Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 16431-16434 [2010-7392]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 62 (Thursday, April 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16431-16434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7392]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-560-822]


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined 
that imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Indonesia 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value (LFTV) as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are listed 
in the ``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this 
notice.

DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer or Yang Jin Chun, 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-
0410 or (202) 482-5760, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 3, 2009, the Department published Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bags from Indonesia: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 56807 
(November 3, 2009), as amended in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 
Indonesia: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 74 FR 63720 (December 4, 2009) (collectively, Preliminary 
Determination), in the Federal Register. We selected the following 
companies for individual examination: P.T. Super Exim Sari Ltd. and 
P.T. Super Makmur (collectively, SESSM); \1\ P.T. Sido Bangun (SBI). 
See Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 56808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because these two companies function as one common corporate 
entity that share common sales and production facilities, we have 
treated SESSM as one company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 16, 2009, SBI informed the Department that it would not 
participate in the verification of its information and withdrew from 
the investigation. See SBI's withdrawal letter to the Department dated 
November 16, 2009. SBI requested that the Department remove all of its 
submissions from the administrative record and certify the destruction 
of the submissions that are in the possession of interested parties to 
the investigation. Id. We have decided to retain all of SBI's 
submissions in the administrative record of this investigation because 
this information serves as the basis for SBI's margin. See Memorandum 
to Laurie Parkhill entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 
Indonesia--PT Sido Bangun's Request That Its Submissions Be Removed 
from the Administrative Record'' dated March 25, 2010, incorporated 
herein by reference.
    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted sales and 
cost verifications of the questionnaire responses submitted by SESSM. 
We used standard verification procedures, including examination of 
relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source 
documents provided by SESSM. See Memoranda to the File entitled 
``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia: Sales Verification 
of P.T. Super Exim Sari Ltd. and P.T. Super Makmur'' and ``Verification 
of the Cost Response of P.T. Super Exim Sari Ltd. and P.T. Super Makmur 
in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags from Indonesia'' dated January 11, 2010, and January 12, 2010, 
respectively. All verification reports are on file and available in the 
Central Records Unit, Room 1117, of the main Department of Commerce 
building.
    On December 29, 2009, SESSM submitted the sales and cost databases 
with revisions that reflect SESSM's minor corrections before the 
verifications and the Department's findings of SESSM's reporting errors 
during the verifications. See SESSM's December 29, 2009, submission of 
the sales and cost databases.
    SESSM and the petitioners \2\ filed their case briefs with the 
Department on January 22, 2010, and rebuttal briefs on January 27, 
2010. At the petitioners' request, we held a hearing, including a 
closed session where parties discussed business-proprietary 
information, on January 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioners in this investigation are Hilex Poly Co. LLC 
and Superbag Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We used SESSM's December 29, 2009, sales and cost databases to 
calculate SESSM's antidumping duty margin. No parties have objected to 
the use of these databases.
    As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, we have exercised our discretion to toll 
deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government 
from February 5 through February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines in this 
investigation have been extended by seven days. The revised deadline 
for the final determination of this investigation is now March 25, 
2010. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 
Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines 
As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' 
dated February 12, 2010.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation 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 
(15.24 cm) but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).

[[Page 16432]]

    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.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this antidumping duty investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia'' (Decision Memorandum) 
from Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Operations John M. Andersen to Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration Ronald K. Lorentzen dated March 25, 
2010, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues 
which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which 
are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an 
appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised 
in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in the 
Decision Memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit of the 
main Department of Commerce building, Room 1117, and is accessible on 
the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Targeted Dumping

    In the Preliminary Determination, we followed the methodology we 
adopted 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), used most 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). See Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 56808-09. Based on 
the targeted-dumping test that we applied in the Preliminary 
Determination, we found a pattern of export prices for comparable 
merchandise that differ significantly among certain time periods. Id. 
As a result and following the methodology in Nails, in the Preliminary 
Determination we applied the average-to-transaction comparison 
methodology to SESSM's targeted sales and the average-to-average 
comparison methodology to SESSM's non-targeted sales. In calculating 
SESSM's weighted-average margin, we combined the margin we calculated 
for the targeted sales with the margin we calculated for the non-
targeted sales and did not offset any margins found among the targeted 
sales. See Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 56809.
    In the Preliminary Determination we announced that, given the 
withdrawal of the regulations that guided our practice in Nails, we 
would consider various options regarding the specific group of sales to 
which we apply the average-to-transaction methodology (the withdrawn 
targeted-dumping regulation would have limited such application to just 
the targeted sales). Id. We requested comments on the following three 
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, not offset any 
margins found on these transactions; (2) apply the average-to-
transaction methodology to all sales to the time period found to be 
targeted (not just those specific sales found to be targeted) and, 
consistent with our average-to transaction practice, not offset any 
margins found on these transactions; (3) apply the average-to-
transaction methodology to all sales by SESSM and, consistent with our 
average-to-transaction practice, not offset any margins found on these 
transactions. Id.
    For the final determination, we find that, in this investigation, 
the result using the standard average-to-average methodology is not 
substantially different from that using the alternative average-to-
transaction methodology. Accordingly, for this final determination we 
have applied the standard average-to-average methodology to all U.S. 
sales that SESSM reported. For a complete discussion, see the Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at 
verification, we have made certain changes to the margin calculation 
for SESSM. For a discussion of these changes, see the Decision 
Memorandum and ``Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags from Indonesia--Analysis Memorandum for P.T. Super Exim Sari Ltd. 
and P.T. Super Makmur'' dated March 25, 2010, and ``Cost of Production 
and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final 
Determination--P.T. Super Exim Sari, Ltd. and P.T. Super Makmur'' dated 
March 25, 2010. For SBI, we applied adverse facts available in 
accordance with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. See the ``Use of Facts 
Otherwise Available'' section below and the Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 6.

Cost of Production

    As explained in the Preliminary Determination, we conducted an 
investigation concerning sales at prices below the cost of production 
in the home market. We found that, for certain specific products, more 
than 20 percent of SESSM's home-market sales were at prices less than 
the cost of production 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. Based on this test, for this final determination we have 
disregarded below-cost sales by SESSM.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly

[[Page 16433]]

impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or provides such 
information but the information cannot be verified, the Department 
shall, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, use facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
    Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Department to use 
facts available when a party provides information but that information 
cannot be verified. 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.
    As explained above, after the publication of the Preliminary 
Determination, SBI notified the Department that it would no longer 
participate in this antidumping investigation and that it would not 
participate in any verification. See letter from SBI dated November 16, 
2009. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, in reaching our final 
determination we have used total facts available for SBI because we 
could not verify SBI's data. Also, because SBI refused to participate 
in the verification of its responses, we find that SBI has failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act, we have used an adverse inference in selecting from 
the facts available for the margin for SBI. We have assigned 85.17 
percent as the margin. This was the highest control-number-specific 
margin we found for SBI for the Preliminary Determination. See page 54 
of the margin program output attached to ``Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia--Analysis Memorandum 
for PT Sido Bangun Indonesia'' dated October 27, 2009. See the Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6 for further discussion.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation 
of all entries of subject merchandise from Indonesia entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 3, 2009, 
the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination. We will 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal 
to the weighted-average margin, as indicated below, as follows: (1) The 
rates for SESSM and SBI will be the rates we have determined in this 
final 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 69.64 percent as discussed 
in the ``All-Others Rate'' section below. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

Final Determination

    The final antidumping duty margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Manufacturer/exporter                  margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.T. Sido Bangun Indonesia..........................               85.17
P.T. Super Exim Sari Ltd. and P.T. Super Makmur.....               69.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 producers 
and exporters individually investigated excluding any zero or de 
minimis margins and any margins determined entirely under section 776 
of the Act. SESSM is the only respondent in this investigation for 
which we have 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 SESSM which is 69.64 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 within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our 
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine within 45 
days whether imports of the subject merchandise are causing material 
injury or threat of material injury to an industry in the United 
States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury 
does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities 
posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such 
injury does exist, we will issue an antidumping duty order directing 
CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

Destruction of Proprietary Information

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO as explained in the APO itself. See 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 
written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion 
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 
with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.


[[Page 16434]]


    Dated: March 25, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

List of Issues in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

    1. Targeted Dumping.
    2. Level of Trade.
    3. Adverse Facts Available.
    4. Home-Market Credit Expenses.
    5. General and Administrative Expenses.

[FR Doc. 2010-7392 Filed 3-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P