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