Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 52288-52294 [E8-20928]

Download as PDF 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 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES producers accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be examined reasonably. Accordingly, on October 4, 2007, we requested information concerning the quantity and value of sales to the United States from the five exporters/producers listed in the Initiation Notice. We received responses from all of the exporters/producers. We also examined import data from CBP concerning unliquidated entries of merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order. Based on our analysis of the responses and import data obtained from CBP, we determined that King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd. (King Pac), Naraipak Co., Ltd., and Narai Packaging (Thailand) Ltd. (collectively NPG), and Poly Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Poly Plast), were the three largest exporters/producers during the POR. Specifically, we determined that these exporters/ producers accounted for a majority of the total reported quantity of imports of the subject merchandise from the requested companies to the United States during the POR and a majority of the total quantity from the requested companies reported in the CBP data. Accordingly, we chose to examine these three companies as accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from the exporting country that can reasonably be examined. See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand Respondent Selection’’ dated December 6, 2007. On March 27, 2008, the Department determined that it had the resources available to examine the remaining respondent,2 Master Packaging Co., Ltd. (Master Packaging), individually. See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Selection of Master Packaging as a Mandatory Respondent,’’ dated March 27, 2008. Intent to Rescind Review in Part In an October 25, 2007, submission, Kor Ratthanakit Co., Ltd. (Kor Ratthanakit), indicated that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Our review of information from CBP supports Kor Ratthanakit’s claim that there were no entries of its merchandise subject to the order into the United States during the POR. See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,’’ dated December 3, 2007. Because we 2 As discussed below, we intend to rescind the administrative review with respect to Kor Ratthanakit Co., Ltd. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:08 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 preliminarily find that there were no imports from Kor Ratthanakit during the POR, we intend to rescind the administrative review with respect to this company. If we continue to find at the time of our final results of administrative review that there were no imports of PRCBs from Thailand from Kor Ratthanakit, we will rescind our review of Kor Ratthanakit. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified sales and cost information provided by NPG and Poly Plast using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers’ facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records, and the selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the public versions of the verification reports, dated June 23 and August 13, 2008, for Poly Plast and dated August 5 and August 13, 2008, for NPG, and which are on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the main Commerce building. Use of Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if necessary information is not available on the record or if an interested party (1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department (2) fails to provide such information by the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act (3) significantly impedes the proceeding or (4) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if that information is necessary to the determination but does not meet all of the requirements established by the Department, provided that all of the following requirements are met: (1) the information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52289 for information does not comply with the request, the Department shall promptly inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall provide that person, to the extent practicable, with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits established for the completion of the administrative review. In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party ‘‘has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,’’ the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. The purpose of the adverse call, as explained in the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (SAA), is ‘‘to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate {to the best of its ability} than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See SAA at 870, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4199. Further, as explained in the SAA, in employing adverse inferences the Department will consider ‘‘the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.’’ Id. King Pac and Master Packaging On December 6, 2007, we sent a questionnaire to King Pac, one of the companies which we had selected for individual examination, seeking information related to King Pac’s corporate structure and its production and sales of PRCBs, information which is necessary for us to complete the administrative review. King Pac did not respond to the questionnaire. On March 27, 2008, we sent an antidumping questionnaire to Master Packaging and requested that it respond by May 5, 2008. Subsequently, at the respondent’s request, we granted Master Packaging an extension of time to respond. On May 20, 2008, we received Master Packaging’s questionnaire response, which we rejected on June 11, 2008, due to filing deficiencies; we provided Master Packaging an opportunity to resubmit its response in accordance with our regulations by June 24, 2008. Master Packaging submitted its response in accordance with the regulations on June 24, 2008. On June 27, 2008, we requested that Master Packaging submit the electronic versions of both its home-market and U.S. sales lists which should have been submitted with its June 24 response. On July 7, 2008, Master Packaging submitted the electronic versions of its E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 09SEN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES 52290 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices sales lists. On July 9, 2008, after reviewing Master Packaging’s resubmitted questionnaire response, we issued Master Packaging a supplemental questionnaire. Master Packaging did not respond to our supplemental questionnaire or request an extension of time to do so. Because King Pac and Master Packaging have failed to provide the information we requested and thus have significantly impeded this proceeding, we must use facts available to establish their dumping margins. See section 776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, because King Pac could have provided correct and verifiable data about its corporate structure, production, and sales but did not do so, we determine that King Pac has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. Therefore, we conclude that the use of an adverse inference is warranted with respect to King Pac. See section 776(b) of the Act and Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382–83 (CAFC 2003). Additionally, because Master Packaging could have provided correct and verifiable data in response to our supplemental questionnaire but did not do so, we determine that Master Packaging has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. Therefore, we conclude that the use of an adverse inference is warranted with respect to Master Packaging. Id. As adverse facts available (AFA), we have preliminarily assigned King Pac and Master Packaging the highest rate found in the less-than-fair-value investigation, which was 122.88 percent. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 34122, 34125 (June 18, 2004) (Final LTFV). We applied this rate to Zippac Co., Ltd. (Zippac), for the less-than-fair-value investigation. Id., 69 FR at 34123– 34124. We also applied this rate to King Pac, which we collapsed with Zippac, for the 2004–2005 and 2005–2006 administrative reviews. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 53405, 53406–53407 (September 11, 2006) (collapsing King Pac, Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd., Zippac, and King Bag Co.); Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982, 1983 (January 17, 2007) (2005–2006 Final Results); and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 64580 (November 16, 2007). VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:08 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 When a respondent is not cooperative, such as King Pac and Master Packaging here, the Department has the discretion to presume that the highest prior margin reflects the current margins. See Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330, 1339 (CAFC 2002) (citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (CAFC 1990)). If this were not the case, the party would have produced current information showing the margin to be less. See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190. Further, by using the highest prior antidumping duty margin we offer the assurance that the exporter will not benefit from refusing to provide information and we apply an antidumping duty rate that bears some relationship to past practices by this company as it is part of the industry in question. See Shanghai Taoen Int’l Trading Co. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1346 (CIT 2005) (citing D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (CAFC 1997)). Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, to the extent practicable, the Department corroborate secondary information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as ‘‘information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199. As clarified in the SAA, ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See id. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information. As emphasized in the SAA, however, the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4198. Further, independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation or review. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199. With respect to the reliability aspect of corroboration, the Department found the rate of 122.88 percent to be reliable in the investigation. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 FR 3552, 3553–3554 (January 26, 2004) (unchanged). There, the Department pointed out that the rate was calculated from source documents included with the petition, namely, a price quotation for various sizes of PRCBs commonly produced in Thailand, import statistics, and affidavits from company officials, all from a different Thai producer of subject merchandise. Because the information is supported by source documents, we preliminarily determine that the information is still reliable. See Memorandum to the File entitled ‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Inclusion of Memorandum, dated January 16, 2004, to the record of this administrative review’’ dated August 11, 2008 (AFA Memorandum). With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. In the investigation, the Department determined that, because the price quote reflected commercial practices of the particular industry during the period of investigation, the information was relevant to mandatory respondents which refused to participate in the investigation. See AFA Memorandum. No party contested the application of that rate in the investigation. Id. Furthermore, the rate of 122.88 percent is King Pac’s current rate and has been applied to Zippac since the less-thanfair-value investigation. Therefore, we find this rate to continue to have relevance. Poly Plast We found at verification that Poly Plast did not report foreign bank charges for all sales to two major U.S. customers. See Poly Plast verification report, dated June 23, 2008, at page 13– 15. Because foreign bank charges vary by invoice, we do not have complete and accurate information pertaining to these expenses. Accordingly, because Poly Plast failed to report these expenses, the use of facts available is necessary. See section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. In addition, Poly Plast had the documents necessary to report the correct foreign bank charges for its U.S. sales. See Poly Plast verification report at exhibits 6, 7, and 11 which include documentation such as the bank’s credit advice. We used these documents to ascertain the actual foreign bank charges for the particular U.S. sales we examined in detail. Because Poly Plast did not report this expense for a number of U.S. sales, we find that Poly Plast did not act to the best of its ability in reporting these expenses and, accordingly, the use of an adverse E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 09SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices inference is necessary. See section 776(b) of the Act and Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382–83. As partial adverse facts available, we used the highest reported value for foreign bank charges for sales to two U.S. customers for which these expenses were not reported. Importer Request On January 25, 2008, prior to the deadline for the submission of factual information, KYD, Inc. (KYD), an importer of subject merchandise, submitted information concerning its purchases of subject merchandise.3 KYD requested that the Department calculate an importer-specific assessment rate for KYD based on KYD’s information because one of its former suppliers, King Pac, did not respond to the Department’s questionnaire. KYD submitted its information in a form resembling a response to Section C of the Department’s standard questionnaire for U.S. sales and included copies of its relevant purchase orders and supplier invoices. Additionally, KYD explained the sales, shipping, and payment terms associated with its purchases. Because most of the information upon which the Department relies to calculate an antidumping margin and assessment rate was not available to KYD— specifically, home-market sales, cost-ofproduction, and complete U.S. sales information—KYD suggested that the Department use data collected from other respondents as a surrogate. Because we do not have all of the information that is necessary to calculate an accurate margin for the supplier(s) from which KYD purchased subject merchandise during the POR, however, we cannot calculate an importer-specific assessment rate for KYD. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Export Price We calculated dumping margins for NPG and Poly Plast as described below. For the price to the United States for NPG and Poly Plast, we used export price (EP) as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts and rebates. See section 772(d) of the Act. We also made deductions for any movement expenses 3 We determined that KYD had not justified many of its requests for proprietary treatment of the information in its January 25 submission. On April 1, 2008, we requested that KYD re-submit its document with adequate or revised claims for proprietary treatment of its information. KYD resubmitted the document on April 8, 2008. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:08 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Comparison-Market Sales Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by NPG in Thailand was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. NPG’s quantity of sales in Thailand was greater than five percent of its quantity of sales to the U.S. market. See section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Thailand in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. Poly Plast did not have a viable home market within the meaning of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Poly Plast reported its quantities of sales in thirdcountry markets and we determined that Angola was a viable third-country market for Poly Plast under section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Therefore, we based normal value for Poly Plast’s U.S. sales on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Angola in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. See section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded the below-cost sales of NPG in the most recently completed administrative review of this company. See 2005–2006 Final Results. Therefore, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that NPG’s sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of normal value in this review may have been made at prices below the cost of production (COP) as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we have conducted a COP analysis of NPG’s sales in the comparison market in this review. The petitioners in this proceeding filed an allegation that Poly Plast made sales in the comparison market at prices below the COP. Based on the information in the allegation, we found that we had reasonable grounds to PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52291 believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made by Poly Plast at prices that are less than the COP of the product. See section 773(b)(2)(4)(i) of the Act and Memorandum entitled ‘‘Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Request to Initiate Cost Investigation for Poly Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd.,’’ dated March 4, 2008. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a COP investigation of sales made by Poly Plast in its comparison market. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the comparisonmarket sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its questionnaire responses. We made some adjustments to the COP information based on our findings at the cost verifications of NPG and Poly Plast. These adjustments are detailed in Memoranda to Neal Halper entitled ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results Naraipak Co., Ltd.’’ and ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results Poly Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd.’’, dated September 2, 2008. After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we tested whether comparisonmarket sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported comparison-market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of a respondent’s sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a respondent’s sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 09SEN1 52292 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See the Department’s analysis memoranda for Poly Plast and NPG, dated September 2, 2008. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to Poly Plast and NPG. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Model-Match Methodology We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an identical comparison-market model was reported, we made comparisons to weightedaverage comparison-market prices that were based on all sales which passed the COP test of the identical product during the relevant or contemporaneous month. We calculated the weightedaverage comparison-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we identified the most similar comparison-market model. To determine the most similar model, we matched the foreign like product based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order of importance: (1) quality; (2) bag type; (3) length; (4) width; (5) gusset; (6) thickness; (7) percentage of high-density resin; (8) percentage of low-density resin; (9) percentage of linear lowdensity resin; (10) percentage of color concentrate; (11) percentage of ink coverage; (12) number of ink colors; and (13) number of sides printed. Normal Value The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales at arm’s-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where affiliated-party sales were reported, we excluded from our analysis sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the comparison market that we determined not to be at arm’s-length prices. To test whether these sales were made at arm’s-length prices, we compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when the prices VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:08 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm’s-length prices. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002) (explaining the Department’s practice). We included those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm’s-length prices in our calculations of normal value. Comparison-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory, or delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal value. We also made adjustments, if applicable, for comparison-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP calculations. With respect to NPG, we found at the sales verification that commissions it had reported for sales made by Naraipak through an affiliated selling agent were not based on selling expenses actually incurred by the agent. Thus, we have not accepted NPG’s claim for a commission on these sales. In addition, we have not accepted bank charges for numerous home-market Naraipak sales that NPG first submitted to the Department as a minor correction at the sales verification. NPG asserted that, until that point, it had inadvertently omitted these charges from its reported home-market sales data. Because we find these charges to constitute untimely-filed new factual information, we have not accepted them in our calculation of normal value. Similarly, NPG submitted revised packing costs for Naraipak’s home-market sales as a minor correction at the sales verification, asserting that it had inadvertently failed to update the packing costs at the time it filed revised cost data for a supplemental questionnaire due prior to the start of verification. We have not accepted these revised packing costs, which we find to PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 be untimely-filed new factual information. With respect to Poly Plast, we found at verification, that 1) although it did not claim an adjustment to normal value, Poly Plast incurred foreign bank charges for a number of third-country sales and 2) Poly Plast claimed certain export charges in more than one data field for all third-country sales made in 2007, which resulted in Poly Plast either double-counting or partially doublecounting these expenses for the sales in question. See Poly Plast verification report, dated June 23, 2008, at page 13– 15. Poly Plast had the documents necessary to report the correct foreign bank charges and certain export charges for its third-country sales. See Poly Plast verification report at exhibits 6, 7, and 11, which include documentation such as bills for terminal handling charges and bill-of-lading document fees, loading-certificate invoices, and broker’s invoices. We used these documents to ascertain the actual foreign bank charges and actual export charges for the thirdcountry sales we examined in detail. Because foreign bank charges and certain export charges vary by invoice, however, we do not have complete and accurate information pertaining to these expenses. Further, with respect to certain export charges, there is no way to distinguish these expenses from the other expenses (i.e., brokerage and handling expenses) with which they were comingled and reported. Because there is no information on the record that enables us to calculate the expenses in question, we have not made the claimed adjustment for certain export charges Poly Plast reported for all thirdcountry sales made in 2007. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value at the same level of trade as the EP sales. See the Level of Trade section below. Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no comparable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. We calculated constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, U.S. packing expenses, and profit in the calculation of constructed value. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by each respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 09SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices ordinary course of trade for consumption in the comparison market. As a result of findings at the cost verifications, we made some adjustments to the constructed-value information provided by NPG and Poly Plast. These adjustments are detailed in the Memoranda to Neal Halper entitled ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Naraipak Co., Ltd.,’’ and ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Poly Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd.,’’ dated September 2, 2008. When appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 CFR 351.412 for circumstance-of-sale differences and level-of-trade differences. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to constructed value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for comparison-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP comparisons. We calculated constructed value at the same level of trade as the EP. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Level of Trade To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. The normal-value level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. When normal value is based on constructed value, the level of trade is that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and profit. To determine whether comparisonmarket sales are at a different level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. Neither NPG nor Poly Plast reported any significant differences in selling functions between different channels of distribution or customer type in either their comparison or U.S. markets. Therefore, we determined that all comparison-market sales were made at one level of trade for each company. Moreover, we determined that all comparison-market sales of the companies were made at the same level of trade as EP sales. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-average dumping margins on PRCBs from VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:08 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 Thailand exist for the period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007: 52293 calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for Percent merchandise subject to this review. Producer/Exporter Margin With respect to sales by NPG and Poly Plast, for these preliminary results, we King Pac (aka King Pak) ............ 122.88 divided the total dumping margins Master Packaging ....................... 122.88 NPG ............................................ 1.84 (calculated as the difference between Poly Plast .................................... 8.84 normal value and EP) for each exporter’s importer or customer by the total number of units the exporter sold to that Comments importer or customer. We will direct We will disclose the calculations used CBP to assess the resulting per-unit in our analysis to parties to this review dollar amount against each unit of within five days of the date of merchandise in each of that importer’s/ publication of this notice. See 19 CFR customer’s entries during the review 351.224(b). Any interested party may period. request a hearing within 30 days of the The Department clarified its date of publication of this notice. See 19 ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on CFR 351.310. Interested parties who May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and wish to request a hearing or to Countervailing Duty Proceedings: participate in a hearing if a hearing is Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 requested must submit a written request FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of to the Assistant Secretary for Import Antidumping Duties). This clarification Administration within 30 days of the will apply to entries of subject date of publication of this notice. merchandise during the POR produced Requests should contain the following: by companies included in these (1) the party’s name, address, and preliminary results of review for which telephone number; (2) the number of the reviewed companies did not know participants; (3) a list of issues to be their merchandise was destined for the discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). United States. In such instances, we will Issues raised in the hearing will be instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed limited to those raised in the case and entries at the all-others rate if there is no rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). rate for the intermediate company(ies) Case briefs from interested parties may involved in the transaction. For a full be submitted not later than 30 days after discussion of this clarification, see the date of publication of this notice of Assessment of Antidumping Duties. preliminary results of review. See 19 For companies for which we are CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs relying on total AFA to establish a from interested parties, limited to the dumping margin, we will instruct CBP issues raised in the case briefs, may be to apply the assigned dumping margins submitted not later than five days after to all entries of subject merchandise the time limit for filing the case briefs during the POR that were produced or or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). exported by the companies. If requested, any hearing will be held We will issue liquidation instructions two days after the scheduled date for to CBP 15 days after publication of the submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 final results of review. CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit Cash-Deposit Requirements case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this The following deposit requirements proceeding are requested to submit with will be effective upon publication of the each argument a statement of the issue, notice of final results of administrative a summary of the arguments not review for all shipments of PRCBs from exceeding five pages, and a table of Thailand entered, or withdrawn from statutes, regulations, and cases cited. warehouse, for consumption on or after See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). The the date of publication, as provided by Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cashthe results of its analysis of issues raised deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in any such written briefs or at the in the final results of this review; (2) for hearing, if held, not later than 120 days previously reviewed or investigated after the date of publication of this companies not listed above, the cashnotice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the deposit rate will continue to be the Act. company-specific rate published for the Assessment Rates most recent period; (3) if the exporter is The Department shall determine, and not a firm covered in this review, a prior CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on review, or the less-than-fair-value all appropriate entries. In accordance investigation but the manufacturer is, with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have the cash-deposit rate will be the rate PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 09SEN1 52294 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 2.80 percent, the all-others rate for this proceeding. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importer This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 2, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8–20928 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–810] Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 7, 2008, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) from India. This review covers sales of SSB from India with respect to two producers/exporters: D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘DHE’’) and Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (‘‘Sunflag’’), during the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. We have noted the changes made since the preliminary results in the ‘‘Changes Since the Preliminary Results’’ section, below. The final results are listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section. DATES: Effective Date: September 9, 2008. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:08 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri or Scott Holland, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–3853 and (202) 482–1279, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 21, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on SSB from India. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On February 2, 2007, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register providing an opportunity for interested parties to request an administrative review of this order for the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 5007 (February 2, 2007). The Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of this review on March 7, 2008. See Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 12382 (March 7, 2008) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). On March 20, 2008, the Department published a correction notice to the Preliminary Results. See Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 15049 (March 20, 2008). Following the Preliminary Results, the Department issued two supplemental questionnaires to both DHE and Sunflag. The Department received DHE’s responses on March 20, 2008, and April 2, 2008. The Department received Sunflag’s responses on April 2, 2008, and July 7, 2008. On June 24, 2008, the Department published a notice extending the deadline for these final results to September 3, 2008. See Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2006–2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 35639 (June 24, 2008). We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On July 16, 2008, the Petitioners 1 and 1 Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc. PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DHE submitted case briefs.2 In its case brief, DHE requested that the Department consider the purchase order date as the U.S. date of sale, rather than the invoice date. To support this request, DHE provided the Department with unsolicited new information in the form of a revised U.S. sales database containing purchase order dates for its U.S. sales. On July 17, 2008, the Petitioners filed a rebuttal brief. The Petitioners requested that the Department reject and return to DHE the new factual information submitted in its case brief. According to the Petitioners, the Department did not request this new date of sale information and the deadline for the submission of new factual information had passed, as per 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). On July 17, 2008, the Department rejected DHE’s case brief because it contained unsolicited new factual information. See July 17, 2008, Letter from Brandon Farlander to DHE, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room 1117 of the main Department building. The Department instructed DHE to re-file its case brief excluding the unsolicited new factual information relating to purchase order date. DHE submitted its revised case brief, excluding the unsolicited new factual information, on July 21, 2008. On July 22, 2008, Sunflag filed a rebuttal brief. On August 8, 2008, the Department rejected Sunflag’s July 22, 2008 (dated July 19, 2008) rebuttal brief because it contained unsolicited new factual information relating to certain rent paid to affiliate Ridge Farm Developers. See August 8, 2008, Letter from Brandon Farlander to Sunflag, which is on file in the CRU in room 1117 of the main Department building. The Department instructed Sunflag to re-file its rebuttal brief excluding the unsolicited new factual information. On August 18, 2008, the Department received Sunflag’s revised rebuttal brief, excluding the unsolicited new factual information. Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order are shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross-section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished 2 DHE incorrectly called this submission its ‘‘rebuttal brief.’’ E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 09SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52288-52294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20928]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-821]


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind 
in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier 
bags (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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman or Richard Rimlinger, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3931 or (202) 482-4477, respectively.

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).

Scope of the Order

    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.

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

[[Page 52289]]

producers accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from 
the exporting country that can be examined reasonably. Accordingly, on 
October 4, 2007, we requested information concerning the quantity and 
value of sales to the United States from the five exporters/producers 
listed in the Initiation Notice. We received responses from all of the 
exporters/producers. We also examined import data from CBP concerning 
unliquidated entries of merchandise subject to the antidumping duty 
order.
    Based on our analysis of the responses and import data obtained 
from CBP, we determined that King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd. (King Pac), 
Naraipak Co., Ltd., and Narai Packaging (Thailand) Ltd. (collectively 
NPG), and Poly Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Poly Plast), were the three 
largest exporters/producers during the POR. Specifically, we determined 
that these exporters/producers accounted for a majority of the total 
reported quantity of imports of the subject merchandise from the 
requested companies to the United States during the POR and a majority 
of the total quantity from the requested companies reported in the CBP 
data. Accordingly, we chose to examine these three companies as 
accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from the 
exporting country that can reasonably be examined. See Memorandum 
entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand - Respondent 
Selection'' dated December 6, 2007.
    On March 27, 2008, the Department determined that it had the 
resources available to examine the remaining respondent,\2\ Master 
Packaging Co., Ltd. (Master Packaging), individually. See Memorandum 
entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Selection of 
Master Packaging as a Mandatory Respondent,'' dated March 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As discussed below, we intend to rescind the administrative 
review with respect to Kor Ratthanakit Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intent to Rescind Review in Part

    In an October 25, 2007, submission, Kor Ratthanakit Co., Ltd. (Kor 
Ratthanakit), indicated that it had no shipments of subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POR. Our review of information from CBP 
supports Kor Ratthanakit's claim that there were no entries of its 
merchandise subject to the order into the United States during the POR. 
See Memorandum to the File, ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
Data,'' dated December 3, 2007. Because we preliminarily find that 
there were no imports from Kor Ratthanakit during the POR, we intend to 
rescind the administrative review with respect to this company. If we 
continue to find at the time of our final results of administrative 
review that there were no imports of PRCBs from Thailand from Kor 
Ratthanakit, we will rescind our review of Kor Ratthanakit.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified sales 
and cost information provided by NPG and Poly Plast using standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
manufacturers' facilities, the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records, and the selection of original documentation 
containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined 
in the public versions of the verification reports, dated June 23 and 
August 13, 2008, for Poly Plast and dated August 5 and August 13, 2008, 
for NPG, and which are on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117 
of the main Commerce building.

Use of Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if necessary information 
is not available on the record or if an interested party (1) withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department (2) fails to 
provide such information by the deadlines established, or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782 of the Act (3) significantly impedes the proceeding or (4) provides 
such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department 
shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, the facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination.
    Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not 
decline to consider submitted information if that information is 
necessary to the determination but does not meet all of the 
requirements established by the Department, provided that all of the 
following requirements are met: (1) the information is submitted by the 
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties. Section 
782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a 
response to a request for information does not comply with the request, 
the Department shall promptly inform the person submitting the response 
of the nature of the deficiency and shall provide that person, to the 
extent practicable, with an opportunity to remedy or explain the 
deficiency in light of the time limits established for the completion 
of the administrative review.
    In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to 
the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. The purpose 
of the adverse call, as explained in the Statement of Administrative 
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 316, 
Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (SAA), is ``to ensure that the party does not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate {to the best of 
its ability{time}  than if it had cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870, 
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4199. Further, as explained in the 
SAA, in employing adverse inferences the Department will consider ``the 
extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.'' 
Id.

King Pac and Master Packaging

    On December 6, 2007, we sent a questionnaire to King Pac, one of 
the companies which we had selected for individual examination, seeking 
information related to King Pac's corporate structure and its 
production and sales of PRCBs, information which is necessary for us to 
complete the administrative review. King Pac did not respond to the 
questionnaire.
    On March 27, 2008, we sent an antidumping questionnaire to Master 
Packaging and requested that it respond by May 5, 2008. Subsequently, 
at the respondent's request, we granted Master Packaging an extension 
of time to respond. On May 20, 2008, we received Master Packaging's 
questionnaire response, which we rejected on June 11, 2008, due to 
filing deficiencies; we provided Master Packaging an opportunity to 
resubmit its response in accordance with our regulations by June 24, 
2008. Master Packaging submitted its response in accordance with the 
regulations on June 24, 2008. On June 27, 2008, we requested that 
Master Packaging submit the electronic versions of both its home-market 
and U.S. sales lists which should have been submitted with its June 24 
response. On July 7, 2008, Master Packaging submitted the electronic 
versions of its

[[Page 52290]]

sales lists. On July 9, 2008, after reviewing Master Packaging's 
resubmitted questionnaire response, we issued Master Packaging a 
supplemental questionnaire. Master Packaging did not respond to our 
supplemental questionnaire or request an extension of time to do so.
    Because King Pac and Master Packaging have failed to provide the 
information we requested and thus have significantly impeded this 
proceeding, we must use facts available to establish their dumping 
margins. See section 776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, because King Pac 
could have provided correct and verifiable data about its corporate 
structure, production, and sales but did not do so, we determine that 
King Pac has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability. Therefore, we conclude that the use of an adverse inference is 
warranted with respect to King Pac. See section 776(b) of the Act and 
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (CAFC 
2003). Additionally, because Master Packaging could have provided 
correct and verifiable data in response to our supplemental 
questionnaire but did not do so, we determine that Master Packaging has 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. 
Therefore, we conclude that the use of an adverse inference is 
warranted with respect to Master Packaging. Id.
    As adverse facts available (AFA), we have preliminarily assigned 
King Pac and Master Packaging the highest rate found in the less-than-
fair-value investigation, which was 122.88 percent. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 34122, 34125 (June 18, 2004) (Final 
LTFV). We applied this rate to Zippac Co., Ltd. (Zippac), for the less-
than-fair-value investigation. Id., 69 FR at 34123-34124. We also 
applied this rate to King Pac, which we collapsed with Zippac, for the 
2004-2005 and 2005-2006 administrative reviews. See Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 53405, 53406-53407 (September 11, 2006) 
(collapsing King Pac, Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd., Zippac, and King Bag 
Co.); Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982, 1983 (January 17, 
2007) (2005-2006 Final Results); and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 
from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
72 FR 64580 (November 16, 2007).
    When a respondent is not cooperative, such as King Pac and Master 
Packaging here, the Department has the discretion to presume that the 
highest prior margin reflects the current margins. See Ta Chen 
Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330, 1339 (CAFC 
2002) (citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 
(CAFC 1990)). If this were not the case, the party would have produced 
current information showing the margin to be less. See Rhone Poulenc, 
899 F.2d at 1190. Further, by using the highest prior antidumping duty 
margin we offer the assurance that the exporter will not benefit from 
refusing to provide information and we apply an antidumping duty rate 
that bears some relationship to past practices by this company as it is 
part of the industry in question. See Shanghai Taoen Int'l Trading Co. 
v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1346 (CIT 2005) (citing D&L 
Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (CAFC 1997)).
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, to the extent practicable, 
the Department corroborate secondary information from independent 
sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is 
defined as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to 
the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the 
subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 
concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 
at 4199. As clarified in the SAA, ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. See id. To corroborate secondary information, 
the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability 
and relevance of the information. As emphasized in the SAA, however, 
the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the 
best alternative information. See SAA at 869, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 
4198. Further, independent sources used to corroborate such evidence 
may include, for example, published price lists, official import 
statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested 
parties during the particular investigation or review. See 19 CFR 
351.308(d) and SAA at 870, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199.
    With respect to the reliability aspect of corroboration, the 
Department found the rate of 122.88 percent to be reliable in the 
investigation. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 3552, 3553-3554 (January 26, 
2004) (unchanged). There, the Department pointed out that the rate was 
calculated from source documents included with the petition, namely, a 
price quotation for various sizes of PRCBs commonly produced in 
Thailand, import statistics, and affidavits from company officials, all 
from a different Thai producer of subject merchandise. Because the 
information is supported by source documents, we preliminarily 
determine that the information is still reliable. See Memorandum to the 
File entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: 
Inclusion of Memorandum, dated January 16, 2004, to the record of this 
administrative review'' dated August 11, 2008 (AFA Memorandum).
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. In the 
investigation, the Department determined that, because the price quote 
reflected commercial practices of the particular industry during the 
period of investigation, the information was relevant to mandatory 
respondents which refused to participate in the investigation. See AFA 
Memorandum. No party contested the application of that rate in the 
investigation. Id. Furthermore, the rate of 122.88 percent is King 
Pac's current rate and has been applied to Zippac since the less-than-
fair-value investigation. Therefore, we find this rate to continue to 
have relevance.

Poly Plast

    We found at verification that Poly Plast did not report foreign 
bank charges for all sales to two major U.S. customers. See Poly Plast 
verification report, dated June 23, 2008, at page 13-15. Because 
foreign bank charges vary by invoice, we do not have complete and 
accurate information pertaining to these expenses. Accordingly, because 
Poly Plast failed to report these expenses, the use of facts available 
is necessary. See section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. In addition, Poly 
Plast had the documents necessary to report the correct foreign bank 
charges for its U.S. sales. See Poly Plast verification report at 
exhibits 6, 7, and 11 which include documentation such as the bank's 
credit advice. We used these documents to ascertain the actual foreign 
bank charges for the particular U.S. sales we examined in detail. 
Because Poly Plast did not report this expense for a number of U.S. 
sales, we find that Poly Plast did not act to the best of its ability 
in reporting these expenses and, accordingly, the use of an adverse

[[Page 52291]]

inference is necessary. See section 776(b) of the Act and Nippon Steel, 
337 F.3d at 1382-83. As partial adverse facts available, we used the 
highest reported value for foreign bank charges for sales to two U.S. 
customers for which these expenses were not reported.

Importer Request

    On January 25, 2008, prior to the deadline for the submission of 
factual information, KYD, Inc. (KYD), an importer of subject 
merchandise, submitted information concerning its purchases of subject 
merchandise.\3\ KYD requested that the Department calculate an 
importer-specific assessment rate for KYD based on KYD's information 
because one of its former suppliers, King Pac, did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. KYD submitted its information in a form 
resembling a response to Section C of the Department's standard 
questionnaire for U.S. sales and included copies of its relevant 
purchase orders and supplier invoices. Additionally, KYD explained the 
sales, shipping, and payment terms associated with its purchases. 
Because most of the information upon which the Department relies to 
calculate an antidumping margin and assessment rate was not available 
to KYD--specifically, home-market sales, cost-of-production, and 
complete U.S. sales information--KYD suggested that the Department use 
data collected from other respondents as a surrogate. Because we do not 
have all of the information that is necessary to calculate an accurate 
margin for the supplier(s) from which KYD purchased subject merchandise 
during the POR, however, we cannot calculate an importer-specific 
assessment rate for KYD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We determined that KYD had not justified many of its 
requests for proprietary treatment of the information in its January 
25 submission. On April 1, 2008, we requested that KYD re-submit its 
document with adequate or revised claims for proprietary treatment 
of its information. KYD re-submitted the document on April 8, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Export Price

    We calculated dumping margins for NPG and Poly Plast as described 
below.
    For the price to the United States for NPG and Poly Plast, we used 
export price (EP) as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. We 
calculated EP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. 
See section 772(c) of the Act. We made deductions, as appropriate, for 
discounts and rebates. See section 772(d) of the Act. We also made 
deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Comparison-Market Sales

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and 
U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market 
situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, 
we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by NPG in 
Thailand was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of 
the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 
773(a) of the Act. NPG's quantity of sales in Thailand was greater than 
five percent of its quantity of sales to the U.S. market. See section 
773(a)(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on the prices at 
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in 
Thailand in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course 
of trade and at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales.
    Poly Plast did not have a viable home market within the meaning of 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Poly Plast reported its 
quantities of sales in third-country markets and we determined that 
Angola was a viable third-country market for Poly Plast under section 
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Therefore, we based normal value for Poly 
Plast's U.S. sales on the prices at which the foreign like product was 
first sold for consumption in Angola in the usual commercial quantities 
and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. See section 773(a)(1)(C) of 
the Act.

Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales of NPG in the most recently completed administrative 
review of this company. See 2005-2006 Final Results. Therefore, we have 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that NPG's sales of the 
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of 
normal value in this review may have been made at prices below the cost 
of production (COP) as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we have conducted 
a COP analysis of NPG's sales in the comparison market in this review.
    The petitioners in this proceeding filed an allegation that Poly 
Plast made sales in the comparison market at prices below the COP. 
Based on the information in the allegation, we found that we had 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product were made by Poly Plast at prices that are less than the COP of 
the product. See section 773(b)(2)(4)(i) of the Act and Memorandum 
entitled ``Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order on 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Request to Initiate 
Cost Investigation for Poly Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd.,'' dated March 
4, 2008. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
conducted a COP investigation of sales made by Poly Plast in its 
comparison market.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental 
to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the 
comparison-market sales and COP information provided by each respondent 
in its questionnaire responses. We made some adjustments to the COP 
information based on our findings at the cost verifications of NPG and 
Poly Plast. These adjustments are detailed in Memoranda to Neal Halper 
entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results Naraipak Co., Ltd.'' and ``Cost 
of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results Poly Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd.'', dated September 
2, 2008.
    After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act, we tested whether comparison-market sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 
773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported 
comparison-market prices less any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices 
less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they 
were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time 
pursuant to

[[Page 52292]]

sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based on 
comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we 
determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See the Department's analysis 
memoranda for Poly Plast and NPG, dated September 2, 2008. Based on 
this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to Poly Plast 
and NPG.

Model-Match Methodology

    We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in 
the comparison market. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used 
the following methodology. If an identical comparison-market model was 
reported, we made comparisons to weighted-average comparison-market 
prices that were based on all sales which passed the COP test of the 
identical product during the relevant or contemporaneous month. We 
calculated the weighted-average comparison-market prices on a level of 
trade-specific basis. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an 
identical model, we identified the most similar comparison-market 
model. To determine the most similar model, we matched the foreign like 
product based on the physical characteristics reported by the 
respondents in the following order of importance: (1) quality; (2) bag 
type; (3) length; (4) width; (5) gusset; (6) thickness; (7) percentage 
of high-density resin; (8) percentage of low-density resin; (9) 
percentage of linear low-density resin; (10) percentage of color 
concentrate; (11) percentage of ink coverage; (12) number of ink 
colors; and (13) number of sides printed.

Normal Value

    The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an 
affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the 
affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to 
parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales at 
arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where affiliated-party 
sales were reported, we excluded from our analysis sales to affiliated 
customers for consumption in the comparison market that we determined 
not to be at arm's-length prices. To test whether these sales were made 
at arm's-length prices, we compared the prices of sales of comparable 
merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all 
rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when 
the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 
and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for 
merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we 
determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length 
prices. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the 
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002) (explaining 
the Department's practice). We included those sales to affiliated 
parties that were made at arm's-length prices in our calculations of 
normal value.
    Comparison-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory, or 
delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When 
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for 
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of 
the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable 
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for 
differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, 
we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market 
direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to 
normal value. We also made adjustments, if applicable, for comparison-
market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP 
calculations.
    With respect to NPG, we found at the sales verification that 
commissions it had reported for sales made by Naraipak through an 
affiliated selling agent were not based on selling expenses actually 
incurred by the agent. Thus, we have not accepted NPG's claim for a 
commission on these sales. In addition, we have not accepted bank 
charges for numerous home-market Naraipak sales that NPG first 
submitted to the Department as a minor correction at the sales 
verification. NPG asserted that, until that point, it had inadvertently 
omitted these charges from its reported home-market sales data. Because 
we find these charges to constitute untimely-filed new factual 
information, we have not accepted them in our calculation of normal 
value. Similarly, NPG submitted revised packing costs for Naraipak's 
home-market sales as a minor correction at the sales verification, 
asserting that it had inadvertently failed to update the packing costs 
at the time it filed revised cost data for a supplemental questionnaire 
due prior to the start of verification. We have not accepted these 
revised packing costs, which we find to be untimely-filed new factual 
information.
    With respect to Poly Plast, we found at verification, that 1) 
although it did not claim an adjustment to normal value, Poly Plast 
incurred foreign bank charges for a number of third-country sales and 
2) Poly Plast claimed certain export charges in more than one data 
field for all third-country sales made in 2007, which resulted in Poly 
Plast either double-counting or partially double-counting these 
expenses for the sales in question. See Poly Plast verification report, 
dated June 23, 2008, at page 13-15. Poly Plast had the documents 
necessary to report the correct foreign bank charges and certain export 
charges for its third-country sales. See Poly Plast verification report 
at exhibits 6, 7, and 11, which include documentation such as bills for 
terminal handling charges and bill-of-lading document fees, loading-
certificate invoices, and broker's invoices. We used these documents to 
ascertain the actual foreign bank charges and actual export charges for 
the third-country sales we examined in detail. Because foreign bank 
charges and certain export charges vary by invoice, however, we do not 
have complete and accurate information pertaining to these expenses. 
Further, with respect to certain export charges, there is no way to 
distinguish these expenses from the other expenses (i.e., brokerage and 
handling expenses) with which they were comingled and reported. Because 
there is no information on the record that enables us to calculate the 
expenses in question, we have not made the claimed adjustment for 
certain export charges Poly Plast reported for all third-country sales 
made in 2007.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 
normal value at the same level of trade as the EP sales. See the Level 
of Trade section below.

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used 
constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no 
comparable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. 
We calculated constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of 
the Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A 
expenses, U.S. packing expenses, and profit in the calculation of 
constructed value. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, 
we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized 
by each respondent in connection with the production and sale of the 
foreign like product in the

[[Page 52293]]

ordinary course of trade for consumption in the comparison market.
    As a result of findings at the cost verifications, we made some 
adjustments to the constructed-value information provided by NPG and 
Poly Plast. These adjustments are detailed in the Memoranda to Neal 
Halper entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Naraipak Co., Ltd.,'' and 
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for 
the Preliminary Results--Poly Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd.,'' dated 
September 2, 2008.
    When appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 
CFR 351.412 for circumstance-of-sale differences and level-of-trade 
differences. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from 
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to constructed value. We also 
made adjustments, when applicable, for comparison-market indirect 
selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP comparisons.
    We calculated constructed value at the same level of trade as the 
EP.

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. The normal-value level of 
trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. 
When normal value is based on constructed value, the level of trade is 
that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and profit.
    To determine whether comparison-market sales are at a different 
level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing 
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between 
the producer and the unaffiliated customer.
    Neither NPG nor Poly Plast reported any significant differences in 
selling functions between different channels of distribution or 
customer type in either their comparison or U.S. markets. Therefore, we 
determined that all comparison-market sales were made at one level of 
trade for each company. Moreover, we determined that all comparison-
market sales of the companies were made at the same level of trade as 
EP sales.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following percentage weighted-average dumping margins on PRCBs from 
Thailand exist for the period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                      Producer/Exporter                         Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
King Pac (aka King Pak).....................................      122.88
Master Packaging............................................      122.88
NPG.........................................................        1.84
Poly Plast..................................................        8.84
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this review within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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 CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/
importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for 
merchandise subject to this review.
    With respect to sales by NPG and Poly Plast, 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.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties). This clarification will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in 
these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies 
did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Assessment of Antidumping Duties.
    For companies for which we are relying on total AFA to establish a 
dumping margin, we will instruct CBP to apply the assigned dumping 
margins to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were 
produced or exported by the companies.
    We will issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after 
publication of the final results of review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of PRCBs from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash-deposit rates 
for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final 
results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or 
the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the 
cash-deposit rate will be the rate

[[Page 52294]]

established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the 
merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its 
own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 2.80 percent, the all-others 
rate for this proceeding. These deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importer

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.

    Dated: September 2, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-20928 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S