POR. To calculate
normal value, we multiplied the
reported per-unit factor-consumption
rates by publicly available surrogate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
values. In selecting the surrogate values,
we considered the quality, specificity,
and contemporaneity of the data.
It is the Department’s practice to
calculate price-index adjustors to inflate
or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate
values that are not contemporaneous
with the POR using the wholesale price
index for the subject country. See
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review, 71 FR 66910
(November 17, 2006). Therefore, where
we could not obtain publicly available
information contemporaneous with the
POR, we adjusted surrogate values using
the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for
India, as published in the International
Financial Statistics of the International
Monetary Fund.
Except as indicated below, we valued
raw material inputs using the weightedaverage 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 in the World Trade
Atlas (WTA), available at https://
www.gtis.com/wta.htm. For those
surrogate values based upon Indian
import statistics, we disregarded prices
which we have reason to believe or
suspect may be subsidized. We have
reason to believe or suspect that prices
of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea,
and Thailand may have been
subsidized. We have found in other
proceedings that these countries
maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and,
therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all
exports to all markets from these
countries may be subsidized. See Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 7; see also
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
from Romania: Notice of Final Results
and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 4. The
legislative history reflects the
Department’s practice that, in making its
determination as to whether input
values may be subsidized, the
Department does not conduct a formal
investigation; rather, the Department
bases its decision on information that is
available to it at the time it makes its
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
determination. See H.R. Rep. 100–576,
at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24. Therefore,
based on the information currently
available, we have not used prices from
these countries in calculating the
surrogate values based on Indian import
data.
We have also disregarded Indian
import data concerning raw materials
from countries that we have previously
determined to be NME countries as well
as imports originating from
‘‘unspecified’’ countries because we
could not be certain that they were not
from either an NME or a country with
generally available export subsidies. See
Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination:
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the
People’s Republic of China, 69 FR
75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004), and
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated
Isocyanurates From the People’s
Republic of China, 70 FR 24502 (May
10, 2005) (unchanged in the final
results). For a comprehensive list of the
sources and data we used to determine
the surrogate vales for the FOPs, byproducts, and the surrogate financial
ratios for factory overhead, selling,
general and administrative expenses
(SG&A), and profit, see Surrogate-Value
Memorandum.
Where appropriate, we adjusted the
Indian import prices by including
freight costs to make them delivered
prices. Specifically, we added to the
Indian import prices a surrogate freight
cost using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to
the factory of production or the distance
from the nearest seaport to the factory
of production where appropriate. This
adjustment is in accordance with the
Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–
1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not
use Indian import data as the basis of
the surrogate value, we calculated
inland freight based on the reported
distance from the supplier to the
factory. We valued truck freight
expenses using a per-unit average rate
calculated from data on the following
Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/
logistics/logtruck.htm. See SurrogateValue Memorandum.
The logistics section of this Web site
contains inland-freight truck rates
between many large Indian cities.
Because this value is not
contemporaneous with the POR, we
deflated the rate using WPI. See
Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
We valued electricity using price data
for small, medium, and large industries,
as published by the Central Electricity
Authority of the Government of India in
its publication titled Electricity
Tariff&Duty and Average Rates of
Electricity Supply in India, dated July
2006. These electricity rates represent
actual country-wide, publicly available
information on tax-exclusive electricity
rates charged to industries in India.
Because the rates are not
contemporaneous with the POR, we
deflated the values using the WPI. See
Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
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 web site.
See Corrected 2007 Calculation of
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages,
73 FR 27795, 27796 (May 14, 2008)
(available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages).
The source of these wage-rate data on
the Import Administration’s website is
the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003,
ILO (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages
in Manufacturing. The years of the
reported wage rates range from 2003
through 2004. Because this regressionbased 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. See
Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
To value factory overhead, SG&A, and
profit values, we used information from
M/S Synthetic Packers Private Ltd. for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.
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 profit as
a percentage of the cost of manufacture
plus SG&A. See Surrogate-Value
Memorandum.
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 suppliers and the respondents’
production facilities. See SurrogateValue Memorandum.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily determine that the
following percentage weighted-average
dumping margins exist for the period
August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
Manufacturer/Exporter
Percent Margin
Dongguan Nozawa
Plastics Products Co.,
Ltd., andUnited
Power Packaging,
Ltd. ............................
Rally Plastics Co., Ltd.
PRC-wide Entity ...........
2 The
2.30
18.11
77.57
PRC-wide entity includes Samson.
Comments
We will disclose the calculations used
in our analysis to parties in this review
within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested
parties may submit publicly available
information to value factors no later
than 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results
of review. See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii).
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.310. Interested parties who wish to
request a hearing or to participate in a
hearing if a hearing is requested must
submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration
within 30 days of the date of publication
of this notice. Requests should contain
the following: (1) the party’s name,
address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; (3) a list of
issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
351.310(c).
Issues raised in the hearing will be
limited to those raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Case briefs from interested parties may
be submitted not later than 30 days after
the date of publication of this notice of
preliminary results of review. See 19
CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs
from interested parties, limited to the
issues raised in the case briefs, may be
submitted not later than five days after
the time limit for filing the case briefs
or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).
If requested, any hearing will be held
two days after the scheduled date for
submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19
CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with
each argument a statement of the issue,
a summary of the arguments not
exceeding five pages, and a table of
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any such written briefs
or at the hearing, if held, not later than
120 days after the date of publication of
this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52287
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated importer-specific (or
customer-specific) assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review.
With respect to sales by Rally and
certain sales by Nozawa, for these
preliminary results, we divided the total
dumping margins (calculated as the
difference between normal value and
EP) for each exporter’s importer or
customer by the total number of units
the exporter sold to that importer or
customer. We will direct CBP to assess
the resulting per-unit dollar amount
against each unit of merchandise in
each of that importer’s/customer’s
entries during the review period.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), for Nozawa’s CEP sales,
we have calculated an importer-specific
assessment rate by dividing the total
dumping duties due by the entered
value of CEP sales we analyzed. We will
direct CBP to liquidate the appropriate
entries at this rate.
We will instruct CBP to liquidate
entries containing merchandise from the
PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate
we determine in the final results of
review.
We will issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of
review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results
of the administrative review for all
shipments of PRCBs from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for subject
merchandise exported by Nozawa and
Rally, the cash-deposit rate will be that
established in the final results of review;
(2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above
that have separate rates, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all other PRC
exporters of subject merchandise, which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will
be PRC-wide rate of 77.57 percent; (4)
for all non–PRC exporters of subject
merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will
be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter that supplied that exporter.
These deposit requirements, when
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
52288
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) 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 administrative review and this
notice are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: September 2, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–20919 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–549–821]
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Thailand: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on
polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs)
from Thailand. The review covers five
exporters/producers. The period of
review is August 1, 2006, through July
31, 2007.
We have preliminarily determined
that sales have been made at prices
below normal value by various
companies subject to this review. If
these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results of administrative
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments in this
review are requested to submit with
each argument (1) a statement of the
issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2008.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
Scope of the Order
Edythe Artman or Richard Rimlinger,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3931 or (202) 482–
4477, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the
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 order
excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are
not printed with logos or store names
and that are closeable with drawstrings
made of polyethylene film and (2)
polyethylene bags that are packed in
consumer packaging with printing that
refers to specific end-uses other than
packaging and carrying merchandise
from retail establishments, e.g., garbage
bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.
As a result of changes to the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS), imports of the
subject merchandise are currently
classifiable under statistical category
3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS.
Furthermore, although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of this order is
dispositive.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 9, 2004, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on PRCBs from
Thailand. See Antidumping Duty Order:
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From
Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b),
we received requests for an
administrative review for five
companies. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(g) and 19 CFR 351.221(b), we
published a notice of initiation of an
administrative review of these
companies. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 54428,
54429 (September 25, 2007) (Initiation
Notice).1
Since initiation of the review, we
extended the due date for completion of
these preliminary results from May 2,
2008, to September 2, 2008. See Notice
of Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review:
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Thailand, 73 FR 15724 (March 25,
2008), and Notice of Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags
from Thailand, 73 FR 29738 (May 22,
2008).
The period of review (POR) is August
1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. We are
conducting this review in accordance
with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
1 We stated that the review covers the following
companies: King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd., King Pak
Ind. Co., Ltd., Kor Ratthanakit Co., Ltd., Master
Packaging Co., Ltd., Naraipak Co., Ltd., and Poly
Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Id. Although we listed six
companies in the Initiation Notice, we consider
King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd., and King Pak Ind. Co.,
Ltd., to be alternative spellings of the name of one
company. See the April 3, 2006, Memorandum from
Catherine Cartsos to File entitled ‘‘Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand (1/
26/04-7/31/05) - Different Spellings for King Pac
Industrial Co., Ltd.,’’ which is on file in the Central
Records Unit, room 1117 of the main Commerce
building. Accordingly, we effectively initiated an
administrative review of five companies.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Selection of Respondents
Due to the large number of firms
requested for this administrative review
and the resulting administrative burden
to review each company for which a
request has been made, the Department
is exercising its authority to limit the
number of respondents selected for
individual examination. Where it is not
practicable to examine all known
exporters/producers of subject
merchandise because of the large
number of such companies, section
777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the
Department to limit its examination to
either a sample of exporters, producers,
or types of products that is statistically
valid based on the information available
at the time of selection or exporters and
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52282-52288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20919]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of
[[Page 52283]]
the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs)
from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The review covers various
exporters. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2006, through July
31, 2007.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made at
prices below normal value by companies subject to this review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments in this review are requested to
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief
summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case (Nozawa), George Callen
(Rally), or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3174, (202) 482-0180, or (202) 482-1690,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
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). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department
received requests for review for the following producers/exporters:
Crown Polyethylene Products International Limited (Crown), Dongguan
Qiatou Samson Plastic Manufactory Co. (Samson), Everfaith International
(Shanghai) Ltd. (Everfaith), Sea Lake Polyethylene Enterprises, Ltd.
(Sea Lake), Shanghai Glopack, Inc. (Glopack), Shanghai Hua Yue
Packaging Products (Hua Yue), Shanghai Yafu Plastics Industry Co., Ltd.
(Yafu), Dongguan Nozawa Plastics Products Co., Ltd., and United Power
Packaging, Ltd. (collectively, Nozawa), and Rally Plastics Co., Ltd.
(Rally). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(g) and 19 CFR 351.221(b) we
published a notice of initiation of administrative review of these
companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 54428
(September 25, 2007) (Initiation Notice).
On September 28, 2007, Crown withdrew its request for review. On
October 22, 2007, Everfaith and Hua Yue withdrew their requests for
review. On December 26, 2007, Sea Lake and Glopack withdrew their
requests for review. Also, on January 17, 2008, Asia Dynamics, Inc.,
withdrew its request for review of Yafu. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1), we rescinded this administrative review with respect to
Crown, Everfaith, Hua Yue, Sea Lake, Glopack, and Yafu. See
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
73 FR 8031 (February 12, 2008).
Since initiation of the review, we extended the due date for
completion of these preliminary results from May 2, 2008, to September
2, 2008. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's
Republic of China; Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 22337 (April
25, 2008).
The POR is August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. We are conducting
this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
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 order excludes (1) polyethylene bags that
are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with
drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that
are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific
end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail
establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.
As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently
classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS.
Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Selection of Respondents
Due to the large number of firms requested for this administrative
review and the resulting administrative burden to review each company
for which a request has been made, the Department is exercising its
authority to limit the number of respondents selected for individual
examination. Where it is not practicable to examine all known
exporters/producers of subject merchandise because of the large number
of such companies, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, permits the
Department to limit its examination to either a sample of exporters,
producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on
the information available at the time of selection or exporters and
producers accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from
the exporting country that can be examined reasonably. Accordingly, on
September 18, 2007, we requested information concerning the quantity
and value of sales to the United States from the nine exporters/
producers listed in the Initiation Notice. Based upon responses to the
Q&V questionnaires, the Department selected Nozawa and Rally for
individual examination in this administrative review on October 31,
2007. See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouradia entitled ``Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the
People's Republic of China: Selection of Mandatory Respondents'' dated
October 31, 2007.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified
information provided by Nozawa using standard verification procedures,
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, the
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and the
examination of records pertaining to further-manufacturing operations.
Our verification results are outlined in the public versions of the
verification reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit,
Room 1117 of the main Department building.
[[Page 52284]]
NME Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market-economy (NME) country. In
accordance with 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 Brake Rotors From the
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the
2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005
New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the
parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly,
we have calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, which applies to NME countries.
Separate Rates
As explained above, a designation of a country as an NME remains in
effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of
the Act. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the PRC are subject to government control and, thus,
should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the
Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise
subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can
affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law
(de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. To establish
whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a
separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting
entity in an NME country under the test established in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by
the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May
2, 1994).
The Department's separate-rate test determines whether the
exporters are independent from government control and does not
consider, in general, macroeconomic or 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., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19,
1997), and 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).
Firms that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment
of this proceeding in which they participated can provide certification
that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate.
Nozawa and Rally participated in the 2005-2006 administrative review of
the order on PRCBs from the PRC and received separate rates. For this
review Nozawa and Rally provided certifications that they continue to
meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. See Nozawa's and
Rally's October 15, 2007, separate-rate certifications.
On September 18, 2007, the Department issued a separate-rate
certification/application to Samson. See 2006-2007 Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier
Bags from the People's Republic of China, dated September 18, 2007
(separate-rate letter). On October 16, 2007, the Department received a
separate-rate application from Samson. The Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to Samson concerning its separate-rate
application on March 25, 2008. The due date for responding to the
supplemental questionnaire was April 8, 2008. Samson did not respond to
the supplemental questionnaire. In our September 18, 2007, letter, we
notified applicants that incomplete applications may demonstrate that
the applicant does not qualify for a separate rate. See separate-rate
letter, Attachment 2, at 5. Because Samson did not respond to the
supplemental questionnaire, we have preliminarily determined that
Samson is not separate from the PRC-wide entity and thus will receive
the PRC-wide rate.
Surrogate Country
When the Department analyzes imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (FOP),
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 FOPs in one or more market-
economy countries that are at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country and significant producers of
comparable merchandise. On March 18, 2008, the Department's Office of
Policy issued a memorandum identifying India as being at a level of
economic development comparable to the PRC for the POR. See Memorandum
entitled ``Administrative Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags
from the People's Republic of China: Request for a List of Surrogate
Countries,'' dated March 18, 2008.
In the Department's March 26, 2008, letter to interested parties
requesting surrogate-country and surrogate-value comments, the
Department indicated that India is among the countries comparable to
the PRC in terms of overall economic development. In addition, based on
publicly available information placed on the record (i.e., export
data), India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. See
Memorandum entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the
People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,'' dated
August 28, 2008.
Furthermore, India has been the primary surrogate country in
determinations for past segments of this proceeding and both Nozawa and
the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee\1\ submitted surrogate
values based on Indian data that are contemporaneous to the POR, giving
further credence to the use of India as a surrogate country. See, e.g.,
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Partial Rescission of Review, 72 FR 51588 (September 10, 2007). The
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal
Value'' section below and in the Memorandum entitled ``Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate-
Values Memorandum,'' dated September 2, 2008 (Surrogate-Value
Memorandum).
U.S. Price
A.Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based U.S. price
on the export price (EP) for sales to the United States by Rally and
certain sales by Nozawa because the first sale to an unaffiliated party
was made before the date of importation and the use of constructed EP
(CEP) was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP for Nozawa and
Rally based on the prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States.
[[Page 52285]]
For Nozawa, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we first
added gross unit price adjustments and then deducted from the price to
unaffiliated purchasers, where appropriate, foreign inland freight,
brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine insurance.
See Memorandum from Kristin Case to the File, ``Administrative Review
of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for Dongguan Nozawa
Plastic Products Co., Ltd. and United Power Packaging Ltd.,'' dated
September 2, 2008 (Nozawa Preliminary Analysis Memorandum).
For Rally, also in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we
first added gross unit price adjustments and then deducted from the
price to unaffiliated purchasers, where appropriate, foreign inland
freight, brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine
insurance. See Memorandum from George Callen to the File,
``Administrative Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for
Rally Plastics Co., Ltd.,'' dated September 2, 2008. Consistent with
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 46584 (August 11,
2008) (OJ Brazil Final), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 7, we have incorporated freight-related revenues
as offsets to movement expenses because they relate to the movement and
transportation of subject merchandise. We also incorporated packing-
related revenue as an offset to packing expenses because these items
relate to the packing of subject merchandise (see OJ Brazil Final).
B. 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 Packaging Solutions, Inc. (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.
We added various revenue items to the gross unit price. See Nozawa
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 2. Consistent with OJ Brazil Final,
we have incorporated freight-related revenues as offsets to movement
expenses because they relate to the movement and transportation of
subject merchandise. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act,
we made deductions from Nozawa's starting price for early-payment
discounts, rebates, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port
of exportation, international freight, marine insurance, brokerage and
handling, U.S. devanning expense, U.S. duty, inland freight from the
warehouse to the unaffiliated U.S. customer, commissions, warranties,
and return adjustments. Where foreign movement expenses or
international movement expenses were provided by NME service providers
or for which Nozawa paid in an NME currency, we valued these services
using surrogate values. See Surrogate-Value Memorandum. For those
expenses that were provided by a market-economy provider and for which
Nozawa paid in market-economy currency, we deducted the actual expenses
incurred. See Nozawa Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. In accordance
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department 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 borrowings
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, overhead, general
and administrative expenses, 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.
C. Surrogate Values for Expenses Incurred in the PRC for U.S. Sales
Nozawa and Rally reported that, for certain U.S. sales, foreign inland
freight was provided by an NME vendor or they paid for freight using an
NME currency. In such instances, we based the deduction of these
charges on surrogate values. We valued foreign inland freight with the
surrogate value for truck freight. For foreign brokerage and handling,
marine insurance, and international freight, Nozawa and Rally reported
using market-economy vendors and stated that they paid these expenses
in a market-economy currency. Where movement services were provided by
a market-economy vendor and the respondents paid in a market-economy
currency, we deducted the actual cost per kilogram of the freight. See
Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
Normal Value
A. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the normal value using an FOP methodology if the merchandise
is exported from a NME country and the information does not permit the
calculation of normal value using home-market prices, third-country
prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The
Department bases normal value on the FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects of NME countries renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the
Department's normal methodologies. See Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005)
(unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-
2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517
(January 16, 2006)) (Tapered Roller Bearings).
The FOPs for PRCBs include the following elements: (1) quantities
of raw materials employed; (2) hours of labor required; (3) amounts of
energy and other utilities consumed; (4) representative capital and
selling costs; (5) packing materials. We used the FOPs reported by the
respondents for materials, labor, energy, 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 a 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
[[Page 52286]]
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), and Shakeproof v. United
States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1).
B. Factor Methodology
During the POR, Nozawa did not produce certain types of merchandise
that it sold during the POR. Consequently, the original FOP database
Nozawa submitted did not contain FOPs for those models sold but not
produced by Nozawa during this POR. Because the vast majority of the
models Nozawa sold were produced during this POR or the prior POR,
Nozawa also submitted on the record of this review the FOP database
from the prior review (i.e., the 2005/2006 review). In addition, Nozawa
submitted an FOP database incorporating the FOPs for all models sold
during the POR, using both production data from this and the prior POR.
Therefore, for purposes of factor valuation, the Department has used
the FOP database incorporating all models sold during the POR. Nozawa
based certain FOP data on similar models where it did not produce the
model in either this or the prior POR.
The Department reviewed Nozawa's identification of the most similar
matches for the models it sold but did not produce during the previous
or this POR. In doing so, we determined the product characteristics
which have the most significant impact on the cost of materials and
then compared all product characteristics of the actual models to the
product characteristics of the proposed matching models. We found that
Nozawa's proposed matches were identical in the most significant
product characteristics and had some insignificant differences in other
characteristics. Therefore, we accepted Nozawa's assignment of the most
similar model designations for those products it sold but did not
produce during the POR. See Nozawa Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
C. FOP Valuation
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated normal
value based on the FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. To
calculate normal value, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-
consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values. In selecting
the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.
It is the Department's practice to calculate price-index adjustors
to inflate or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate values that are not
contemporaneous with the POR using the wholesale price index for the
subject country. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 71 FR 66910 (November 17, 2006). Therefore, where we could not
obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR, we
adjusted surrogate values using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for
India, as published in the International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund.
Except as indicated 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 in the World Trade Atlas (WTA),
available at https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. For those surrogate values
based upon Indian import statistics, we disregarded prices which we
have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to
believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea,
and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other
proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to
infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be
subsidized. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances:
Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China,
69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 7; see also Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651
(March 15, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4. The legislative history reflects the Department's practice
that, in making its determination as to whether input values may be
subsidized, the Department does not conduct a formal investigation;
rather, the Department bases its decision on information that is
available to it at the time it makes its determination. See H.R. Rep.
100-576, at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24.
Therefore, based on the information currently available, we have not
used prices from these countries in calculating the surrogate values
based on Indian import data.
We have also disregarded Indian import data concerning raw
materials from countries that we have previously determined to be NME
countries as well as imports originating from ``unspecified'' countries
because we could not be certain that they were not from either an NME
or a country with generally available export subsidies. See Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004), and
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR
24502 (May 10, 2005) (unchanged in the final results). For a
comprehensive list of the sources and data we used to determine the
surrogate vales for the FOPs, by-products, and the surrogate financial
ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative
expenses (SG&A), and profit, see Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
Where appropriate, we adjusted the Indian import prices by
including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we
added to the Indian import prices a surrogate freight cost using the
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the
factory of production or the distance from the nearest seaport to the
factory of production where appropriate. This adjustment is in
accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Where we did not use Indian import data as the basis of the
surrogate value, we calculated inland freight based on the reported
distance from the supplier to the factory. We valued truck freight
expenses using a per-unit average rate calculated from data on the
following Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. See
Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
The logistics section of this Web site contains inland-freight
truck rates between many large Indian cities. Because this value is not
contemporaneous with the POR, we deflated the rate using WPI. See
Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
[[Page 52287]]
We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large
industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the
Government of India in its publication titled Electricity Tariff&Duty
and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated July 2006.
These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to
industries in India. Because the rates are not contemporaneous with the
POR, we deflated the values using the WPI. See Surrogate-Value
Memorandum.
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 web site. See Corrected 2007
Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 73 FR 27795, 27796
(May 14, 2008) (available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The source
of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's website is the
Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003, ILO (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B:
Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage rates range from
2003 through 2004. 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. See Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
To value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit values, we used
information from M/S Synthetic Packers Private Ltd. for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2007. 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 profit as a percentage of the cost of
manufacture plus SG&A. See Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
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 suppliers and the respondents' production facilities.
See Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following percentage weighted-average dumping margins exist for the
period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongguan Nozawa Plastics Products Co., Ltd., 2.30
andUnited Power Packaging, Ltd.....................
Rally Plastics Co., Ltd............................. 18.11
PRC-wide Entity..................................... 77.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The PRC-wide entity includes Samson.
Comments
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
in this review within five days of the date of publication of this
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may
submit publicly available information to value factors no later than 20
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review. See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii). Any interested party may request
a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See
19 CFR 351.310. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to
participate in a hearing if a hearing is requested must submit a
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests
should contain the following: (1) the party's name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) a list of issues
to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from
interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice of preliminary results of review.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs from interested parties,
limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted not
later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or
comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). If requested, any hearing will be
held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit case briefs or
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each
argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the arguments not
exceeding five pages, and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases
cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days
after the date of publication of this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Act.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated
importer-specific (or customer-specific) assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review.
With respect to sales by Rally and certain sales by Nozawa, for
these preliminary results, we divided the total dumping margins
(calculated as the difference between normal value and EP) for each
exporter's importer or customer by the total number of units the
exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will direct CBP to
assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of
merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries during the
review period.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Nozawa's CEP sales, we
have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by dividing the
total dumping duties due by the entered value of CEP sales we analyzed.
We will direct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries at this rate.
We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing merchandise
from the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate we determine in the final
results of review.
We will issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date
of publication of the final results of review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results of the administrative review
for all shipments of PRCBs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise
exported by Nozawa and Rally, the cash-deposit rate will be that
established in the final results of review; (2) for previously reviewed
or investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates,
the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) for all other PRC exporters
of subject merchandise, which have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be PRC-wide rate of 77.57
percent; (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the
cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when
[[Page 52288]]
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: September 2, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consisting of Hilex Poly Company, LLC, and the Superbag
Corporation (collectively, the petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E8-20919 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S