Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry on Antidumping Duty Order, 28194-28198 [2013-11314]

Download as PDF 28194 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2013 / Notices instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 4.69 rate to all entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by such firms. Consistent with the Assessment Policy Notice,6 for TPN FlexPac Co., Ltd., which claimed that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all entries of subject merchandise at the cash deposit rate applicable for the intermediary company, or if no such rate exists, at the all-others rate of 4.69 percent from the Section 129 Determination. We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of PRCBs from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed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, except for TPN FlexPac Co., Ltd., will be the rates established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 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.7 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notifications 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. 6 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). 7 See Section 129 Determination. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:52 May 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 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 6, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope of the Order 2. Selection of Respondents 3. Request for Duty Absorption Determinations 4. Use of Facts Otherwise Available 5. Preliminary Determination of No Reviewable Entries 6. Rate for Non-Selected Companies Co., of Haicheng City).2 The correct exporter company name is Fengchi Imp. and Exp. Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City. Pursuant to section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department shall correct any ministerial errors within a reasonable time after the determinations are issued under this section. A ministerial error is defined as an error ‘‘in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error.’’ This notice serves to correct the incorrect exporter company name listed in the Final Results. This correction is published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Act. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Dated: May 7, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [FR Doc. 2013–11321 Filed 5–13–13; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2013–11319 Filed 5–13–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P International Trade Administration [A–570–954] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Correction to the Final Results of the 2010–2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: May 14, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4047. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Correction On April 15, 2013, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published, in the Federal Register, the final results of the 2010–2011 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain magnesia carbon bricks from the People’s Republic of China.1 The period of review covered March 12, 2010, through August 31, 2011. The published Federal Register≤ notice contained a clerical error, in that it identified an incorrect exporter company name (i.e., Fengchi Imp. and Exp. Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City and Fengchi Refractories 1 See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010–2011, 78 FR 22230 (April 15, 2013) (‘‘Final Results’’). PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 International Trade Administration [A–570–886] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry on Antidumping Duty Order Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: May 14, 2013. SUMMARY: In response to a request from The Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members: PCL Packaging, Inc., Hilex Poly Co., LLC, Superbag Corp., and Inteplast Group, Ltd., (collectively, the petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to determine whether imports of unfinished polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are circumventing the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from the PRC.1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dustin Ross, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and AGENCY: 2 See id. at 22231. Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004) (PRCB Order). 1 See E:\FR\FM\14MYN1.SGM 14MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2013 / Notices Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0747. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department received from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) a sample of merchandise that was part of a larger shipment imported into the United States and that resembles an unfinished PRCB. The sample resembles an in-scope, finished PRCB in all respects except that it is sealed on all four sides and appears ready to undergo the final processing step of die-cutting the unfinished PRCB, which will create the opening and the handles of the finished PRCB.2 On August 29, 2012, the Department placed a memorandum onto the record stating that it received this sample unfinished PRCB along with proprietary documentation associated with the shipment and invited parties to view the sample and submit comments. On March 15, 2013, the petitioners requested that the Department issue an affirmative anticircumvention determination (the petitioners’ Request), pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(g). Specifically, the petitioners stated that CBP officials advised them that some importers have been entering merchandise described by the CBP officials as unfinished ‘‘t-shirt’’ style PRCBs. The petitioners explain that CBP officials conveyed that the unfinished PRCBs are sealed on all four sides and lack handles when entered into the United States, but that they are clearly intended for use as finished PRCBs. Furthermore, they explained that the CBP officials advised the petitioners that the practice of importing unfinished PRCBs is increasing and expanding to multiple ports. The petitioners further assert that there is no commercial justification for not completing the PRCB production process at the place of manufacture and instead locating the final minor finishing operation in the United States except to evade imposition of antidumping duties. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is PRCBs which mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 2 This particular CBP sample measures roughly 19 inches by 11.5 inches; the front surface includes red print that reads ‘‘THANK YOU’’ six times; it contains the number ‘‘2’’ within the recycling symbol in the bottom left area; the product displays the caution, ‘‘WARNING: TO AVOID DANGER OF SUFFOCATION. KEEP THIS PLASTIC BAG AWAY FROM BABIES AND CHILDREN. DO NOT USE THIS BAG IN CRIBS, BEDS. CARRIAGES OR PLAYPENS.’’ The merchandise also includes the text, ‘‘PLEASE RETURN TO A PARTICIPATING STORE FOR RECYCLING.’’ There are two holes near the top border of the CBP sample. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:52 May 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 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. Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This subheading also covers products that are outside the scope of the order. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Scope of the Anticircumvention Inquiry This anticircumvention inquiry covers merchandise from the PRC that appears to be an unfinished PRCB which is sealed on all four sides, cut to length, and which appears ready to undergo the final step in the production process, i.e., to use a die press to stamp out the opening and create the handles of a finished PRCB. The unfinished PRCBs subject to this inquiry may or may not have printing and may be of different dimensions as long as they meet the description of the scope of the order. The Petitioners’ Request for Initiation of Anticircumvention Proceeding As stated above, the petitioners filed a request for a circumvention determination, in which they commented on the relationship of this PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 28195 merchandise to merchandise covered by the scope of the PRCB Order. The petitioners allege that the product is intended to be a finished PRCB and is dedicated to PRCB use, as it has gone through every stage of the production process except for the final die cut operation.3 According to the petitioners, the number ‘‘2’’ in the recycling symbol indicates that the product is made out of polyethylene.4 The petitioners also allege that the two holes near the top of the unfinished PRCBs are alignment holes that allow the merchandise to be slipped over pins to ensure that the stack of unfinished PRCBs is properly positioned for the die-cutting operation that opens the top and creates the handles of the finished PRCB. The petitioners explain that, once aligned, a simple press is used to cut the stack of unfinished PRCBs to create finished PRCBs that are ready for use.5 Citing the International Trade Commission (ITC)’s recent sunset review determination of PRCBs from the PRC, the petitioners explain that the PRCB production process can be described as a four-step process consisting of (1) blending polyethylene resin pellets, color concentrates, and other additives; (2) extrusion and film forming; (3) printing; and (4) PRCB conversion.6 The final step in the conversion process for die-cut PRCBs, such as t-shirt bags, involves the use of an automated die and press at the end of an integrated PRCB conversion line to cut the film, which serves the dual purpose of opening the top of the PRCB and creating the PRCB handles, at which point the merchandise is ready for inspection, packing, and shipment.7 For the unfinished PRCBs subject to this circumvention inquiry, the product is taken off-line prior to completion of this final step, which the petitioners allege is subsequently performed after importation into the United States.8 Additionally, the petitioners continue, no material is added to complete the finished PRCBs, but rather the scrap film is typically removed for recycling.9 3 See The petitioners’ Request at 7. The petitioners’ Request at 7, referencing ‘‘The American Chemistry Council Plastic Packaging Resin Codes,’’ provided at Exhibit 9 of the petitioners’ Request. 5 See The petitioners’ Request at 7. 6 See The petitioners’ Request at 4, citing Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731–TA–1043– 1045 (Review), USITC Pub. 4160 (June 2010) at I– 17. 7 See The petitioners’ Request at 6. 8 Id. 9 Id. 4 See E:\FR\FM\14MYN1.SGM 14MYN1 28196 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2013 / Notices Initiation of Anticircumvention Proceeding Applicable Statute Section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(g) provide that the Department may find circumvention of an antidumping duty order when merchandise of the same class or kind subject to the order is completed or assembled in the United States. In conducting anticircumvention inquiries under section 781(a)(1) of the Act, the Department relies upon the following criteria: (A) Merchandise sold in the United States is of the same class or kind as any other merchandise that is produced in a foreign country that is subject to an antidumping duty order; (B) such merchandise sold in the United States is completed or assembled in the United States from parts or components produced in the foreign country with respect to which the antidumping duty order applies; (C) the process of assembly or completion in the United States is minor or insignificant; and (D) the value of the parts or components referred to in (B) is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise. As discussed below, the petitioners presented evidence with respect to these criteria. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES A. Merchandise of the Same Class or Kind The petitioners state that the unfinished PRCB sold in the United States is of the same class or kind as subject merchandise, as it is dedicated as a generic ‘‘Thank You’’ t-shirt bag and only requires a simple die-cutting to become proto-typical subject merchandise.10 The petitioners assert that the script on the merchandise identifies the product twice as a ‘‘bag’’ and states that it should be returned to the participating store for recycling, indicating it is used by retail establishments.11 Petitioners also assert that the merchandise is made of polyethylene film, as indicated by the ‘‘2’’ in the recycle triangle, and that it falls within the dimensions of in-scope merchandise.12 For these reasons, the petitioners argue, it is completely and exclusively intended for use as a finished PRCB once it undergoes the final ‘‘bag conversion’’ step of the production process and, therefore, is of the same class or kind as subject merchandise. B. Completion of Merchandise in the United States The petitioners assert that the unfinished PRCBs are imported from the PRC and CBP officials described the product as only needing to undergo the final die-cutting operation to open the top and create the handles of finished PRCBs, which means that no materials are added in the United States.13 Rather, the merchandise as entered has all the necessary raw materials for a finished PRCB. Performing the final die-cutting operation in the United States simply removes the material to finish the PRCB.14 C. Minor or Insignificant Process According to the petitioners, the process of converting this product into a finished PRCB is minor or insignificant.15 Based on publiclyavailable information, and their own industry experience, the petitioners argue that an analysis of the relevant statutory factors of section 781(a)(2) of the Act supports their conclusion that the final processing in the United States is ‘‘minor or insignificant’’ as the only operation remaining to transform this unfinished PRCB into subject merchandise is to perform the final diecutting operation.16 The petitioners assert that the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) for the Uruguay Round Agreements Act provides that no single factor will be controlling in determining whether the process of assembly or completion is minor or insignificant, and that the Department will evaluate each of the factors as they exist in the United States depending on the particular factual pattern of each case.17 These factors include: (1) The level of investment in the United States; (2) the level of research and development in the United States; (3) the nature of the production process in the United States; (4) the extent of production facilities in the United States; and (5) whether the value of the processing performed in the United States represents a small proportion of the value of the merchandise sold in the United States.18 The petitioners argue that the level of investment in the United States is extremely limited. The only equipment needed is a small press and a die for the cut-out. The petitioners assert that dies 13 See cost from $45 to $65 each and a new press, according to the advertisement provided by the petitioners, can be purchased for around $7,000.19 In contrast, the operations performed in the PRC, the petitioners contend, are highly capital-intensive and sophisticated.20 The petitioners argue that no research and development expenditures are required to perform the simple diecutting operation, as the technically complex research and development activities are performed prior to this stage in the PRC.21 Next, the petitioners explain that all production steps, with the exception of the final die-cutting operation, are performed in the PRC and, therefore, the nature of the production process in the United States is minor in scope and elementary in technique, relative to the production process as a whole.22 The petitioners also state that minor production facilities are required to perform the final die-cutting operation in the United States. Specifically, the operation could be performed in a small single-story room.23 Finally, the petitioners assert that the value of processing performed in the United States represents a negligible proportion of the value of the merchandise sold in the United States.24 Completion of the PRCB can be performed by a single employee, and the capital and marginal costs of the diecutting operations in the United States are relatively insignificant in comparison to the manufacturing of the unfinished PRCB performed in the PRC.25 The petitioners further explain that the Department need not collect precise information on the amount of value added in the United States to conclude that the process is minor or insignificant but may rather rely on a qualitative assessment to draw this conclusion, citing Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Pasta From Italy: Affirmative Preliminary Determinations of Circumvention of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 68 FR 46571 (August 6, 2003), unchanged in Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determinations of Circumvention of Antidumping and The petitioners’ Request at 11. The petitioners’ Request at 10. 11 Id. 12 Id. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:52 May 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 19 See 15 Id. 20 Id. 16 Id. 21 Id. 17 See 10 See 14 Id. 22 Id. The petitioners’ Request at 9, citing SAA, Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 893. 18 See The petitioners’ Request at 9. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 23 See The petitioners’ Request at 12. The petitioners’ Request at 13. 24 Id. 25 Id. E:\FR\FM\14MYN1.SGM 14MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2013 / Notices Countervailing Duty Orders, 68 FR 54888 (September 19, 2003).26 D. Value of Merchandise Produced in the Foreign Country Is a Significant Portion of the Value of the Merchandise Sold in the United States As stated above, the petitioners contend that the value of the processing performed in the United States represents a minor portion of the value of the completed merchandise, as little value is added by processing in the United States.27 Therefore, because virtually all of the value of the finished PRCB is created in the PRC, the value of the parts or components entered are certainly a significant portion of the total value of merchandise. E. Factors To Consider in Determining Whether Action Is Necessary Section 781(a)(3) of the Act identifies additional factors that the Department shall consider in determining whether to include parts or components in an antidumping duty order as part of an anticircumvention inquiry. Of these, the petitioners argue that importation of the circumventing merchandise represents a change in the pattern of trade.28 The petitioners assert that prior to imposition of the PRCB Order, no party imported unfinished PRCBs. The petitioners argue that interrupting the production process prior to completion is neither economical nor rational, and the only reason not to complete the PRCB in the country of origin is to evade application of antidumping duties upon importation.29 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Analysis Based on our analysis of the petitioners’ Request, the Department determines that the criteria under section 781(a) of the Act have been satisfied to warrant an initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(1), a notice of the initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry issued under 19 CFR 351.225(e) will include a description of the product that is the subject of the anticircumvention inquiry—in this case, unfinished PRCBs from the PRC—and an explanation of the reasons for the Department’s decision to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry, as provided below. With regard to whether the merchandise sold in the United States is of the same class or kind as the merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order, the petitioners presented information indicating that the merchandise sold in the United States is of the same class or kind as finished PRCBs from the PRC, which are subject to the antidumping duty order.30 We note, however, that there only exists a presumption at this time that the imported merchandise ultimately is sold in the United States after undergoing further processing. With regard to completion of merchandise in the United States, the petitioners have also presented information to support their contention that the unfinished PRCBs which are presumably further processed and sold in the United States as in-scope merchandise are produced from merchandise imported into the United States from the PRC.31 With regard to whether the process of converting this product into a finished PRCB is a ‘‘minor or insignificant process,’’ the petitioners addressed the relevant statutory factors with the best information available to them at the time of their anticircumvention inquiry request.32 The petitioners relied on publicly-available information for this purpose, in addition to their own expertise in the production process. Given that the petitioners do not have access to cost or price data of either the PRC producer or the U.S. importer, the petitioners therefore relied on their own knowledge of the production process to draw their conclusions and demonstrate that, qualitatively, the value of the conversion from an unfinished PRCB to subject merchandise is minor or insignificant.33 With respect to the value of the merchandise produced in the PRC, the petitioners relied on the information and arguments in the ‘‘minor or insignificant process’’ portion of their anticircumvention request to indicate that the value of the PRC production for unfinished PRCBs is significant relative to the total value of finished PRCBs sold in the United States.34 We find that this information adequately meets the requirements of this factor, as discussed above. Finally, the petitioners argued that the Department should also consider the pattern of trade as a factor in determining whether to initiate the anticircumvention inquiry. In particular, the petitioners asserted that no party imported unfinished PRCBs 30 See 26 See The petitioners’ Request at Footnote 40. 27 See The petitioners’ Request at 13. 28 See The petitioners’ Request at 14. 29 Id. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:52 May 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 The petitioners’ Request at 10–11. The petitioners’ Request at 11. 32 See The petitioners’ Request at 11–13. 33 Id. 34 See The petitioners’ Request at 13. 31 See PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 28197 that must undergo the final step of the production process to be converted into finished PRCBs prior to the imposition of the PRCB Order, as doing so is irrational and uneconomical.35 Based on our analysis of the information in the petitioners’ submission, we find that the petitioners provided sufficient evidence for each of the criteria enumerated in the statute to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. Accordingly, we are initiating an anticircumvention inquiry concerning the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from the PRC, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(g). The Department is initiating this circumvention proceeding with respect to all such unfinished PRCBs received by CBP from the PRC as described above, regardless of producer or exporter. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary affirmative determination, we will then instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties, at the applicable rate, for each unliquidated entry of the merchandise at issue, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of initiation of the inquiry. In accordance with section 781(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f)(7)(i)(C), we intend to notify the ITC in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination of circumvention under section 781(d) of the Act. This notice serves as an invitation to interested parties to participate in this anticircumvention inquiry. The Department invites all potential respondents to identify themselves as producers of such merchandise, and provide their own evidence and information that may inform the Department’s determination. Please contact the official listed under the above heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for instructions for participating in this segment of the proceeding. The Department will, following consultation with interested parties, establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the issues. The Department intends to issue its final determination within 300 days of the date of publication of this initiation consistent with section 781(f) of the Act. This notice is published in accordance with 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f). 35 See E:\FR\FM\14MYN1.SGM The petitioners’ Request at 14. 14MYN1 28198 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2013 / Notices Dated: May 7, 2013. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2013–11314 Filed 5–13–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS [Docket #: 130425410–3410–01; OMB Control #: 0625–0273 (Expiration: 04/30/ 2016)] RIN 0625–XC005 Interim Procedures for Considering Requests Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Notice of Interim Procedures and Request for Comments. AGENCY: This notice sets forth the interim procedures the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (‘‘CITA’’) will follow in implementing certain provisions of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (‘‘US-Panama TPA’’). Section 203(o)(4) of the United StatesPanama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (‘‘Implementation Act’’) [Public Law 112–43] authorizes the President to establish procedures to modify the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in either the United States or Panama as set out in Annex 3.25 of the US-Panama TPA. The President has delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether fabrics, yarns, or fibers are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in either the United States or Panama and has directed CITA to establish procedures that govern the submission of a request and provide the opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence for any such determination pursuant to the Implementation Act. CITA hereby gives notice to interested entities of the procedures CITA will follow in considering such requests and solicits public written comments on these interim procedures. CITA will be using the procedures detailed in this notice as of May 14, 2013. DATE: Comments on the interim procedures must be received no later than June 13, 2013 of this notice, either in hard copy or electronically. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:52 May 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 If submitting comments in hard copy, an original, signed hard copy must be submitted to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 30003, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. If submitting comments electronically, the electronic copy must be submitted to OTEXA_PANAMA@trade.gov. All submitted comments will be posted for public review on the Web site dedicated to US-Panama TPA commercial availability proceedings. The Web site is located on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Office of Textile and Apparel Web site (http:// otexa.ita.doc.gov), under ‘‘Commercial Availability’’/‘‘Panama TPA.’’ Additional instructions regarding the submission of comments may be found at the end of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Dybczak, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482–3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: an unrestricted quantity or has had a restriction eliminated, if he determines that the fabric, yarn, or fiber has become available in commercial quantities in a timely manner. In Proclamation No. 8894 (77 FR 66507, November 5, 2012), the President delegated to CITA his authority under the commercial availability provision to establish procedures for modifying the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner, as set out in Annex 3.25 of the US-Panama TPA. Pursuant to that delegation, CITA provides below its interim procedures governing the submission of requests under Section 203(o)(4) set forth in the Implementation Act. As of May 14, 2013, CITA intends to use these procedures to process requests for modifying the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial quantities. CITA intends to publish its final procedures after considering any public comments received pursuant to its request for comments. Legal Authority: Section 203(o) of the Implementation Act and Proclamation No. 8894, 77 FR 66507 (November 5, 2012). 1. Introduction ADDRESSES: Background The US-Panama TPA provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the United States has determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from producers in the United States or Panama. A textile or apparel good must satisfy the specific rules of origin in Annex 4.1 of the US-Panama TPA as well as other requirements of the Agreement. However, a textile and apparel good containing fabrics, yarns, or fibers that are included on the list in Annex 3.25 of the US-Panama TPA will be treated as if it is an originating good for purposes of the US-Panama TPA, regardless of the actual origin of those inputs in accordance with the specific rules of origin in Annex 4.1, Notes to Section XI. The Implementation Act provides that the President will establish procedures governing the submission of requests under Section 203(o)(4) (‘‘the commercial availability provision’’), and as set forth in the USPanama TPA, and may determine whether additional fabrics, yarns, or fibers are available or are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States or Panama. In addition, Section 203(o)(4) of the Implementation Act establishes that the President may restrict the quantity of, or remove a fabric, yarn, or fiber from the list, if it has been added to the list in PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Interim Procedures The intent of these procedures is to foster trade in U.S. and Panamanian textile and apparel articles by allowing non-originating fibers, yarns, or fabrics to be placed on or removed from a list of items not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner, and in a manner that is consistent with normal business practice. To this end, these procedures are intended to facilitate the transmission, on a timely basis, of requests for commercial availability determinations and offers to supply the products that are the subject of the requests; have the market indicate the availability of the supply of products that are the subject of requests; make available promptly, to interested entities and parties, information regarding the requests for products and offers to supply received; ensure wide participation by interested entities and parties; provide careful scrutiny of information provided to substantiate order requests and response to supply offers; and provide timely public dissemination of information used by CITA in making commercial availability determinations. 2. Definitions (a) Commercial Availability Request. A Commercial Availability Request (‘‘Request’’) is a request for a commercial availability determination submitted by an interested entity requesting that CITA place a good on the Commercial Availability List in E:\FR\FM\14MYN1.SGM 14MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28194-28198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11314]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-886]


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry on Antidumping Duty 
Order

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

DATES: Effective Date: May 14, 2013.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from The Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bag Committee and its individual members: PCL Packaging, Inc., Hilex 
Poly Co., LLC, Superbag Corp., and Inteplast Group, Ltd., 
(collectively, the petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is initiating an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to 
section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to 
determine whether imports of unfinished polyethylene retail carrier 
bags (PRCBs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) are 
circumventing the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from the PRC.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 
From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004) 
(PRCB Order).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dustin Ross, AD/CVD Operations, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and

[[Page 28195]]

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0747.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Department received from U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) a sample of merchandise that was part of a larger shipment 
imported into the United States and that resembles an unfinished PRCB. 
The sample resembles an in-scope, finished PRCB in all respects except 
that it is sealed on all four sides and appears ready to undergo the 
final processing step of die-cutting the unfinished PRCB, which will 
create the opening and the handles of the finished PRCB.\2\ On August 
29, 2012, the Department placed a memorandum onto the record stating 
that it received this sample unfinished PRCB along with proprietary 
documentation associated with the shipment and invited parties to view 
the sample and submit comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This particular CBP sample measures roughly 19 inches by 
11.5 inches; the front surface includes red print that reads ``THANK 
YOU'' six times; it contains the number ``2'' within the recycling 
symbol in the bottom left area; the product displays the caution, 
``WARNING: TO AVOID DANGER OF SUFFOCATION. KEEP THIS PLASTIC BAG 
AWAY FROM BABIES AND CHILDREN. DO NOT USE THIS BAG IN CRIBS, BEDS. 
CARRIAGES OR PLAYPENS.'' The merchandise also includes the text, 
``PLEASE RETURN TO A PARTICIPATING STORE FOR RECYCLING.'' There are 
two holes near the top border of the CBP sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 15, 2013, the petitioners requested that the Department 
issue an affirmative anticircumvention determination (the petitioners' 
Request), pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(g). 
Specifically, the petitioners stated that CBP officials advised them 
that some importers have been entering merchandise described by the CBP 
officials as unfinished ``t-shirt'' style PRCBs. The petitioners 
explain that CBP officials conveyed that the unfinished PRCBs are 
sealed on all four sides and lack handles when entered into the United 
States, but that they are clearly intended for use as finished PRCBs. 
Furthermore, they explained that the CBP officials advised the 
petitioners that the practice of importing unfinished PRCBs is 
increasing and expanding to multiple ports. The petitioners further 
assert that there is no commercial justification for not completing the 
PRCB production process at the place of manufacture and instead 
locating the final minor finishing operation in the United States 
except to evade imposition of antidumping duties.

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. Imports of the subject merchandise are currently 
classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This subheading also 
covers products that are outside the scope of the order. Furthermore, 
although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.

Scope of the Anticircumvention Inquiry

    This anticircumvention inquiry covers merchandise from the PRC that 
appears to be an unfinished PRCB which is sealed on all four sides, cut 
to length, and which appears ready to undergo the final step in the 
production process, i.e., to use a die press to stamp out the opening 
and create the handles of a finished PRCB. The unfinished PRCBs subject 
to this inquiry may or may not have printing and may be of different 
dimensions as long as they meet the description of the scope of the 
order.

The Petitioners' Request for Initiation of Anticircumvention Proceeding

    As stated above, the petitioners filed a request for a 
circumvention determination, in which they commented on the 
relationship of this merchandise to merchandise covered by the scope of 
the PRCB Order. The petitioners allege that the product is intended to 
be a finished PRCB and is dedicated to PRCB use, as it has gone through 
every stage of the production process except for the final die cut 
operation.\3\ According to the petitioners, the number ``2'' in the 
recycling symbol indicates that the product is made out of 
polyethylene.\4\ The petitioners also allege that the two holes near 
the top of the unfinished PRCBs are alignment holes that allow the 
merchandise to be slipped over pins to ensure that the stack of 
unfinished PRCBs is properly positioned for the die-cutting operation 
that opens the top and creates the handles of the finished PRCB. The 
petitioners explain that, once aligned, a simple press is used to cut 
the stack of unfinished PRCBs to create finished PRCBs that are ready 
for use.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See The petitioners' Request at 7.
    \4\ See The petitioners' Request at 7, referencing ``The 
American Chemistry Council Plastic Packaging Resin Codes,'' provided 
at Exhibit 9 of the petitioners' Request.
    \5\ See The petitioners' Request at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Citing the International Trade Commission (ITC)'s recent sunset 
review determination of PRCBs from the PRC, the petitioners explain 
that the PRCB production process can be described as a four-step 
process consisting of (1) blending polyethylene resin pellets, color 
concentrates, and other additives; (2) extrusion and film forming; (3) 
printing; and (4) PRCB conversion.\6\ The final step in the conversion 
process for die-cut PRCBs, such as t-shirt bags, involves the use of an 
automated die and press at the end of an integrated PRCB conversion 
line to cut the film, which serves the dual purpose of opening the top 
of the PRCB and creating the PRCB handles, at which point the 
merchandise is ready for inspection, packing, and shipment.\7\ For the 
unfinished PRCBs subject to this circumvention inquiry, the product is 
taken off-line prior to completion of this final step, which the 
petitioners allege is subsequently performed after importation into the 
United States.\8\ Additionally, the petitioners continue, no material 
is added to complete the finished PRCBs, but rather the scrap film is 
typically removed for recycling.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See The petitioners' Request at 4, citing Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 
731-TA-1043-1045 (Review), USITC Pub. 4160 (June 2010) at I-17.
    \7\ See The petitioners' Request at 6.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.

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

[[Page 28196]]

Initiation of Anticircumvention Proceeding

Applicable Statute

    Section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(g) provide that the 
Department may find circumvention of an antidumping duty order when 
merchandise of the same class or kind subject to the order is completed 
or assembled in the United States. In conducting anticircumvention 
inquiries under section 781(a)(1) of the Act, the Department relies 
upon the following criteria: (A) Merchandise sold in the United States 
is of the same class or kind as any other merchandise that is produced 
in a foreign country that is subject to an antidumping duty order; (B) 
such merchandise sold in the United States is completed or assembled in 
the United States from parts or components produced in the foreign 
country with respect to which the antidumping duty order applies; (C) 
the process of assembly or completion in the United States is minor or 
insignificant; and (D) the value of the parts or components referred to 
in (B) is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise. 
As discussed below, the petitioners presented evidence with respect to 
these criteria.
A. Merchandise of the Same Class or Kind
    The petitioners state that the unfinished PRCB sold in the United 
States is of the same class or kind as subject merchandise, as it is 
dedicated as a generic ``Thank You'' t-shirt bag and only requires a 
simple die-cutting to become proto-typical subject merchandise.\10\ The 
petitioners assert that the script on the merchandise identifies the 
product twice as a ``bag'' and states that it should be returned to the 
participating store for recycling, indicating it is used by retail 
establishments.\11\ Petitioners also assert that the merchandise is 
made of polyethylene film, as indicated by the ``2'' in the recycle 
triangle, and that it falls within the dimensions of in-scope 
merchandise.\12\ For these reasons, the petitioners argue, it is 
completely and exclusively intended for use as a finished PRCB once it 
undergoes the final ``bag conversion'' step of the production process 
and, therefore, is of the same class or kind as subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See The petitioners' Request at 10.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Completion of Merchandise in the United States
    The petitioners assert that the unfinished PRCBs are imported from 
the PRC and CBP officials described the product as only needing to 
undergo the final die-cutting operation to open the top and create the 
handles of finished PRCBs, which means that no materials are added in 
the United States.\13\ Rather, the merchandise as entered has all the 
necessary raw materials for a finished PRCB. Performing the final die-
cutting operation in the United States simply removes the material to 
finish the PRCB.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See The petitioners' Request at 11.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Minor or Insignificant Process
    According to the petitioners, the process of converting this 
product into a finished PRCB is minor or insignificant.\15\ Based on 
publicly-available information, and their own industry experience, the 
petitioners argue that an analysis of the relevant statutory factors of 
section 781(a)(2) of the Act supports their conclusion that the final 
processing in the United States is ``minor or insignificant'' as the 
only operation remaining to transform this unfinished PRCB into subject 
merchandise is to perform the final die-cutting operation.\16\ The 
petitioners assert that the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) 
for the Uruguay Round Agreements Act provides that no single factor 
will be controlling in determining whether the process of assembly or 
completion is minor or insignificant, and that the Department will 
evaluate each of the factors as they exist in the United States 
depending on the particular factual pattern of each case.\17\ These 
factors include: (1) The level of investment in the United States; (2) 
the level of research and development in the United States; (3) the 
nature of the production process in the United States; (4) the extent 
of production facilities in the United States; and (5) whether the 
value of the processing performed in the United States represents a 
small proportion of the value of the merchandise sold in the United 
States.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ See The petitioners' Request at 9, citing SAA, Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 893.
    \18\ See The petitioners' Request at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners argue that the level of investment in the United 
States is extremely limited. The only equipment needed is a small press 
and a die for the cut-out. The petitioners assert that dies cost from 
$45 to $65 each and a new press, according to the advertisement 
provided by the petitioners, can be purchased for around $7,000.\19\ In 
contrast, the operations performed in the PRC, the petitioners contend, 
are highly capital-intensive and sophisticated.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See The petitioners' Request at 12.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners argue that no research and development expenditures 
are required to perform the simple die-cutting operation, as the 
technically complex research and development activities are performed 
prior to this stage in the PRC.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the petitioners explain that all production steps, with the 
exception of the final die-cutting operation, are performed in the PRC 
and, therefore, the nature of the production process in the United 
States is minor in scope and elementary in technique, relative to the 
production process as a whole.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners also state that minor production facilities are 
required to perform the final die-cutting operation in the United 
States. Specifically, the operation could be performed in a small 
single-story room.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See The petitioners' Request at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the petitioners assert that the value of processing 
performed in the United States represents a negligible proportion of 
the value of the merchandise sold in the United States.\24\ Completion 
of the PRCB can be performed by a single employee, and the capital and 
marginal costs of the die-cutting operations in the United States are 
relatively insignificant in comparison to the manufacturing of the 
unfinished PRCB performed in the PRC.\25\ The petitioners further 
explain that the Department need not collect precise information on the 
amount of value added in the United States to conclude that the process 
is minor or insignificant but may rather rely on a qualitative 
assessment to draw this conclusion, citing Anti-Circumvention Inquiry 
of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Pasta From 
Italy: Affirmative Preliminary Determinations of Circumvention of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 68 FR 46571 (August 6, 
2003), unchanged in Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative 
Final Determinations of Circumvention of Antidumping and

[[Page 28197]]

Countervailing Duty Orders, 68 FR 54888 (September 19, 2003).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ See The petitioners' Request at Footnote 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Value of Merchandise Produced in the Foreign Country Is a 
Significant Portion of the Value of the Merchandise Sold in the United 
States
    As stated above, the petitioners contend that the value of the 
processing performed in the United States represents a minor portion of 
the value of the completed merchandise, as little value is added by 
processing in the United States.\27\ Therefore, because virtually all 
of the value of the finished PRCB is created in the PRC, the value of 
the parts or components entered are certainly a significant portion of 
the total value of merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See The petitioners' Request at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Factors To Consider in Determining Whether Action Is Necessary
    Section 781(a)(3) of the Act identifies additional factors that the 
Department shall consider in determining whether to include parts or 
components in an antidumping duty order as part of an anticircumvention 
inquiry. Of these, the petitioners argue that importation of the 
circumventing merchandise represents a change in the pattern of 
trade.\28\ The petitioners assert that prior to imposition of the PRCB 
Order, no party imported unfinished PRCBs. The petitioners argue that 
interrupting the production process prior to completion is neither 
economical nor rational, and the only reason not to complete the PRCB 
in the country of origin is to evade application of antidumping duties 
upon importation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See The petitioners' Request at 14.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis

    Based on our analysis of the petitioners' Request, the Department 
determines that the criteria under section 781(a) of the Act have been 
satisfied to warrant an initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(1), a notice of the initiation of an 
anticircumvention inquiry issued under 19 CFR 351.225(e) will include a 
description of the product that is the subject of the anticircumvention 
inquiry--in this case, unfinished PRCBs from the PRC--and an 
explanation of the reasons for the Department's decision to initiate an 
anticircumvention inquiry, as provided below.
    With regard to whether the merchandise sold in the United States is 
of the same class or kind as the merchandise covered by the antidumping 
duty order, the petitioners presented information indicating that the 
merchandise sold in the United States is of the same class or kind as 
finished PRCBs from the PRC, which are subject to the antidumping duty 
order.\30\ We note, however, that there only exists a presumption at 
this time that the imported merchandise ultimately is sold in the 
United States after undergoing further processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See The petitioners' Request at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to completion of merchandise in the United States, the 
petitioners have also presented information to support their contention 
that the unfinished PRCBs which are presumably further processed and 
sold in the United States as in-scope merchandise are produced from 
merchandise imported into the United States from the PRC.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See The petitioners' Request at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to whether the process of converting this product into 
a finished PRCB is a ``minor or insignificant process,'' the 
petitioners addressed the relevant statutory factors with the best 
information available to them at the time of their anticircumvention 
inquiry request.\32\ The petitioners relied on publicly-available 
information for this purpose, in addition to their own expertise in the 
production process. Given that the petitioners do not have access to 
cost or price data of either the PRC producer or the U.S. importer, the 
petitioners therefore relied on their own knowledge of the production 
process to draw their conclusions and demonstrate that, qualitatively, 
the value of the conversion from an unfinished PRCB to subject 
merchandise is minor or insignificant.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See The petitioners' Request at 11-13.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the value of the merchandise produced in the PRC, 
the petitioners relied on the information and arguments in the ``minor 
or insignificant process'' portion of their anticircumvention request 
to indicate that the value of the PRC production for unfinished PRCBs 
is significant relative to the total value of finished PRCBs sold in 
the United States.\34\ We find that this information adequately meets 
the requirements of this factor, as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See The petitioners' Request at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the petitioners argued that the Department should also 
consider the pattern of trade as a factor in determining whether to 
initiate the anticircumvention inquiry. In particular, the petitioners 
asserted that no party imported unfinished PRCBs that must undergo the 
final step of the production process to be converted into finished 
PRCBs prior to the imposition of the PRCB Order, as doing so is 
irrational and uneconomical.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See The petitioners' Request at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our analysis of the information in the petitioners' 
submission, we find that the petitioners provided sufficient evidence 
for each of the criteria enumerated in the statute to initiate an 
anticircumvention inquiry.
    Accordingly, we are initiating an anticircumvention inquiry 
concerning the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from the PRC, pursuant 
to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(g). The Department is 
initiating this circumvention proceeding with respect to all such 
unfinished PRCBs received by CBP from the PRC as described above, 
regardless of producer or exporter. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary affirmative 
determination, we will then instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and 
require a cash deposit of estimated duties, at the applicable rate, for 
each unliquidated entry of the merchandise at issue, entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of 
initiation of the inquiry. In accordance with section 781(e)(1) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f)(7)(i)(C), we intend to notify the ITC in the 
event of an affirmative preliminary determination of circumvention 
under section 781(d) of the Act.
    This notice serves as an invitation to interested parties to 
participate in this anticircumvention inquiry. The Department invites 
all potential respondents to identify themselves as producers of such 
merchandise, and provide their own evidence and information that may 
inform the Department's determination. Please contact the official 
listed under the above heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for 
instructions for participating in this segment of the proceeding. The 
Department will, following consultation with interested parties, 
establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the issues. The 
Department intends to issue its final determination within 300 days of 
the date of publication of this initiation consistent with section 
781(f) of the Act.
    This notice is published in accordance with 781(a) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.225(f).


[[Page 28198]]


    Dated: May 7, 2013.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-11314 Filed 5-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P