Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 30102-30107 [2011-12804]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30102-30107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12804]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-821]


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier 
bags (PRCBs) from Thailand. The review covers 11

[[Page 30103]]

companies. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2009, through July 
31, 2010. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made 
below normal value by the companies subject to this review.
    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.

DATES: Effective Date: May 24, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Bryan Hansen or Dustin Ross, 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-
3683 or (202) 482-0747, 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). On September 29, 2010, we published a notice of 
initiation of an administrative review of 11 companies. See Initiation 
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 60076 (September 29, 2010).\1\ 
Since initiation of the review, we selected Landblue (Thailand) Co., 
Ltd. (Landblue), and Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd. (TPBI), for 
individual examination. See the ``Selection of Respondents'' section 
below. The order on PRCBs from Thailand was revoked in part with 
respect to merchandise produced and exported by TPBI, effective July 
28, 2010.\2\ Therefore, the POR for TPBI is August 1, 2009, through 
July 27, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We stated that the review covers the following companies: 
First Pack Co. Ltd., Hi-Pack Company, Ltd., ITW Minigrip (Thailand) 
Co. Ltd., K International Packaging Co., Ltd., Landblue (Thailand) 
Co., Ltd., Praise Home Industry, Co. Ltd., Siam Flexible Industries 
Co., Ltd., Thai Jirun Co., Ltd., Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., 
Ltd., Trinity Pac Co. Ltd., U. Yong Industry Co., Ltd. Id., 75 FR at 
60078. The Department has determined previously that TPBI, APEC Film 
Ltd., and Winner's Pack Co., Ltd., comprise the Thai Plastic Bags 
Group. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand, 69 FR 34122, 
34123 (June 18, 2004).
    \2\ See Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 
129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of 
the Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 
Thailand, 75 FR 48940 (August 12, 2010) (TPBI Revocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The POR is August 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010. 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 the order 
is dispositive.

Selection of Respondents

    Due to the large number of companies for which a request for a 
review had been made and the resulting administrative burden to examine 
each company, the Department exercised its authority to limit the 
number of respondents selected for 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 allows the Department to limit its examination to 
either a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is 
statistically valid, based on the information available at the time of 
selection, or exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume 
of subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be 
reasonably examined.
    Accordingly, based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) import data on the record of this review (see letters 
from Laurie Parkhill to the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee 
and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corp., 
and to TPBI dated October 6, 2010, and to Landblue dated October 21, 
2010) and our available resources, we selected Landblue and TPBI for 
individual examination. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill regarding 
respondent selection dated October 29, 2010.

Non-Selected Respondents

    The Department normally calculates a weighted-average margin of the 
examined companies and then applies that margin to companies not 
examined individually. See section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act (providing 
for this analysis in calculating the ``all others'' rate in 
investigations). We cannot calculate such a rate in this case, however, 
because with only two companies being individually examined such a 
calculation would reveal business-proprietary information impermissibly 
to the respondents we have selected for individual examination.
    In such situations, it is our normal practice to use one of two 
alternative methodologies. We might calculate a weighted-average 
antidumping margin using the publicly available ranged U.S. sales 
values and antidumping duty margins of the two selected respondents or 
we might calculate a simple average of the margins we have determined 
for the two companies we have selected for individual examination. See 
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-
Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661 
(September 1, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1. The methodology we choose depends on which result is closer 
to the actual weighted-average margin we can calculate using the 
information in the margin calculations of the companies we selected for 
individual examination. See id.

[[Page 30104]]

    In this review, we have preliminarily concluded that the weighted-
average margin we calculated using Landblue's and TPBI's ranged U.S. 
sales values is closer to the actual weighted-average margin of these 
companies than the margin we calculated using the simple average. 
Accordingly, we have applied, for these preliminary results, the rate 
of 30.22 percent to the firms not individually examined in this review 
using the weighted-average margin we determined using public ranged 
U.S. sales values Landblue and TPBI submitted for the record of the 
review. See the Memorandum to the File concerning Margin Calculation 
for Respondents Not Selected for Individual Examination dated 
concurrently with this notice for an explanation of our calculations.

No-Shipments Respondents

    On October 29, 2010, Hi-Pack Company, Ltd. (Hi-Pack), and on 
December 10, 2010, ITW Minigrip (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (ITW Minigrip) 
submitted letters indicating that they made no sales to the United 
States during the POR. We have not received any comments on the 
submissions from Hi-Pack or ITW Minigrip. We confirmed Hi-Pack's and 
ITW Minigrip's claims of no shipments by issuing ``No-Shipments 
Inquiry'' messages to CBP on November 10, 2010, and December 28, 2010, 
respectively.
    With regard to Hi-Pack's and ITW Minigrip's claims of no shipments, 
our practice since implementation of the 1997 regulations concerning 
no-shipments respondents has been to rescind the administrative review 
if the respondent certifies that it had no shipments and we have 
confirmed through our examination of CBP data that there were no 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997), and 
Oil Country Tubular Goods From Japan: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 95 (January 
3, 2006). As a result, in such circumstances, we have normally 
instructed CBP to liquidate any entries from the no-shipment company at 
the deposit rate in effect on the date of entry.
    In our May 6, 2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we 
explained that, where respondents in an administrative review 
demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to 
the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 
the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (May 2003 Clarification).
    Based on the assertions by Hi-Pack and ITW Minigrip of no shipments 
and no indication from CBP that there are suspended entries of subject 
merchandise from these firms, we preliminarily determine that they had 
no sales to the United States during the POR.
    Because ``as entered'' liquidation instructions do not alleviate 
the concerns which the May 2003 Clarification was intended to address, 
we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any 
existing entries of merchandise produced by Hi-Pack and ITW Minigrip at 
the all-others rate should we continue to find at the time of our final 
results that these firms had no shipments of subject merchandise from 
Thailand. See Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922, 26933 
(May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the Russian 
Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 
FR 56989 (September 17, 2010). See also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 77610, 77612 (December 19, 2008). In addition, the 
Department finds that it is more consistent with the May 2003 
Clarification not to rescind the review in part in these circumstances 
but, rather, to complete the review with respect to Hi-Pack and ITW 
Minigrip and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final 
results of the review. See the ``Assessment Rates'' section of this 
notice below.

Export Price

    For the price to the United States for Landblue and TPBI, we used 
export price (EP) as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. We 
calculated EP based on the packed free-on-board, delivered, or ex-works 
price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United 
States. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made deductions for any 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we made adjustments 
for duty drawback under Section 19 bis of the Thailand Customs Act (No. 
9) B.E. 2482 claimed by TPBI. For a detailed explanation of our 
calculations, see the company-specific analysis memoranda dated 
concurrently with this notice.

Comparison Market

    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 TPBI 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. TPBI'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) 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, in the ordinary course of 
trade, and at the same level of trade as TPBI's U.S. sales.
    We determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by 
Landblue in Thailand and to third countries was insufficient to permit 
a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the 
United States pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, for 
Landblue, we used constructed value as the basis of normal value in 
accordance with section 773(e) of the Act.

Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales of TPBI in the most recent administrative review of 
this company completed before the initiation of this review. See 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 65751 (December 11, 
2009). Therefore, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
TPBI'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. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we have conducted a COP analysis of TPBI's sales in 
Thailand in this review.
    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 home-
market sales

[[Page 30105]]

and COP information TPBI provided in its questionnaire responses.
    We relied on the COP data submitted by TPBI, including its 
allocation of costs for ink, plate, and solvents, except as follows:
    1. With respect to the allocation of direct labor, variable 
overhead, and fixed overhead costs, we have preliminarily determined 
that the methodology reported by TPBI unreasonably distorts the cost of 
manufacture for the subject merchandise and the foreign like product. 
This reported methodology is not only inconsistent with the methodology 
applied by TPBI in its books and records, it also results in a large 
variability in costs that have nothing to do with physical differences 
in the merchandise. Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, 
as facts otherwise available, we have weight-averaged TPBI's actual 
reported costs on a per-unit basis. Where TPBI's methodology results in 
significant differences in costs between physically similar 
merchandise, the Department's methodology allocates direct labor and 
overhead costs evenly across all of the merchandise TPBI produced. In 
this manner, the Department is able to diminish the possibility of 
under- or over-valuation of TPBI's costs. See Statement of 
Administrative Action, URAA, H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103rd Cong. (1994), 
at 834-5 (stating that, if the Department determines that costs 
reported by a respondent ``shifted away costs from the production of 
the subject merchandise, or the foreign like product,'' the Department 
has the authority to ``adjust costs appropriately to ensure that they 
(the costs) are not artificially reduced'').
    2. We adjusted TPBI's reported general and administrative (G&A) 
expense to remove an offset claimed by TPBI for revenue associated with 
the Government of Thailand's Blue Corner Rebate program because its 
claimed refunds relate to the export of merchandise and not the cost to 
produce its products. In addition, we included bank charges, office 
salaries, and claims expenses in the G&A expense rate calculation as 
these costs appear to relate to the general operations of the company.
    For additional details on these adjustments, see memorandum 
entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Thai Plastic Bags Industries 
Co., Ltd.'' dated concurrently with this notice.

Results of Cost Test and Cost-Recovery Test

    After calculating the COP in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like 
product for TPBI 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 home-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 TPBI's sales of a given product were made 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 TPBI's 
sales of a given product during the POR were made 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 
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act.
    Further, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we 
compared prices to weighted-average per-unit COPs for the POR and 
determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We examined 
the cost data and determined that our quarterly cost methodology is not 
warranted and, therefore, we have applied our standard methodology of 
using annual costs based on the data TPBI reported, adjusted as 
described in the ``Cost of Production'' section above. Because we are 
applying our standard annual-average cost test in these preliminary 
results, we have also applied our standard cost-recovery test with no 
adjustments. Based on both of these tests, we disregarded certain sales 
made by TPBI in the home market which were made at below-cost prices.

Model-Matching Methodology

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

Normal Value

    With respect to TPBI, we based home-market prices on the packed, 
ex-factory, or delivered prices to 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, adjusted as 
described in the ``Cost of Production'' section above, and for 
differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made circumstance-
of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses 
from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal value. U.S. 
direct selling expenses included bank charges incurred on payments 
received on export sales.
    TPBI has stated that its 2010 audited financial statements will not 
be available until May 2011. We have requested that TPBI provide copies 
of these statements within seven days of their completion. Therefore, 
we are using TPBI's 2009 financial statements for purposes of these 
preliminary results and intend to use its 2010 statements for the final 
results of review.
    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 for TPBI where we did not find an identical or 
similar item sold in the home market or when the identical or similar 
item was disregarded because it was below cost. We calculated

[[Page 30106]]

constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We 
included the cost of materials and fabrication, adjusted for TPBI as 
described in the ``Cost of Production'' section above. We also included 
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 TPBI in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like 
product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the home 
market.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used 
constructed value for Landlbue as the basis for normal value because 
Landblue's sales of foreign like product in its home market and to 
third countries were less than five percent of the volume of subject 
merchandise sales to the United States. We calculated constructed value 
in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included Landblue's 
reported cost of materials and fabrication. We also added Landblue's 
G&A expenses, revised to include certain expense items Landblue had 
omitted. Finally, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the 
Act, because Landblue had no sales in the home market or to any third 
countries, we added selling expenses and profit based on publically 
available financial statements for the fiscal year most contemporaneous 
with the POR of a company in Thailand, Thantawan Industry Public 
Company Limited (Thantawan). Thantawan produces products in the same 
general category of merchandise as PRCBs.
    For a detailed explanation of the calculation of constructed value 
for TPBI and Landblue, see the respective analysis memoranda for 
Landblue and TPBI dated concurrently with this notice.

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, for TPBI we determined normal value for 
sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. The level of trade 
for normal value is that of the starting-price sales in the home 
market. When normal value is based on constructed value, the level of 
trade is that of the sales from which we derived SG&A expense and 
profit.
    To determine whether home-market sales for TPBI were 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. This analysis revealed that 
there were not any significant differences in selling functions between 
different channels of distribution or customer type in either the home 
or U.S. markets. Therefore, we determined that TPBI made all home-
market sales at one level of trade. Moreover, we determined that all 
home-market sales by TPBI were made at the same level of trade as its 
U.S. sales. For a more detailed discussion, see the analysis memo for 
TPBI dated concurrently with this notice. Accordingly, we compared 
TPBI's U.S. sales to its home-market sales, all of which were made at 
the same level of trade.
    Because Landblue had no viable home or third-country market and 
because we used another company's financial statement to calculate 
profit and selling expenses for constructed value, no level-of-trade 
analysis is necessary.

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, 2009, through July 31, 2010 
(through July 27, 2010, for TPBI):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ No shipment or sales subject to this review. This firm has 
no individual rate from a previous segment of this proceeding.
    \4\ No shipment or sales subject to this review. This firm has 
no individual rate from a previous segment of this proceeding.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                           Company                              percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Pack Co. Ltd...........................................      30.22
Hi-Pack Company, Ltd.........................................      (\3\)
ITW Minigrip (Thailand) Co. Ltd..............................      (\4\)
K International Packaging Co., Ltd...........................      30.22
Landblue (Thailand) Co., Ltd.................................      27.82
Praise Home Industry, Co. Ltd................................      30.22
Siam Flexible Industries Co., Ltd............................      30.22
Thai Jirun Co., Ltd..........................................      30.22
Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd........................      35.79
Trinity Pac Co. Ltd..........................................      30.22
U. Yong Industry Co., Ltd....................................      30.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comment

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to 
interested 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 information: (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 briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from interested parties 
may be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. 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 review 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 for TPBI and Landblue an importer (or 
customer)-specific assessment value for merchandise subject to this 
review by dividing the total dumping margin (calculated as the 
difference between normal value and EP) for each importer or customer 
by the total kilograms the exporter sold to that importer or customer. 
We will instruct CBP to assess the resulting per-kilogram amount 
against each kilogram of merchandise in each of that importer's/
customer's entries during the POR.
    As discussed above, the Department clarified its ``automatic 
assessment'' regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification applies to 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by TPBI and 
Landblue for which they 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 May 2003 Clarification.

[[Page 30107]]

    For the companies which were not selected for individual 
examination, we will instruct CBP to apply the rates listed above to 
all entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by such 
firms.
    Consistent with the May 2003 Clarification, for Hi-Pack and ITW 
Minigrip, which claimed they had no shipments of subject merchandise to 
the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any applicable 
entries of subject merchandise at the all-others rate.
    We intend to 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 \5\ will be the rates established in the 
final results of 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 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 4.69 percent (see TPBI Revocation). These deposit requirements, 
when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The prospective cash-deposit requirement will not apply to 
merchandise produced and exported by TPBI. See TPBI Revocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: May 18, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-12804 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P