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
<![CDATA[
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Thailand entered, or withdrawn from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 (https://
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
