Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Taiwan: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 55183-55192 [E9-25714]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55183-55192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25714]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-843]


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Taiwan: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Taiwan 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value (LTFV) as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 
listed in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary 
determination.
    Pursuant to requests from the petitioners and the respondent, we 
are postponing by 60 days the final determination and extending 
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six 
months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination not later 
than 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination.

DATES: Effective Date: October 27, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0665 and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 31, 2009, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation 
(collectively, the petitioners) filed an antidumping petition 
concerning imports of PRCBs from Taiwan. See the Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, dated March 31, 2009 (the petition).
    On April 20, 2009, the Department initiated the antidumping duty 
investigation on PRCBs from Taiwan. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74

[[Page 55184]]

FR 19049 (April 27, 2009) (Initiation Notice).
    The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise 
issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit 
comments within 20 calendar days of the date of publication of the 
Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 19049. See also 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 
1997). We received no comments from interested parties concerning 
product coverage. The Department also set aside a period of time for 
parties to comment on product characteristics for use in the 
antidumping duty questionnaire. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 19050. 
On May 11, 2009, we received comments from the petitioners. After 
reviewing the petitioners' comments, we have adopted the 
characteristics and hierarchy as explained in the ``Product 
Comparisons'' section of this notice, below.
    On May 29, 2009, the International Trade Commission (ITC) published 
its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of PRCBs from Taiwan are materially injuring 
the U.S. industry, and the ITC notified the Department of its finding. 
See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and 
Vietnam; Determinations, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-
1158 (Preliminary), 74 FR 25771 (May 29, 2009).
    On May 21, 2009, we selected Ipsido Corporation (Ipsido) and TCI 
Plastic Co., Ltd. (TCI), as mandatory respondents in this 
investigation. See the ``Selection of Respondents'' section of this 
notice, below.
    On May 26, 2009, we issued the antidumping questionnaire to Ipsido 
and TCI. On July 20, 2009, we received a questionnaire response from 
TCI. We did not receive a questionnaire response from Ipsido. We issued 
a supplemental questionnaire to TCI and received its response on 
September 1, 2009. We issued a second supplemental questionnaire to TCI 
and received its response on October 5, 2009. Because TCI claimed it 
was affiliated during the period of investigation (POI) with three 
Taiwanese producers of PRCBs, Tis Dis International Co., Ltd. (Tis 
Dis), CBM Machinery Co., Ltd. (CBM), and Corporate Best Enterprise Co., 
Ltd. (Corporate Best), it provided a unified response to our 
questionnaire with respect to these companies. See the ``Affiliation 
and Collapsing'' section of this notice, below.
    On July 22, 2009, based on a timely request from the petitioners, 
we extended the deadline for alleging targeted dumping.
    On July 30, 2009, the petitioner alleged that TCI made home-market 
sales of PRCBs at prices below the cost of production (COP) during the 
POI. On August 12, 2009, we initiated an investigation to determine 
whether TCI made home-market sales of PRCBs at prices below the COP 
during the POI. See the ``Cost of Production'' section of this notice, 
below. In a letter dated August 13, 2009, we requested that TCI respond 
to the COP section of the antidumping questionnaire. On September 3, 
2009, we received the cost response from TCI. We issued a supplemental 
cost questionnaire to TCI and received its response on October 5, 2009.
    On August 7, 2009, the petitioners filed an allegation of targeted 
dumping by TCI. See the ``Targeted-Dumping Allegation'' section below.
    On August 13, 2009, the petitioners requested that the Department 
postpone its preliminary determination by 42 days. In accordance with 
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we postponed our preliminary 
determination by 42 days. See Postponement of Preliminary Determination 
of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 
from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 74 FR 
42229 (August 21, 2009).
    On September 17, 2009, the petitioners requested that, in the event 
of a negative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone the final determination in accordance with section 
735(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i). The petitioners 
did not specify the number of days by which to postpone the final 
determination. On September 17, 2009, TCI requested that, in the event 
of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination by 60 days in accordance 
with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) and 
extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under 19 
CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month period to a six-month period. For 
further discussion, see the ``Postponement of Final Determination and 
Extension of Provisional Measures'' section of this notice, below.
    On October 1, 2009, the petitioners submitted comments for 
consideration in the preliminary determination. On October 8, 2009, the 
petitioners submitted a second set of comments for consideration in the 
preliminary determination.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. This period 
corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition, March 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is PRCBs, which also 
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 this investigation excludes (1) polyethylene 
bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are 
closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) 
polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing 
that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying 
merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, 
trash-can liners.
    Imports of merchandise included within the scope of this 
investigation are currently classifiable under statistical category 
3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). This subheading may also cover products that are outside the 
scope of this investigation. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading 
is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department 
discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters or producers, 
to limit its

[[Page 55185]]

examination to a reasonable number of such companies if it is not 
practicable to examine all companies. The data on the record indicates 
that there are over 20 potential producers or exporters from Taiwan 
that exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POI. In the Initiation Notice we stated that we intended to select 
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for 
U.S. imports under HTSUS number 3923.21.0085 during the POI and we 
invited comments on CBP data and selection of respondents for 
individual examination. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 19054.
    On April 27, 2009, we released the CBP data to all parties with 
access to information protected by administrative protective order. 
Based on our review of the CBP data and our consideration of the 
comments we received from the petitioners on May 7, 2009, we determined 
that we had the resources to examine two companies. Accordingly, we 
selected TCI and Ipsido as mandatory respondents. These companies are 
the two major producers/exporters of subject merchandise that account 
for the largest volume of subject merchandise during the POI that we 
can reasonably examine in accordance with the statute. See Memorandum 
to John M. Andersen entitled ``Antidumping Duty Investigation on 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan--Selection of 
Respondents'' dated May 21, 2009.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine the use of facts 
otherwise available with an adverse inference is appropriate for the 
preliminary determination with respect to Ipsido.

A. Use of Facts Available

    As indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above, Ipsido 
did not respond to our questionnaire dated May 26, 2009. As such, 
Ipsido withheld information necessary to calculate a margin for its 
sales to the United States. Section 776(a)(2) of the the Act provides 
that, if an interested party withholds information requested by the 
administering authority, fails to provide such information by the 
deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner 
requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, 
significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or provides such 
information but the information cannot be verified as provided in 
section 782(i) of the Act, the administering authority shall use, 
subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(e) of the Act states 
further that the Department shall not decline to consider submitted 
information if 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; (5) the information can be used without 
undue difficulties.
    In this case, Ipsido did not respond to our questionnaire and, 
thus, has determined not to cooperate with our requests for information 
or to participate in this investigation. Ipsido's decision to abstain 
from participation in this investigation has precluded the Department 
from performing the necessary analysis and verification of Ipsido's 
questionnaire responses required by section 782(i)(1) of the Act. 
Because Ipsido chose to abstain from the proceeding and did not provide 
any information to the Department, section 782(e) of the Act is not 
applicable.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available

    Section 776(b) of the Act stipulates that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department 
may use an inference adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar 
from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005), and Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). It is the Department's 
practice to apply adverse inferences to ensure that the party does not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully. See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol.1 (1994) 
at 870 (SAA); see, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: 
Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
72 FR 69663 (December 10, 2007). Furthermore, affirmative evidence of 
bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the 
Department may make an adverse inference. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 
Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 
2000), Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR at 27340, and 
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (CAFC 2003) 
(Nippon).
    Although we provided Ipsido with notice informing it of the 
consequences of its failure to respond fully to our antidumping 
questionnaire, Ipsido refrained from participation in this 
investigation and has failed to provide any response to our request for 
information. This constitutes a failure on the part of Ipsido to 
cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information by the Department pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
    Based on the above, the Department has preliminarily determined 
that Ipsido has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and, 
therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an 
adverse inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 
Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Japan, 65 FR at 42986 (the 
Department applied total adverse facts available (AFA) where the 
respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire).

C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available

    Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 868-
870. It is the Department's practice to use the highest rate from the 
petition in an investigation when a respondent fails to act to the best 
of its ability to provide the necessary information. See, e.g., Notice 
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose 
From Finland, 69 FR 77216 (December 27, 2004) (unchanged in Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified 
Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). 
Therefore, because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned 
to Ipsido the highest margin alleged in the petition, 95.81 percent, as 
discussed in

[[Page 55186]]

the Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 19054.
    When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the the Act 
provides that, where the Department relies on secondary information 
(such as the petition) rather than information obtained in the course 
of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent practicable, 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal.
    The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. See SAA at 870. As stated in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, 
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825, 11843 
(March 13, 1997)), to corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance 
of the information used. The Department's regulations state that 
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. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and the SAA at 870.
    For the purposes of this investigation and to the extent 
appropriate information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and 
accuracy of the information in the petition during our pre-initiation 
analysis and for purposes of this preliminary determination. See 
Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist dated April 20, 2009 
(Initiation Checklist), at 7 through 13. See also Initiation Notice, 74 
FR at 19051, 19053. We examined evidence supporting the calculations in 
the petition to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in 
the petition for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary 
determination. During our pre-initiation analysis we examined the key 
elements of the export-price (EP) and normal-value calculations used in 
the petition to derive margins. During our pre-initiation analysis we 
also examined information from various independent sources provided 
either in the petition or in supplements to the petition that 
corroborates key elements of the EP and normal-value calculations used 
in the petition to derive estimated margins. Id.
    Based on our examination of the information, as discussed in detail 
in the Initiation Checklist and the Initiation Notice, we consider the 
petitioners' calculation of normal value, based on constructed value, 
to be corroborated. Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and 
validity of the information underlying the derivation of margins in the 
petition by examining source documents as well as publicly available 
information, we preliminarily determine the margins in the petition are 
reliable for the purposes of this investigation.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 
6814 (February 22, 1996) (the Department disregarded the highest 
dumping margin as best information available because the margin was 
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting 
in an unusually high margin).
    Because Ipsido did not submit information we requested in this 
investigation, we do not have such information to consider in 
determining whether the petition rates are relevant to Ipsido. The 
calculation of the petition rates reflects commercial practices of the 
PRCBs industry and, as such, are relevant to Ipsido. The courts have 
acknowledged that the consideration of the commercial behavior inherent 
in the industry is important in determining the relevance of the 
selected AFA rate to the uncooperative respondent by virtue of it 
belonging to the same industry. See, e.g., Ferro Union, Inc. v. United 
States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1334 (1999). Such consideration typically 
encompasses the commercial behavior of other respondents under 
investigation and the selected AFA rate is gauged against the margins 
we calculate for those respondents. Therefore, we compared the 
transaction-specific margins of TCI for the POI to the highest petition 
rate. We found that the highest transaction-specific rates we 
calculated for TCI in this investigation were higher than or within the 
range of the highest margin alleged in the petition.
    Specifically, after calculating the margin for TCI as discussed in 
detail below, we examined individual transactions made by TCI during 
the POI and the margins we determined on those transactions in order to 
determine whether the rate of 95.81 percent is probative. We found a 
sale with a dumping margin above the rate of 95.81 percent and a number 
of sales with dumping margins within the range of 95.81 percent. 
Accordingly, the AFA rate is relevant as applied to Ipsido for this 
investigation because it falls within the range of TCI's transaction-
specific margins in the current investigation. See Ta Chen Stainless 
Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330, 1340 (CAFC 2002) 
(``Because Commerce selected a dumping margin within the range of Ta 
Chen's actual sales data, we cannot conclude that Commerce `overreached 
reality'.''). Accordingly, we find that the 95.81 percent rate in the 
petition has probative value for use as AFA for Ipsido in this 
investigation.
    Similar to our position in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 
Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 53405 (September 11, 2006) (unchanged in Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982 (January 17, 2007)), because this is 
the first proceeding involving this company, we find there are no 
probative alternatives to the margins alleged in the petition. Further, 
no information has been presented in the investigation that calls into 
question the relevance of the margins alleged in the petition. 
Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated in the pre-
initiation stage of this investigation and preliminarily determining it 
to be relevant for the uncooperative respondent in this investigation, 
we have corroborated the AFA rate of 95.81 percent ``to the extent 
practicable'' as provided in section 776(c) of the Act. See also 19 CFR 
351.308(d).
    Therefore, with respect to Ipsido, we have used, as AFA, the 
highest margin in the petition of 95.81 percent, as set forth in the 
notice of initiation. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 19054.

Affiliation and Collapsing

    Section 771(33)(F) of the Act defines affiliated persons as two or 
more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or 
under

[[Page 55187]]

common control with any person. We find that TCI, Tis Dis, and 
Corporate Best are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the 
Act. Further, we find that CBM and TCI were affiliated during the 
majority of the POI pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act. Because 
our analysis of affiliation involves extensive use of business-
proprietary information, for a detailed discussion, see Memorandum to 
Laurie Parkhill entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 
Taiwan--Collapsing of Affiliated Producers'' dated October 19, 2009 
(Collapsing Memo).
    Section 351.401(f) of the Department's regulations outlines the 
criteria for collapsing (i.e., treating as a single entity) affiliated 
producers for purposes of calculating a dumping margin. The regulations 
state that we will treat two or more affiliated producers as a single 
entity where (1) those producers have production facilities for similar 
or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of 
either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities and 
(2) we conclude that there is a significant potential for the 
manipulation of price or production. In identifying a significant 
potential for the manipulation of price or production, the Department 
may consider the following factors: (i) The level of common ownership; 
(ii) the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one 
firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; (iii) whether 
operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales 
information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the 
sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between 
the affiliated producers. See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2).
    With respect to the first criterion of 19 CFR 351.401(f), the 
information on the record indicates that TCI and Tis Dis currently 
produce and/or have the potential to produce similar or identical 
products. Further, the information on the record indicates that 
Corporate Best provided cutting, sealing, and packaging services to Tis 
Dis and Tis Dis provided the same services to TCI for the production of 
PRCBs during the POI. Thus, with respect to TCI, Tis Dis, and Corporate 
Best, we find that no substantial retooling of any of these entities' 
facilities would be required to restructure the manufacturing 
priorities because information on the record indicates they use similar 
production processes, production facilities, and production equipment 
to produce PRCBs. See Collapsing Memo. Because the facilities of TCI, 
Tis Dis, and Corporate Best either produce or have the potential to 
produce identical and similar products, the companies could shift 
production priorities from one company to the other without incurring 
prohibitive costs.
    We also find that a significant potential for manipulation of 
prices, production costs, and production priorities exists pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). Specifically, the information on the record 
indicates that TCI, Tis Dis, and Corporate Best have high levels of 
common ownership. Further, the information on the record indicates that 
there is overlap in managerial employees and/or board members among 
these companies. See Collapsing Memo. Finally, the information on the 
record indicates that operations among these companies are intertwined 
at a significant level. See Collapsing Memo. Therefore, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.401(f), for this preliminary determination we have treated 
affiliated producers TCI, Tis Dis, and Corporate Best as a single 
entity for purposes of calculating a dumping margin.
    We do not find that a significant potential for the manipulation of 
prices, production costs, and production priorities exists with respect 
to CBM. The information on the record of this investigation does not 
suggest that there were significant transactions between CBM and TCI 
(or Tis Dis or Corporate Best) during the POI. Moreover, the level of 
common ownership and extent of manager/board-member overlap between CBM 
and TCI is not sufficient to find a significant potential for the 
manipulation of price or production on this basis alone. See Collapsing 
Memo.

Targeted-Dumping Allegation

    The statute allows the Department to employ the average-to-
transaction margin-calculation methodology under the following 
circumstances: (1) There is a pattern of export prices that differ 
significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time; (2) the 
Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into account 
using the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction methodology. 
See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
    On August 7, 2009, the petitioners submitted an allegation of 
targeted dumping with respect to TCI and asserted that the Department 
should apply the average-to-transaction methodology in calculating the 
margin for TCI. In their allegation, the petitioners assert that there 
are patterns of EPs and constructed export prices (CEPs) for comparable 
merchandise that differ significantly among purchasers, regions, and 
time periods. The petitioners relied on the Department's targeted-
dumping test in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the Republic of Korea, 72 FR 
60630 (October 25, 2007) (CFS); the petitioners also made their 
allegations using the Department's test in Certain Steel Nails from the 
United Arab Emirates: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not 
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008), and Certain Steel 
Nails from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 2008) (collectively, 
Nails).
    Because our analysis includes business-proprietary information, for 
a full discussion see Memorandum to Gary Taverman entitled ``Less-Than-
Fair-Value Investigation on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 
Taiwan: Targeted Dumping,'' dated October 19, 2009 (Targeted-Dumping 
Memo).
    In our letter to the petitioners dated September 4, 2009, we stated 
that the petitioners' allegation using the CFS methodology lacked 
certain analysis for appropriately establishing the significance of 
differences in pricing patterns between targeted and non-targeted 
sales. In that letter we also stated that, because the methodology in 
Nails is our current targeted-dumping methodology, we planned to 
evaluate any targeted-dumping allegation concerning TCI only in the 
context of the determination we made in Nails. We also identified 
certain ministerial errors we had found in the computer program that 
was used in Nails and alerted the petitioners that they could re-submit 
their allegation which incorporates these corrections. The petitioners 
did not submit a revised allegation of targeted dumping with respect to 
TCI.
    On October 1, 2009, the petitioners submitted comments for 
consideration in the preliminary determination. Specifically, the 
petitioners' comments relate to the issue of determining the proper 
rounding of prices in the targeting-dumping test and the issue of 
application of the average-to-transaction comparison method to all 
sales (not just to targeted sales) in an effort to unmask dumping 
associated with targeted sales.

A. Targeted-Dumping Test

    After correcting certain ministerial errors mentioned above and 
described in detail in our September 4, 2009, letter, we conducted 
customer, regional, and time-period targeted-dumping analyses for TCI 
using the methodology we adopted in Nails and used most

[[Page 55188]]

recently in Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008) (Tires).
    The methodology we employed involves a two-stage test; the first 
stage addresses the pattern requirement and the second stage addresses 
the significant-difference requirement. See section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act and Nails. In this test we made all price comparisons on the 
basis of identical merchandise (i.e., by control number or CONNUM). The 
test procedures are the same for the customer, region, and time-period 
targeted-dumping allegations. We based all of our targeted-dumping 
calculations on the U.S. net price which we determined for U.S. sales 
by TCI in our standard margin calculations. For further discussion of 
the test and the results, see the Targeted-Dumping Memo.
    As a result of our analysis, we preliminarily determine that there 
is a pattern of EPs and CEPs for comparable merchandise that differ 
significantly among certain customers, regions, and time periods for 
TCI in accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and our 
practice as discussed in Nails.

B. Price-Comparison Method

    Section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act states that the Department may 
compare the weighted average of the normal value to EPs or CEPs of 
individual transactions for comparable merchandise if the Department 
explains why differences in the patterns of EPs and CEPs cannot be 
taken into account using the average-to-average methodology. As 
described above, we have preliminarily determined that, with respect to 
sales by TCI for certain customers, regions, or time-periods, there was 
a pattern of prices that differ significantly. We find that these 
differences cannot be taken into account using the average-to-average 
methodology because the average-to-average methodology conceals 
differences in the patterns of prices between the targeted and non-
targeted groups by averaging low-priced sales to the targeted group 
with high-priced sales to the non-targeted group.
    In December 2008, the Department withdrew the regulation concerning 
targeted dumping. See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing 
Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 72 FR 74930 
(December 10, 2008). The withdrawn targeted-dumping regulation normally 
would have limited the application of the average-to-transaction 
methodology to just those sales that constitute targeted dumping. In 
light of the withdrawn regulation and the petitioners' comments in this 
case, we have considered the following options:
    1. Apply the average-to-transaction methodology just to sales found 
to be targeted as the withdrawn regulation directed and, consistent 
with our average-to-transaction practice, do not offset any margins 
found on these transactions.
    2. Apply the average-to-transaction methodology to all sales to the 
customer, region, or time period found to be targeted (not just those 
specific sales found to be targeted) and, consistent with our average-
to-transaction practice, do not offset any margins found on these 
transactions.
    3. Apply the average-to-transaction methodology to all sales by TCI 
and, consistent with our average-to-transaction practice, do not offset 
any margins found on these transactions.
    The Department received comments on the price-comparison 
methodology in response to the Withdrawal of Regulation. Because 
consideration of those comments is still underway, for purposes of this 
preliminary determination and consistent with our practice in the Nails 
investigations, we have applied the average-to-transaction methodology 
to any targeted sales and applied the average-to-average methodology to 
the remaining non-targeted sales. When calculating the weighted-average 
margin, we combined the margin we calculated for the targeted sales 
with the margin we calculated for the non-targeted sales without 
offsetting any margins found among the targeted sales. See Targeted-
Dumping Memo.
    We invite interested parties to comment on the issue of the 
appropriate price-comparison methodology to use for the final 
determination in this investigation. Further, given the timing and 
complexity of the petitioners' October 1, 2009, comments, we intend to 
address such comments fully in the context of the final determination.

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the 
Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the 
producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business, as the date of sale. The regulation provides further that the 
Department may use a date other than the date of the invoice if the 
Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date 
on which the material terms of sale are established. The Department has 
a long-standing practice of finding that, where shipment date precedes 
invoice date, shipment date better reflects the date on which the 
material terms of sale are established. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned 
Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Structural Steel Beams From Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Based on 
record evidence, where shipment date occurs before the invoice date, 
all material terms of sale are set and do not change in the subsequent 
time, including the invoice date. Therefore, for home-market sales we 
used the earlier of shipment date or invoice date as the date of sale 
in accordance with our practice.
    On October 8, 2009, the petitioners commented on the use of the 
long-term contract date as the date of sale for certain U.S. sales made 
pursuant to the long-term contract. Because there is insufficient time 
to analyze the record or gather additional information as necessary, we 
will continue to examine this issue and address it for the final 
determination.

Fair-Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PRCBs to the United States by TCI 
were made at LTFV during the POI, we compared EP or CEP to normal 
value, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 
we calculated POI-wide weighted-average EPs and CEPs except for those 
sales discussed above in the ``Targeted-Dumping Allegation'' section of 
this notice.

Product Comparisons

    We have taken into account the comments that were submitted by the 
interested parties concerning product-comparison criteria. In 
accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products TCI produced 
that are covered by the description in the ``Scope of the 
Investigation'' section, above, and sold in Taiwan during the POI are 
considered to be foreign like product for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on 
thirteen criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to

[[Page 55189]]

home-market sales of the foreign like product: quality, bag type, 
length, width, gusset, thickness, percentage of high-density 
polyethylene resin, percentage of low-density polyethylene resin, 
percentage of low linear-density polyethylene resin, percentage of 
color concentrate, percentage of ink coverage, number of ink colors, 
and number of sides printed. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade for 
comparison to U.S. sales, we matched U.S. sales to the next most 
similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed 
above.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for TCI's 
sales where the subject merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated 
customers in the United States prior to importation. In accordance with 
section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for those sales where the 
subject merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United 
States before or after the date of importation by a seller affiliated 
with the producer or exporter to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter.
    We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or 
delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, 
the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts 
and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See the TCI Analysis 
Memorandum to the file dated October 19, 2009, for additional 
information.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA at 823-
824, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated 
with economic activities occurring in the United States which includes 
commissions, direct selling expenses, and indirect selling expenses. 
Finally, we made an adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses 
in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home-Market Viability and Comparison-Market Selection

    To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal value 
(i.e., the aggregate volume of home-market sales of the foreign like 
product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales), we compared TCI's volume of home-market sales of 
the foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. See section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Based on this 
comparison, we determined that TCI had a viable home market during the 
POI. Consequently, we based normal value on home-market sales.

B. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(1), the normal-value level of trade is based on the starting 
price of the sales in the comparison market or, when normal value is 
based on constructed value, the starting price of the sales from which 
we derive selling, general and administrative expenses and profit. For 
EP sales, the U.S. level of trade is based on the starting price of the 
sales in the U.S. market, which is usually from the exporter to the 
importer. For CEP sales, the U.S. level of trade is based on the 
starting price of the U.S. sales as adjusted under section 772(d) of 
the Act, which is from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether comparison-market sales are at a different 
level of trade than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing 
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between 
the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 
If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and 
the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern 
of consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value 
is based and the comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the 
export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the normal-value level of 
trade is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP level of 
trade and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in 
levels of trade affects price comparability, we adjust normal value 
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731 
(November 19, 1997).
    In this investigation, we obtained information from TCI regarding 
the marketing stages involved in making its reported home-market and 
U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities TCI (or, 
where applicable, its affiliate(s)) performed for each channel of 
distribution.
    During the POI, TCI reported that it sold PRCBs in the home market 
to retailers through two channels of distribution, direct sales and 
consignment sales. We found that the selling activities associated with 
these channels of distribution did not differ.\1\ Accordingly, we found 
that the two home-market channels of distribution constituted a single 
level of trade for home-market sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although TCI designated the provision of warranty services 
for one home-market channel of distribution and incurrence of 
commissions in the other as the only selling functions allegedly 
differentiating the two channels, we did not consider them in our 
level-of-trade analysis because we adjust the starting price in the 
comparison market for these direct selling expenses pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TCI reported that its EP sales were made using two channels of 
distribution, direct F.O.B. Taiwan sales to retailers and sales to a 
Taiwanese trading company for export to a retail customer in the United 
States. We found that the selling activities associated with these 
channels of distribution did not differ. Accordingly, we found that the 
two EP channels of distribution constituted a single level of trade. We 
found that the EP level of trade was not similar to the home-market 
level of trade in terms of selling activities. For example, we found 
that the two levels of trade differ with respect to sales forecasting, 
strategic and economic planning, direct sales personnel, and inventory 
maintenance.\2\ Accordingly, we considered the EP level of trade to be 
different from the home-market level of trade and to be at a less 
advanced stage of distribution than the home-market level of trade. 
Therefore, we could not match EP sales to sales at the same level of 
trade in the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade 
adjustment because there is only one level of trade in the home market. 
See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Furthermore, we have no other 
information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-
of-trade adjustment. Thus, we matched EP sales without regard to level 
of trade in the home market and made no level-of-trade adjustment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although TCI designated the provision of rebates and 
commissions in the home-market channels of distribution and reported 
that it did not provide such functions for its EP channels of 
distribution, we did not consider these functions in our level-of-
trade analysis because we adjust the starting price in the 
comparison market for these direct selling expenses pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to CEP sales, although TCI made the sales to 
unaffiliated retail customers through two reported channels of 
distribution, we found both CEP channels of distribution similar in

[[Page 55190]]

terms of selling activities. For example, we found that the two 
channels differ only with respect to the provision of inventory 
maintenance.\3\ Therefore, we considered the CEP to constitute only one 
level of trade. In comparing the home-market level of trade to the CEP 
level of trade, we found that the selling activities performed by TCI 
for its CEP sales were not significantly fewer than the selling 
activities that it performed for its home-market sales and that the 
home-market level of trade was not significantly more remote from the 
factory than the CEP level of trade.\4\ Accordingly, we did not 
consider the CEP level of trade to be different from the home-market 
level of trade or at a less advanced stage of distribution than the 
home-market level of trade. Therefore, we matched CEP sales to sales at 
the same level of trade in the home market; as a result, no CEP-offset 
or level-of-trade adjustment with regard to CEP sales comparisons was 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although TCI designated the provision of discounts, 
commissions, and rebates as well as the incurrence of freight and 
customs-related expenses for one U.S. channel of distribution and 
not in the other as the only remaining selling functions allegedly 
differentiating the two channels, we did not consider these 
functions in our level-of-trade analysis because we adjust the 
starting CEP for these direct selling and movement expenses pursuant 
to section 772(d)(1) of the Act.
    \4\ TCI made statements on the record asserting that it 
considers its level of trade to the affiliated importer the same as 
its level of trade in the home market; it did not claim a CEP 
offset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Cost of Production

    Based on our analysis of the petitioners' allegation, we found that 
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that TCI made sales 
of PRCBs in the home market at prices below their COP. Accordingly, 
pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a sales-below-cost 
investigation to determine whether these companies had sales that were 
made at prices below their respective COP. See Memorandum to John M. 
Andersen entitled ``Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation on Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan: Request to Initiate Cost Investigation 
for TCI Plastic Co. Ltd.,'' dated August 12, 2009.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product plus an amount for general and administrative 
expenses (G&A), interest expenses, and home-market packing costs (see 
the ``Test of Home-Market Sales Prices'' section below for treatment of 
home-market selling expenses and packing costs). We relied on the COP 
data submitted by TCI in its October 5, 2009, supplemental response to 
our questionnaire with certain exceptions.
    We increased TCI's reported cost of manufacturing (COM) to account 
for the unreconciled difference between the COM from its normal books 
and records and the COM it reported in its responses to our 
questionnaire. In accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the Act, we 
adjusted TCI's COM to reflect the higher of transfer price, market 
price, or cost of resins, a major input used in the production of PRCBs 
that were purchased from an affiliated company. For further discussion, 
see Memorandum to Neal Halper entitled ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Determination--TCI Plastic Co. Ltd. and Tis Dis International Co. 
Ltd.'' dated October 19, 2009.
    Further, we requested that TCI provide additional information 
related to the use of virgin versus recycled resins in the production 
of merchandise under consideration. Although TCI provided a response to 
our request for additional information, we find this information to be 
incomplete. As a result, for this preliminary determination, we do not 
have all of the information necessary to examine and analyze TCI's 
reported methodology for the allocation of resin costs. We intend to 
solicit additional cost information from TCI after the preliminary 
determination for consideration in the final determination.
2. Test of Home-Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home-market sales of the foreign like product, as 
required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the 
sales were made at prices below the COP. For purposes of this 
comparison, we used the COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. 
The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, direct 
and indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses and we adjusted the 
home-market prices for discounts.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less 
than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at prices 
less than COP, we determine that such sales have been made in 
``substantial quantities'' and, thus, we disregard below-cost sales. 
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, we determine that the 
sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examine below-cost sales 
occurring during the entire POI. In such cases, because we compare 
prices to POI-average costs, we also determine that such sales were not 
made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act.
    In this case, we found that, for certain specific products, more 
than 20 percent of TCI's home-market sales were at prices less than the 
COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of 
costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded 
these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining 
normal value in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home-Market Prices

    We based normal value for TCI on packed, delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made an adjustment to the 
starting price, where appropriate, for discounts in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.401(c). We made deductions, where appropriate, for movement 
expenses, limited to inland freight, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of 
the Act. See the TCI Analysis Memorandum to the file dated October 19, 
2009, for additional information.
    For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 
deducting home-market direct selling expenses from, and adding U.S. 
direct selling expenses to, normal value. For comparisons to CEP, we 
made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct 
selling expenses from normal value. We also made adjustments in EP and 
CEP calculations, when applicable, for home-market indirect selling 
expenses incurred for U.S. sales to offset home-market commissions.
    We 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. We deducted home-market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

[[Page 55191]]

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on 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 
usable 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, selling, 
general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, interest 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, financial expenses, and profit on the amounts incurred and 
realized by TCI in connection with the production and sale of the 
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in 
the home market.
    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. For comparisons to 
EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market 
direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to 
constructed value. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from 
constructed value. We also made adjustments in EP and CEP comparisons, 
when applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses incurred for 
U.S. sales to offset home-market commissions.
    When possible, we calculated constructed value at the same level of 
trade with respect to CEP sales or without regard to level of trade 
with respect to EP sales.

Currency Conversion

    It is our normal practice to make currency conversions into U.S. 
dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on exchange 
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information relied upon in making our final determination for TCI.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of PRCBs from Taiwan that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average margins, 
as indicated below, as follows: (1) The rates for TCI and Ipsido will 
be the rates we have determined in this preliminary determination; (2) 
if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the 
producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of 
the subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all other producers or 
exporters will be 28.69 percent, as discussed in the ``All-Others 
Rate'' section, below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions 
will remain in effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                    Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ipsido Corporation..........................................       95.81
TCI Plastic Co., Ltd........................................       28.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-
others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the 
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters 
and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or de 
minimis margins and any margins determined entirely under section 776 
of the Act. TCI is the only respondent in this investigation for which 
the Department has calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for 
purposes of determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section 
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping 
margin calculated for TCI, 28.69 percent. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999), and 
Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination, 72 FR 30753, 30757 (June 4, 2007) (unchanged in 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated 
Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 60636 (October 25, 2007)).

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed in our preliminary 
determination to interested parties in this proceeding in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination. If the Department's 
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the 
later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 
45 days after our final determination whether imports of PRCBs from 
Taiwan are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the 
U.S. industry (see section 735(b)(2) of the Act). Because we are 
postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from 
the date of the publication of this preliminary determination, as 
discussed below, the ITC will make its final determination no later 
than 45 days after our final determination.

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the 
Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of 
the last verification report in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs, the 
content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, 
must be filed within five days from the deadline date for the 
submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). A list of authorities 
used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should 
accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(2). Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting 
briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the 
public version of such briefs on diskette.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold 
a public hearing, if timely requested, to afford interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on issues raised in case briefs, provided that 
such a hearing is requested by an interested party. See also 19 CFR 
351.310. If a timely request for a hearing is made in this 
investigation, we intend to hold the hearing two days after the 
deadline for filing a rebuttal brief at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm 
by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours 
before the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain

[[Page 55192]]

the following: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) 
a list of participants; (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited 
to issues raised in the briefs.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise or, in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations 
requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    On September 17, 2009, TCI requested that, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination by 60 days. At the same 
time, TCI requested that the Department extend the application of the 
provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month period to a six-month period. In 
accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), 
because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the 
requesting e