U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4117 December 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Commodity Matchbooks from India

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-459 and 731-TA-1155 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Amy Sherman, Investigator 

Lawrence Johnson, Industry Analyst 

Amelia Preece, Economist 

David Boyland, Accountant 

Michael Haldenstein, Attorney 

Lemuel Shields, Statistician 

George Deyman, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4117 December 2009

Commodity Matchbooks from India

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-459 and 731-TA-1155 (Final)

i

CONTENTS

Page

Determinations ................................................................. 1

Views of the Commission ......................................................... 3

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Summary data and data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Interchangeability and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................ II-1

Market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-1

Supply ................................................................... II-1

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-4

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Comparison of the U.S.-produced and imported commodity matchbooks ............... II-7

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-9

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-9

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-9

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-10
ii

CONTENTS–Continued

Page

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ...................... III-1

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-2

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-3

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-3

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Ratios of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Part VI: Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on commodity matchbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Cost of goods sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Direct labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Other factory costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Profitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Operations on promotional matchbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Cost of goods sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Profitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Capital expenditures, research and development expenses, assets, and return on investment . . . VI-5

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Actual negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Anticipated negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6
iii

CONTENTS–Continued

Page

Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries ............... VII-1

The industry in India ........................................................... VII-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1

Commodity matchbook operations ............................................. VII-1

U.S. inventories of commodity matchbooks from India ................................ VII-2

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-2

Antidumping duty investigations in third-country markets ............................. VII-2

Information on nonsubject countries .............................................. VII-3

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-3

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published

and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR

§ 207.2(f)).

1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-459 and 731-TA-1155 (Final)

COMMODITY MATCHBOOKS FROM INDIA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of

imports from India of commodity matchbooks, provided for in subheading 3605.00.00 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce)

to be subsidized by the Government of India and to be sold in the United States at less than fair value

(LTFV).

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these investigations effective October 29, 2008, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by D.D. Bean & Sons, Co., Jaffrey, NH. The final

phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary

determinations by Commerce that imports of commodity matchbooks from India were being subsidized

within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671b(b)) and that imports of commodity

matchbooks from India were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19

U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and

of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the

Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the

notice in the Federal Register of July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34783). The hearing was held in Washington, DC,

on October 20, 2009, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or

by counsel.

 1

 Confidential Staff Report, INV-GG-107 (Nov. 5, 2009) (“CR”) at III-2, Public Staff Report (“PR”) at III-1. A

former producer, Bradley Industries (“Bradley”), became part of Atlas Match LLC in September 2007.

 2

 The Government of India filed a postconference brief in the preliminary phase of these investigations.

 3

 CR/PR at IV-1.

 4

 CR/PR at VII-1.

 5

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 6

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 7

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 8

 See, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of

Commerce, 36 F. Supp.2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455

(1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed.

Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts

of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors including the following: (1) physical

characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions

(continued...)

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in the

United States is materially injured by reason of imports of commodity matchbooks imported from India

that are subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value.

I. BACKGROUND

The antidumping and countervailing duty petitions in these investigations were filed on October

29, 2008, by D.D. Bean & Sons Co. (“D.D. Bean” or “Petitioner”). Petitioner and Atlas Match LLC

(“Atlas”) are the only two domestic producers of commodity matchbooks.1

 They participated at the

public hearing. Petitioner filed prehearing and posthearing briefs. No respondent interested parties

appeared at the hearing or submitted briefs.2

 The Commission received questionnaire responses from

three importers representing all U.S. imports of commodity matchbooks from India.3

 One Indian

producer/exporter accounting for an estimated *** percent of Indian production of commodity

matchbooks responded to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire.4

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

A. In General

In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”5

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole of a domestic like

product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”6

 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like

product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an investigation ... .”7

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.8

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission
 8

 (...continued)

of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where

appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1996).

 9

 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979).

 10 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

 11 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the

class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F.

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

 12 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Commission may find a single

like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1

(“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Torrington, 747

F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming Commission determination of six like products in investigations where Commerce

found five classes or kinds).

 13 Commerce stated that “[s]uch commodity matchbooks are also referred to as ‘for resale’ because they always

enter into retail channels, meaning businesses that sell a general variety of tangible merchandise, e.g., convenience

stores, supermarkets, dollar stores, drug stores and mass merchandisers.”

4

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.9

 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.10

Although the Commission must accept Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported

merchandise subsidized or sold at LTFV,11 the Commission determines what domestic product is like the

imported articles Commerce has identified.12

B. Product Description

The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has defined the imported merchandise as

follows: 

The scope of this investigation covers commodity matchbooks, also known as commodity

book matches, paper matches or booklet matches.13 Commodity matchbooks typically,

but do not necessarily, consist of twenty match stems which are usually made from

paperboard or similar material tipped with a match head composed of any chemical

formula. The match stems may be stitched, stapled or otherwise fastened into a

matchbook cover of any material, on which a striking strip composed of any chemical

formula has been applied to assist in the ignition process. Commodity matchbooks

included in the scope of this investigation may or may not contain printing. For example,

they may have no printing other than the identification of the manufacturer or importer. 

Commodity matchbooks may also be printed with a generic message such as ‘‘Thank

You’’ or a generic image such as the American Flag, with store brands (e.g., Kroger, 7-

Eleven, Shurfine or Giant); product brands for national or regional advertisers such as

cigarettes or alcoholic beverages; or with corporate brands for national or regional

distributors (e.g., Penley Corp. or Diamond Brands). They all enter retail distribution

channels. Regardless of the materials used for the stems of the matches and regardless of

the way the match stems are fastened to the matchbook cover, all commodity matchbooks
 14 Commerce explained that “{t}he gross distinctions between commodity matchbooks and promotional

matchbooks may be summarized as follows: (1) If it has no printing, or is printed with a generic message such as

“Thank You” or a generic image such as the American Flag, or printed with national or regional store brands or

corporate brands, it is commodity; (2) if it has printing, and the printing includes the name of a bar, restaurant, resort,

hotel, club, cafe/coffee shop, grill, pub, eatery, lounge, casino, barbeque, or individual establishment prominently

displayed on the matchbook cover, it is promotional.”

 15 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 74 Fed. Reg. 54536 (Oct. 22, 2009); Notice of

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 Fed. Reg. 54547 (Oct. 22, 2009).

 16 CR at I-7, PR at I-6.

 17 CR at I-8, PR at I-6.

 18 CR at I-8, PR at I-6.

 19 CR at I-8, PR at I-7.

5

are included in the scope of this investigation. All matchbooks, including commodity

matchbooks, typically comply with the United States Consumer Product Safety

Commission (CPSC) Safety Standard for Matchbooks, codified at 16 

CFR 1202.1 et. seq. The scope of this investigation excludes promotional matchbooks,

often referred to as ‘‘not for resale,’’ or ‘‘specialty advertising’’ matchbooks, as they do

not enter into retail channels and are sold to businesses that provide hospitality, dining,

drinking or entertainment services to their customers, and are given away by these

businesses as promotional items. Such promotional matchbooks are distinguished by the

physical characteristic of having the name and/or logo of a bar, restaurant, resort, hotel,

club, cafe/coffee shop, grill, pub, eatery, lounge, casino, barbecue or individual

establishment printed prominently on the matchbook cover. Promotional matchbook

cover printing also typically includes the address and the phone number of the business

or establishment being promoted.14 Also excluded are all other matches that are not

fastened into a matchbook cover such as wooden matches, stick matches, box matches,

kitchen matches, pocket matches, penny matches, household matches, strike anywhere

matches (aka ‘‘SAW’’ matches), strike-on-box matches (aka ‘‘SOB’’ matches), fireplace

matches, barbeque/grill matches, fire starters, and wax matches. The merchandise subject

to this investigation is properly classified under subheading 3605.00.0060 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise may

also enter under subheading 3605.00.0030 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description

of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.15

Commodity matchbooks consist of paper match stems fastened into a matchbook cover. The cover is

usually made of plain white paperboard, which is sometimes printed with a simple generic message or

image (such as “Thank You” or an American Flag) or printed with a chain store logo.16 A composition of

red phosphorus, polyvinyl acetate, and ground glass is applied to the cover for use as a striking surface for

the match head. The match stem is made from paperboard and is tipped with a match head composed of a

chemical mixture (usually potassium chlorate, ground glass, gelatin, sulfur, diatomaceous earth, and

carboxymethylcellulose), which ignites as the result of a chemical reaction when struck on the striking

surface.17 Commodity matchbooks contain 20 matches, equaling the quantity of cigarettes in a pack.18

All commodity matchbooks, whether imported or made in the United States, are required to meet U.S.

Consumer Product Safety Standards.19
 20 Commodity Matchbooks from India, 701-TA-459 and 731-TA-1155 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4054 (Dec.

2008) (“Preliminary Determination”) at 9. 

 21 The Commission also determined not to include wooden matches in boxes in the definition of the domestic like

product due to differences in physical characteristics and uses; limited interchangeability; different channels of

distribution at the end-user level of trade; different manufacturing facilities, processes, and employees; and

differences in producer and customer perceptions. Preliminary Determination at 7.

 22 See Prehearing Brief at 6-12.

 23 CR at I-9, PR at I-6.

 24 CR at I-12, PR at I-9 to I-10.

 25 CR at I-12 to I-13, PR at I-9 to I-10.

 26 CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

 27 CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

 28 CR at I-13, PR at I-10. The record is mixed as to the extent promotional matchbooks are collected and kept as

souvenirs rather than used as a portable ignition source and discarded. See CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

6

C. Domestic Like Product

In its preliminary determinations, the Commission defined a single domestic like product

comprised of commodity matchbooks coextensive with the scope of the investigations defined by

Commerce, as advocated by D.D. Bean. It determined not to include promotional matchbooks in the

definition of the domestic like product.20 The Commission indicated that it would revisit the issue of

whether promotional matchbooks should be included in the definition of the domestic like product in any

final phase investigations.21

In these final phase investigations, D.D. Bean again argues that the Commission should define a

single domestic like product encompassing commodity matchbooks, coextensive with the scope of the

investigations, and that promotional matchbooks should not be included in the same domestic like product

with commodity matchbooks.22 We find that the information from producers, importers, and purchasers

collected in the final phase of these investigations continues to indicate that promotional matchbooks

should not be included in the definition of the domestic like product.

Commodity and promotional matchbooks share some physical characteristics and uses. Both

consist of match stems attached to a cover with a striking face, and both are used as a portable ignition

source.23 The physical characteristics, however, often differ in terms of the number of stems, the color of

the stems and match heads, the material of the matchbook covers, and especially the nature of the printed

advertising (if any, in the case of commodity matchbooks) on the covers.24

The stems and match heads of commodity matchbooks are in standardized colors, whereas those

of promotional matchbooks come in a wide variety of colors.25 The covers of promotional matchbooks

are often much more elaborate than the plain paperboard covers of commodity matchbooks, and the

quality of the cover board, finish, match stems, and printing is typically of a much higher caliber than that

of commodity matchbooks.26

There are also differences in the uses for the two types of matchbooks, particularly at the first

level of trade among customers who buy the matchbooks from the producers. The customers for

promotional matchbooks use them for promotional purposes, whereas the customers for commodity

matchbooks generally intend them to be used as an ignition source.27 End users tend to keep promotional

matchbooks as souvenirs, adding them to match cover collections or storing them for future reference for

addresses or telephone numbers.28

Although both can be used as an ignition source (e.g. to light cigarettes) and are thus

interchangeable to certain end users, commodity and promotional matchbooks are not generally viewed as

interchangeable by purchasers due to their different physical characteristics and uses. 
 29 Petition at 8.

 30 Public Hearing of October 20, 2009 (“Tr.”) at 11-12 (C. Bean); CR at I-16, PR at I-11.

 31 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 32 CR at I-15, PR at I-11.

 33 CR at I-14, PR at I-10.

 34 CR at I-14, PR at I-10.

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 36 No domestic producer is related to an exporter or importer of the subject merchandise or imported the subject

merchandise during the period examined, or is otherwise a related party as defined by the statute in 19 U.S.C. §

1677(4)(B).

7

Purchasers’ perceptions of commodity and promotional matchbooks also differ based on their

different uses. Purchasers of commodity matchbooks perceive them as an accessory to facilitate cigarette

sales.29 Purchasers of promotional matchbooks, on the other hand, perceive promotional matchbooks as

an advertising medium.30 Furthermore, there can be significant differences in the prices of the two kinds

of matchbooks; the average unit values of promotional matchbooks are *** the average unit values of

commodity matchbooks.31

Commodity and promotional matchbooks also are sold through different channels of distribution.

Commodity matchbooks are bought by wholesalers and distributors for resale to retailers, or are

purchased directly by large retail chains. Promotional matchbooks typically are sold directly to the

establishments that have commissioned their production.32 

There are also some differences in the production processes and machinery used to make the two

kinds of matchbooks.33 Commodity matchbooks are produced on high-speed, roll-to-roll presses, while

promotional matchbooks are made on slower, sheet-fed presses. Commodity matchbooks are made in a

continuing production process using an assembly line of machines specifically designed for high speed

long runs. Promotional matchbooks, on the other hand, are made in a discrete production process using

machines best suited for short runs and a high degree of customization.34

Given that the differences between commodity matchbooks and promotional matchbooks

outweigh the similarities, and in the absence of argument to the contrary in these final phase

investigations, we decline to include promotional matchbooks in the definition of the domestic like

product. Thus, we define a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of the

investigations. 

D. Domestic Industry

The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a whole of a domestic like

product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”35 In defining the domestic industry, the

Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of

the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market.

Based on our finding that the domestic like product is commodity matchbooks, we define a single

domestic industry consisting of all producers of commodity matchbooks.36
 37 Negligibility is not an issue in these investigations under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24). Although data are not

available for the 12-month period preceding the filing of the petition, subject imports from India accounted for ***

percent of total imports of the merchandise in 2008. CR at IV-5, PR at IV-2.

 38 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 41 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 42 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 43 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a).

 44 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not

‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’d, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

 45 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects

are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation

requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting

Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in

the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or

tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States,

458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.

Cir. 2001).

8

III. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS 37

A. Legal Standards

In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material

injury by reason of the imports under investigation.38 In making this determination, the Commission must

consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their

impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production

operations.39 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or

unimportant.”40 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject

imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United

States.41 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”42

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is

“materially injured by reason of” unfairly traded imports,43 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,”

indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its

discretion.44 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the

domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the

volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the

domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports are

more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not merely a

temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.45

In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also

be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject
 46 Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. 103-

316, Vol. I at 851-52 (1994) (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing

injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider

information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less-than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-

317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into

account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or

dumped imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized

imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive

practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the

export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877.

 47 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by

unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“{T}he

Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the

Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject

imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180

F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject

imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of subject

imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928

(Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is

found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’

then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States,

132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape

countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”).

 48 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47.

 49 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the statute

requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of

injury.”).

 50 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877-78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative

determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the

Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... {and has} broad

discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d

1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75.

 51 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following three paragraphs. He points out that the

Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal, held that the Commission is required, in certain circumstances

(continued...)

9

imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or

management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must

examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to

the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the

statutory material injury threshold.46 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.47 Nor does the

“by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or

contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as nonsubject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.48 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.49

Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports

“does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the

injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”50 51 Indeed, the
 51 (...continued)

when considering present material injury, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject imports. Mittal

explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price-competitive,

nonsubject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an

important aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether nonsubject or non-LTFV imports would

have replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of investigation without a continuing benefit to the

domestic industry. 444 F.3d at 1369. Under those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to

consider whether replacement of the LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of

investigation, and it requires the Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

 52 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at

879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic

injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”).

 53 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

 54 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875-79 & n.2 (recognizing the

Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non-attribution analysis).

 55 Commissioner Lane also refers to her dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1131 to 1134 (Final), USITC Pub.

4040 (Oct. 2008), for further discussion of Mittal Steel.

 56 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to present published

information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in nonsubject countries that

accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact, there were large nonsubject

import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these

requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the

(continued...)

10

Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid

adherence to a specific formula.”52

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved cases

where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of pricecompetitive nonsubject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as

requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases

involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price-competitive nonsubject

imports.53 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have

replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific

additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and makes clear

that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific

methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record” to “show that

the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and requires that the Commission not attribute

injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.54 Accordingly, we do not consider

ourselves required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions

subsequent to Bratsk.

The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases involving

commodity products where price-competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S.

market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.55 56
 56 (...continued)

major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or

requested information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of nonsubject imports.

 57 We provide in our respective discussions of volume, price effects, and impact a full analysis of other factors

alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry.

 58 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357;

S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a

matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

 59 CR at II-6, PR at II-3.

 60 Cigarette consumption in the United States declined from 372 billion cigarettes in 2006 to 360 billion cigarettes

in 2007, or by 3.2 percent, whereas apparent U.S. consumption of commodity matchbooks declined by *** percent

from 2006 to 2007. CR at II-7, PR at II-3; CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 61 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 62 Four of seven responding purchasers reported that low-priced lighters had reduced demand for commodity

matches, and three firms reported that low-priced lighters had influenced demand for commodity matches but that

this occurred before 2006. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has reported that substitute products such as

disposable lighters, as well as business and economic conditions, have led to the contraction in the matchbook

manufacturing industry in recent years. CR at II-6, PR at II-3. The record is unclear regarding the extent to which

lighters are preferred as an ignition source over commodity matchbooks, but the U.S. market reportedly became

saturated with inexpensive lighters by the mid-1990s. Tr. at 13, 59, 112 (C. Bean, M. Bean).

 63 CR at VI-2 n.6, PR at VI-1 n.6.

11

The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied

notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence

standard.57 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.58

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is material injury or

threat of material injury by reason of subject imports.

1. Demand Conditions

Because commodity matchbooks are used primarily to light cigarettes, the demand for commodity

matchbooks is closely linked to the demand for cigarettes.59 As the demand for cigarettes declined over

the period of investigation, demand for commodity matchbooks also declined. Apparent U.S.

consumption of commodity matchbooks, however, declined over the period of investigation at a greater

rate than the decline in demand for cigarettes.60 Apparent U.S. consumption was *** cases in 2006, ***

cases in 2007, and *** cases in 2008.61 Apparent U.S. consumption was *** cases during January-June

2008 and *** cases during January-June 2009. Given that the apparent U.S. consumption of commodity

matchbooks declined at a greater rate than the consumption of cigarettes, it appears that additional factors,

such as the use of lighters in lieu of matches, have had a negative impact on the demand for commodity

matchbooks and will continue to do so.62 D.D. Bean has taken into account declining demand for

commodity matchbooks, as its business plan ***.63
 64 CR at III-5 and VII-6, PR at III-2, VII-3.

 65 CR at III-2, PR at III-1.

 66 CR at III-1, PR at III-1.

 67 CR at III-2, PR at III-1.

 68 CR at III-2, PR at III-1.

 69 CR/PR at Table IV-4. The industry’s market share was *** percent in interim 2008 (first half of 2008) and ***

percent in interim 2009 (first half of 2009). Id.

 70 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 71 CR at VII-6, PR at VII-3.

 72 See CR/PR at Table IV-4. 

 73 CR at IV-4, PR at IV-2.

12

Although commodity matchbooks are a commonly used product in the United States, consumers

in most other countries (with the exceptions of Canada, Egypt, Mexico and Guatemala) use only wooden

matches.64

2. Supply Conditions

There were three producers of commodity matchbooks in the United States during the period of

investigation, D.D. Bean, Atlas, and Bradley.65 D.D. Bean is *** of the domestic producers and has

operated a manufacturing facility in Jaffrey, NH continuously since 1938.66 Bradley, a family business in

Illinois, merged with Atlas (a producer of promotional matchbooks) in September 2007.67 Atlas closed

Bradley’s Frankfort, Illinois plant in the second quarter of 2008 and moved its commodity matchbook

production to Atlas’s plant in Euless, Texas.68

The domestic industry’s market share, on a quantity basis, increased from *** percent in 2006 to

*** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2008.69 The market share of subject imports fell from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008.70 In addition to India, there were two other foreign sources of

supply to the U.S. market during the period of investigation, China and Mexico.71 The market share of

nonsubject imports declined from 2006 to 2007, and there were *** nonsubject imports in 2008.72

Several factors, including ***, led to the decision by the ***.73
 74 CR at II-8, PR at II-4.

 75 CR/PR at Table II-5.

 76 CR/PR at Table II-8.

 77 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 78 CR at II-1, PR at II-1.

 79 CR at II-1, PR at II-1.

 80 Tr. at 70 (Bartlett).

 81 CR at V-2, PR at V-1; Tr. at 59 (Bartlett).

 82 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

 83 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

 84 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 85 CR/PR at Table IV-5; INV-FF-150 (Dec. 8, 2008) at Table IV-2.

 86 CR/PR at Table IV-2. 

 87 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

13

3. Substitutability and Other Factors

There is a high degree of substitutability between the subject imports and the domestic product.74

*** and purchasers of commodity matchbooks reported that the U.S. product and the subject imports are

always or frequently interchangeable.75

*** reported that differences other than price were either sometimes or *** a significant factor in

sales of commodity matchbooks. Importers’ responses varied, with one reporting that differences other

than price were always significant, one reporting that they were sometimes significant, and another

reporting that they were never significant.76 All nine purchasers responding to questionnaires indicated

that price is very important in purchasing decisions.77

During 2008, D.D. Bean sold ***, while Atlas sold ***.78 In 2008, the leading importer of

commodity matches from India, ***.79 D.D. Bean reports that typical order sizes are large; a minimum

order is a pallet or fifty cases, with each pallet containing 125,000 matchbooks.80 Commodity

matchbooks are sold on both a contract and a spot basis, with about *** of sales taking place on a spot

basis.81

Raw materials accounted for almost *** of the cost of production of commodity matchbooks.82

D.D. Bean reported that energy, paraffin, match stem, and potassium chlorate prices all increased in 2008,

increasing the cost of commodity matchbook production.83

C. Volume of the Subject Imports

In evaluating the volume of subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act provides that

the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that

volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is

significant.”84

The volume of subject imports declined from *** cases in 2006 to *** cases in 2007 and ***

cases in 2008.85 It was *** cases in interim 2008 and *** cases in interim 2009.86 The market share of

subject imports fell from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and it was *** percent in interim

2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.87 The ratio of the quantity of subject imports to U.S. production
 88 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 89 Tr. at 32 (M. Bean).

 90 Tr. at 40-43 (Bartlett). D.D. Bean explained that it had engaged in large price reductions in some sectors of the

market and retained “pricing flexibility” with other customers. Tr. at 42; Posthearing Brief at 5. There is nothing in

the record to contradict D.D. Bean’s explanation of this action.

 91 The Commission generally considers information from a period of investigation consisting of three years and

any available partial year data. In this case, examination of volume data from 2005 is necessary to evaluate

petitioner’s contention that it responded to rising import volumes by lowering its prices. We note that the import

volume data for 2005 and subsequent years obtained in the preliminary phase investigations are compatible with the

import data for 2006-2008 obtained in the final phase of these investigations. 

 92 In final phase investigations, the statutory provision governing the Commission’s treatment of post-petition

information, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I), states that “the Commission shall consider whether any change in the volume,

price effects, or impact of imports of the subject merchandise since the filing of the petition in an investigation . . . is

related to the pendency of the investigation and, if so, the Commission may reduce the weight accorded to the data

for the period after the filing of the petition in making its determination of material injury . . . .”

 93 The Indian producer and exporter, Triveni Safety, reported that it ***. CR at VII-2, PR at VII-2. U.S. imports

of commodity matchbooks from India were significantly lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008. CR/PR at

Table IV-5. 

14

fell from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008, and was *** percent in

interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.88

We find that the decline in subject imports throughout the period examined was due in large part

to the domestic industry’s strategy during 2006-2007 of lowering its prices to meet import competition.89

As explained by D.D. Bean, it decided that it would lower prices for its large customers in the Northeast

to meet the much lower prices for the subject imports in order to retain market share.90 The evidence in

the record from the preliminary phase of the investigations demonstrates that D.D. Bean’s strategy

followed an increase in subject imports from *** cases in 2005 to *** cases in 2006.91 Absent D.D.

Bean’s aggressive response to the subject imports, the volume of subject imports likely would have been

higher and the domestic industry likely would have lost more sales and market share.

We attribute the further decline in subject imports toward the end of the period examined almost

entirely to the filing of the petitions on October 29, 2008, and therefore accord less weight in our analysis

to the decline during interim 2009.92 Within six months of the filing of the petitions, the Indian

producer/exporter ***.93

We also evaluate the volume of the subject imports in the context of a market experiencing

declining apparent U.S. consumption. As discussed below with respect to price effects, the subject

imports significantly undersold the domestic product, leading to declines in the domestic industry’s sales

and shipments beyond what would have otherwise occurred in a shrinking market. Additionally, despite

the decrease in volume, the subject imports maintained a significant presence in the declining U.S.

market, particularly in light of the price effects described below.

Based on the foregoing, we find that the volume of subject imports is significant, both in absolute

terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States.

D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In evaluating the price effects of the subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act

provides that the Commission shall consider whether –

 (I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as

compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and
 94 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 95 CR at II-8, PR at II-4.

 96 CR at V-2, PR at V-1; CR/PR at Table II-2.

 97 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 98 CR at V-3, PR at V-2.

 99 The data accounted for *** percent of the quantity of U.S. producers’ shipments and *** percent of importers’

shipments of the subject imports from India. CR at V-3, PR at V-2.

 100 CR/PR at Table V-5.

 101 See CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 102 CR/PR at Tables V-1 and V-2; CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 103 See CR/PR at Table V-1 (margin of underselling by the subject imports of *** percent in second quarter of

2006 followed by a *** percent decline in prices in the third quarter for the domestic product). 

 104 The unit value of average COGS was $*** per case in 2006, $*** per case in 2007, and $*** per case in

2008. CR/PR at Table VI-2. The unit cost of raw materials was $*** per case in 2006, $*** per case in 2007, and

$*** per case in 2008. Raw material costs ***. CR at VI-9 n.16, PR at VI-3 n.16. This resulted in a lower unit

value of COGS in interim 2009 ($*** per case) than in interim 2008 ($*** per case). CR/PR at Table VI-2.

15

 (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant

degree.94

Subject imports from India and domestic commodity matchbooks are highly substitutable.95

Roughly *** of sales of the domestic like product and *** sales of subject imports take place on the spot

market.96 Purchasers ranked price most frequently as the most important or second most important factor

in purchasing decisions.97

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for cases of 2,500 matchbooks of two common

types: (1) matchbooks with covers that are plain white or imprinted with the words THANK YOU

(Product 1); and (2) matchbooks with covers imprinted with a logo (Product 2).98 The two U.S. producers

and three importers provided pricing data for commodity matchbooks for the period January 2006-June

2009.99 Pricing data for the subject imports were only available for Product 1.

 Subject imports undersold the domestic like product in all 14 quarterly pricing comparisons for

Product 1 by margins that averaged 16.4 percent.100 Given the consistency and size of the underselling

margins and the high substitutability of the domestic and imported products, we find the underselling by

the subject imports to be significant.

Domestic producers’ prices for both pricing products followed relatively similar trends, with

prices for both Products 1 and 2 declining somewhat during 2006.101 Thereafter, prices for both pricing

products fluctuated within a small range from 2007 through the first half of 2009.102 The decline in

domestic prices for commodity matchbooks in 2006 coincided with the largest margin of underselling

during the period and is consistent with the testimony noted above that D.D. Bean lowered its prices in

order to maintain its market share in response to the 2005-2006 increases in subject imports.103 We find

that the price decline in 2006 reflects the effects of the subject imports, which depressed prices for

domestically produced commodity matchbooks to a significant degree, resulting in prices at depressed

levels through 2008. 

We also find that the subject imports prevented domestic price increases that otherwise would

have occurred to a significant degree. On a per unit basis, the domestic industry’s cost of goods sold

(COGS) increased from 2006 to 2008 as a result of an increase in per unit raw material costs.104 The

industry was unable to increase the unit value of its net sales sufficiently to offset rising costs. The unit
 105 CR/PR at Table VI-3. 

 106 CR/PR at Table VI-3. 

 107 The COGS to net sales ratio was *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008. CR/PR at

Table VI-1.

 108 Chairman Aranoff agrees that the domestic industry has experienced a cost-price squeeze. Nevertheless,

having found significant price depression, Chairman Aranoff does not reach the issue of whether subject imports

prevented price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.

 109 The industry’s COGS to net sales ratio was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009. 

CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 110 Apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent lower in interim 2009 at *** cases than in interim 2008 at ***

cases. CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 111 CR/PR at Tables V-6 and V-7.

 112 CR/PR at Tables V-6 and V-7.

 113 We have considered the magnitude of the dumping margins found by Commerce. In its final determinations of

sales at LTFV, Commerce found a weighted-averaged dumping margin of 66.07 percent for named exporter Triveni

Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd. and for all others. CR/PR at Table I-2.

 114 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”). 

16

value of net sales was $*** per case in 2006, $*** per case in 2007, and $*** per case in 2008.105 It was

$*** per case in interim 2008 and $*** in interim 2009.106 As a result, the domestic industry’s COGS as

a ratio to net sales increased overall from 2006 to 2008, resulting in a cost-price squeeze.107 108

Thus, for the majority of the period, the domestic industry was unable to raise its prices to cover

increases in costs. In 2009, however, as subject imports declined due to the filing of the petition, the

domestic industry was able to increase its prices to cover its elevated costs, which also led to an increase

in its profitability.109 Thus, without the presence of significant volumes of lower priced imports, the

industry was able to increase its prices even in the face of the *** decline in apparent U.S. consumption

and difficult economic times.110

The amount of confirmed lost sales and revenues in these investigations lends further support to

our finding of adverse price effects. Confirmed lost sales totaled $***, and confirmed lost revenues

totaled $***.111 The total amount of confirmed lost sales and lost revenues ($*** million) is *** relative

to a market in which apparent U.S. consumption totaled only $*** million from January 2006 to June

2009. *** of the ten confirmed lost revenues and two of the six confirmed lost sales occurred in 2008 and

interim 2009, indicating that although subject imports were declining, they adversely affected prices

throughout the period.112

In sum, we find that subject imports undersold the domestic like product and depressed and

suppressed prices to a significant extent.

E. Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry113

In examining the impact of subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that

the Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the

industry.”114 These factors include output, sales, inventories, ability to raise capital, research and

development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all relevant factors
 115 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

 116 The domestic industry’s capacity was *** cases per year in the three years from 2006 through 2008 and was

*** cases in both interim 2008 and interim 2009. CR/PR at Table III-2. Production fell from *** cases in 2006 to

*** cases in 2007 and *** cases in 2008. It was *** cases in interim 2008 and *** cases in interim 2009. CR/PR at

Table III-2. 

 117 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 118 Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments fell from *** cases in 2006 to *** cases in 2007 and *** cases in 2008. 

Shipments were *** cases in interim 2008 and *** cases in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table III-3. The ratio of

inventories to total shipments was *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in

interim 2008, and *** percent in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table III-4.

 119 CR/PR at Table IV-4. The industry’s market share was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim

2009. Id.

 120 The number of production and related workers (PRWs) declined from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007 and *** in

2008. The number of PRWs was *** in interim 2008 and *** in interim 2009. Aggregate hours worked fell from

*** in 2006 to *** in 2007 and *** in 2008, and were *** in interim 2008 and *** in interim 2009. Total wages

paid were $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, $*** in 2008, $*** in interim 2008, and $*** in interim 2009. Productivity

(measured in cases per 1,000 hours) declined from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007 and *** in 2008. It was *** in

interim 2008 and *** in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 121 Hourly wages declined from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007, but rose to $*** in 2008. They were $*** in

interim 2008 and $*** in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table III-5. The increase in 2008 was primarily the result of ***. 

CR at III-8, PR at III-3.

 122 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 123 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 124 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

17

are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive

to the affected industry.”115

We have examined the trade and financial data for the domestic industry producing commodity

matchbooks. The data show declines in most measures of industry performance over the period of

investigation until interim 2009, after the filing of the petitions.

The domestic industry’s production declined by *** percent from 2006 to 2008, while its

capacity remained unchanged.116 The decline in production led to declining capacity utilization, which

fell from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008.117 Domestic producers’

U.S. shipments declined as well during the period examined, as did inventories as a ratio to shipments.118

Despite the declines in production and shipments, the domestic industry regained market share. 

Its market share increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008.119

The industry’s employment indicators declined over the period of investigation. The number of

production and related workers, hours worked, and wages paid, as well as labor productivity, all

declined.120 A *** improvement in hourly wages resulted from one-time charges related to severance

payments.121

The domestic industry’s financial indicators, including net sales, operating income, and operating

margins, all declined over the period of investigation. The quantity of net sales was *** cases in 2006,

*** cases in 2007, and *** cases in 2008. The value of net sales was $*** in 2005, $*** in 2007, and

$*** in 2008.122 Operating income declined from $*** in 2006 to *** in 2007, before increasing to $***

in 2008.123 The industry’s ratio of operating income to net sales fell from *** percent in 2006 to ***

percent in 2007 and then increased to *** percent in 2008.124

We have also considered whether factors other than the subject imports have had an impact on the

domestic industry to ensure that we are not attributing injury from other factors to the subject imports. 
 125 See CR/PR at Table VI-4.

 126 CR at VI-11, PR at VI-4. The domestic industry’s ratio of SG&A expenses to net sales was *** percent in

2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008. The ratio was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in

interim 2009. CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 127 CR at VI-12, PR at VI-4.

 128 CR at VI-9 n.16, VI-11 n.22, PR at VI-3 n.16, VI-4 n.22.

 129 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 130 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 131 With respect to the considerations required by Bratsk/Mittal, Commissioner Pinkert finds, as he did in the

preliminary investigations, that the matchbooks at issue are essentially a commodity product and that price

competitive, nonsubject imports were a significant, albeit declining, factor in the U.S. market during the period of

investigation. He further finds, however, that non-subject imports would not have replaced the subject imports

during the period of investigation without benefit to the domestic industry. Nonsubject imports *** after 2007. CR

at IV-4, PR at IV-2; CR/PR at Table C-1. The principal sources of non-subject imports during the period were

China and Mexico. CR at VII-6 to VII-7, PR at VII-3. ***, the U.S. importer of commodity matchbooks from ***

the subject imports. CR at IV-4 and VII-7, PR at IV-2 and VII-3. Thus, there is no reason to believe that imports

from China and Mexico would have replaced the subject imports. Moreover, even if nonsubject imports had

replaced the subject imports, the record indicates that antidumping relief would nevertheless have benefitted the

domestic industry through higher prices. The average unit values of nonsubject imports were significantly higher

than those of subject imports during 2006-2007, the only portion of the period of investigation in which ***. CR/PR

at Table IV-2.

 132 The market share of nonsubject imports on a quantity basis declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent

in 2007 and *** percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 133 See CR/PR at Table IV-2 (unit values for nonsubject imports higher than those for subject imports).

 134 CR at IV-4, PR at IV-2.

18

Declining apparent U.S. consumption of commodity matchbooks from 2006 to 2008 may explain the

deterioration of certain aspects of the performance of the U.S. industry, but it does not provide a sufficient

explanation for the industry’s worsening financial condition. 

The domestic industry’s reduced profitability in 2007 and 2008 was due in part to lower sales

volume, but depressed prices and net sales values were significant factors.125 The domestic industry’s ***

financial performance continued in 2008 despite D.D. Bean’s ***.126 D.D. Bean, which accounted for the

vast majority of the industry’s sales and shipments took a number of steps to ***.127 We agree with D.D.

Bean, however, that some of these cost-cutting measures, such as ***.128

Thus, we find that weakening demand, for which D.D. Bean budgets and plans, does not wholly

account for the industry’s reduced profitability. In interim 2009, after the filing of the petitions, the

domestic industry was able to increase its prices despite continued declines in apparent U.S. consumption

and reduced shipment levels. The industry’s unit value of net sales improved in interim 2009, as it further

reduced its SG&A expenses and COGs.129 As a result, the industry’s operating income margin was higher

in interim 2009 (*** percent) than in interim 2008 (*** percent ).130

We have also considered the role of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market during the period of

investigation.131 Nonsubject imports were not always present in the market during the period of

investigation,132 and they were priced higher than the subject imports.133 Nonsubject imports *** as a

result of a ***.134 Thus, we do not find that the injury to the domestic industry described above can be

attributed in any significant way to the nonsubject imports. The deterioration in the domestic industry’s

performance occurred as subject imports entered the U.S. market in significant volumes and undersold the

domestic product, adversely affecting domestic prices. When the subject imports left the U.S. market,

domestic prices for commodity matchbooks improved.
19

We conclude that subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the condition of the

domestic industry during the period of investigation. As discussed above, although subject imports

declined over the period, they maintained significant market share, significantly undersold the domestic

like product, and adversely affected domestic prices for commodity matchbooks to a significant degree. 

The domestic industry’s costs increased, and because of the significant volumes of subject imports

present in the U.S. market, the domestic industry was caught in a cost-price squeeze. The adverse impact

of the subject imports is further indicated by the large quantity of lost sales and revenues that we have

confirmed to have been due to the lower prices of the subject imports. The volume and market share of

the subject imports, together with their adverse effects on U.S. prices, materially impacted the domestic

industry’s profitability, market share, and employment over the period of investigation.

Consequently, we conclude that there is a causal nexus between the subject imports and an

adverse impact on the domestic industry, which demonstrates that the domestic industry is materially

injured by reason of subject imports.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we find that an industry in the United States is materially injured by

reason of imports of commodity matchbooks from India that have been found by Commerce to be sold in

the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of India.

 1

 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the

merchandise subject to these investigations.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation for the final phase of these investigations are presented in app.

A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by D.D. Bean

& Sons Co. (“D.D. Bean”), Jaffrey, NH, on October 29, 2008, alleging that an industry in the United

States is materially injured and threatened with further material injury by reason of subsidized and lessthan-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of commodity matchbooks1

 from India. Information relating to the

background of the investigations is provided below.2

Effective date Action

October 29, 2008 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of the

Commission's investigations (73 FR 65881, November 5, 2008)

November 24, 2008 Commerce’s notices of initiation (73 FR 70965)

December 15, 2008 Commission’s preliminary determinations (73 FR 77840, December 19, 2008)

April 6, 2009 Commerce’s preliminary countervailing duty determination and alignment with

final antidumping duty determination (74 FR 15444)

June 2, 2009

Commerce’s preliminary antidumping duty determination (74 FR 26366);

scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations (74 FR 34783, July 17,

2009)

October 20, 2009 Commission’s hearing1

October 22, 2009 Commerce’s final antidumping and countervailing duty determinations (74 FR

54536 and 54547)

November 17, 2009 Commission’s vote

December 4, 2009 Commission’s determinations and views transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses appearing at the hearing is presented in Appendix B.

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission–

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and . . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the
I-2

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has been significant

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidy rates and dumping

margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of

competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the

U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Part IV 

presents the volume of imports of the subject merchandise. Part V presents the pricing of U.S. and

imported subject products. Part VI presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. 

Part VII presents the statutory requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s

consideration of the question of threat of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject

countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

Commodity matchbooks generally are used as portable ignition devices, primarily to light

cigarettes. The leading U.S. producer of commodity matchbooks is the petitioner, D.D. Bean, while the
 3 Commodity Matchbooks from India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 54547,

October 22, 2009.

I-3

leading producer of commodity matchbooks in India is Triveni Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd. (“Triveni

Safety”). The leading U.S. importer of commodity matchbooks from India is ***. U.S. purchasers of

commodity matchbooks are usually distributors and include ***. The other larger purchasers of

commodity matchbooks are ***.

Apparent U.S. consumption of commodity matchbooks totaled *** cases ($***) in 2008. Two

firms, D.D. Bean and Atlas Match LLC (“Atlas”), accounted for all known production of commodity

matchbooks in the United States. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of commodity matchbooks totaled ***

cases ($***) in 2008, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and ***

percent by value. U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from India totaled *** cases ($***) in 2008 and

accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S.

importers did not report any imports from nonsubject sources in 2008.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigations is presented in appendix C, tables C-1 to C-3. 

U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of two firms that accounted for all known U.S.

production of commodity matchbooks during 2008. U.S. import data are based on questionnaire

responses of three importers that provided data and are believed to account for almost all U.S. imports of

commodity matchbooks from 2006 through 2008. Data on apparent U.S. consumption of commodity

matchbooks were compiled using shipment data from questionnaire responses of the two U.S. producers

and shipments of imports data from the three responding firms that imported commodity matchbooks.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Commodity matchbooks have not been the subject of any previous import injury investigations in

the United States.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Subsidies

On October 22, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final

determination of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of commodity matchbooks from

India.3

 Table I-1 presents Commerce’s findings of subsidization of commodity matchbooks in India.

Table I-1

Commodity matchbooks: Commerce’s final subsidy determination with respect to imports from

India

Entity

Final countervailable subsidy

rates (percent)

Triveni 9.88

All others 9.88

Source: 74 FR 54547, October 22, 2009.
 4 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Commodity Matchbooks from India, 74 FR

54536, October 22, 2009.

 5

 Such commodity matchbooks are also referred to as “for resale” because they always enter into retail channels,

meaning businesses that sell a general variety of tangible merchandise, e.g., convenience stores, supermarkets, dollar

stores, drug stores and mass merchandisers.

I-4

Commerce determined the following government programs in India to be countervailable:

A. Export promotion capital goods scheme (EPCGS)

B. Duty entitlement passbook scheme (DEPS/DEPB)

C. Pre-shipment and post-shipment export financing

Sales at LTFV

On October 22, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final

determination of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from India.4

 Table I-2 presents Commerce’s

dumping margins with respect to imports of commodity matchbooks from India.

Table I-2

Commodity matchbooks: Commerce’s final weighted-average dumping margins with respect to

imports from India

Manufacturer/exporter

Final

dumping margins (percent)

Triveni 66.07

All others 66.07

Source: 74 FR 54536, October 22, 2009.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

The scope of this investigation covers commodity matchbooks, also known as commodity book

matches, paper matches or booklet matches.5

 Commodity matchbooks typically, but do not necessarily,

consist of twenty match stems which are usually made from paperboard or similar material tipped with a

match head composed of any chemical formula. The match stems may be stitched, stapled or otherwise

fastened into a matchbook cover of any material, on which a striking strip composed of any chemical

formula has been applied to assist in the ignition process.

Commodity matchbooks included in the scope of this investigation may or may not contain

printing. For example, they may have no printing other than the identification of the manufacturer or

importer. Commodity matchbooks may also be printed with a generic message such as “Thank You” or a

generic image such as the American Flag, with store brands (e.g., Kroger, 7-Eleven, Shurfine or Giant);

product brands for national or regional advertisers such as cigarettes or alcoholic beverages; or with

corporate brands for national or regional distributors (e.g., Penley Corp. or Diamond Brands). They all

enter retail distribution channels. Regardless of the materials used for the stems of the matches and
 6

 The gross distinctions between commodity matchbooks and promotional matchbooks may be summarized as

follows: (1) if it has no printing, or is printed with a generic message such as “Thank You” or a generic image such

as the American Flag, or printed with national or regional store brands or corporate brands, it is commodity; (2) if it

has printing, and the printing includes the name of a bar, restaurant, resort, hotel, club, cafe/coffee shop, grill, pub,

eatery, lounge, casino, barbecue, or individual establishment prominently displayed on the matchbook cover, it is 

promotional.

 7 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Commodity Matchbooks from India, 74 FR

54536, October 22, 2009 and Commodity Matchbooks From India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination, 74 FR 54547, October 22, 2009.

I-5

regardless of the way the match stems are fastened to the matchbook cover, all commodity matchbooks

are included in the scope of this investigation.

All matchbooks, including commodity matchbooks, typically comply with the United States

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Safety Standard for Matchbooks, codified at 16 CFR 

1202.1 et seq.

The scope of this investigation excludes promotional matchbooks, often referred to as “not for

resale,” or “specialty advertising” matchbooks, as they do not enter into retail channels and are sold to 

businesses that provide hospitality, dining, drinking or entertainment services to their customers, and are

given away by these businesses as promotional items. Such promotional matchbooks are distinguished by

the physical characteristic of having the name and/or logo of a bar, restaurant, resort, hotel, club,

cafe/coffee shop, grill, pub, eatery, lounge, casino, barbecue or individual establishment printed

prominently on the matchbook cover. Promotional matchbook cover printing also typically includes the

address and the phone number of the business or establishment being promoted.6

 Also excluded are all 

other matches that are not fastened into a matchbook cover such as wooden matches, stick matches, box

matches, kitchen matches, pocket matches, penny matches, household matches, strike-anywhere matches

(aka “SAW” matches), strike-on-box matches (aka “SOB” matches), fireplace matches, barbeque/grill

matches, fire starters, and wax matches.7

U.S. Tariff Treatment

Commodity matchbooks are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(“HTS”) under subheading 3605.00.00 and reported for statistical purposes under statistical reporting

number 3605.00.0060. Table I-3 presents current tariff rates for commodity matchbooks.

Table I-3

Commodity matchbooks: Tariff rates, 2009

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2 Column 23

Rates

3605.00.00

 30

 60

Matches, other than pyrotechnic articles of

heading 3604................................................

 Matches with natural wood stems............ 

 Other........................................................

 

 

Free $.20 per

gross of

immediate

containers

 1 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate. 

 2

 Special rates not applicable when General rate is free.

 3

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009).
 8

 Petition, exh. 4, pp. 2-3.

 9

 Petition, pp. 4-7. Commodity matchbooks are characterized as “for resale,” although a portion will be given

away to the end user as single matchbooks with the sale of a pack of cigarettes at convenience stores.

 10 ***, and petition, p. 4.

I-6

THE PRODUCT

Paper matchbooks were first introduced in 1892 when a Philadelphia patent attorney, Joshua

Pusey, was granted a patent for what he termed “flexible matches.” The patent was purchased by the

Diamond Match Co. (“Diamond”), the leading producer of wooden matches in the United States. A

young salesman for Diamond, Henry Traute, realized that matchbook covers were an ideal medium for

advertising and convinced a New York tobacconist to give away advertising matchbooks with every

purchase of tobacco products by retail customers. Free matchbooks were an immediate success. By the

1920s, matchbooks had become one of the most popular advertising mediums in the United States–the

medium was particularly suitable for small businesses because of the low cost and the ability to target

particular regions or even localities. During World War II, the Office of Price Administration

promulgated a regulation requiring distribution of a free matchbook with the sale of every pack of

cigarettes–a custom that is still widespread today. The United States Government also used matchbooks

as a method of communication, using them for both wartime and peacetime public service announcements

and particularly for messages urging support for World War II efforts.8

According to the petition, commodity matchbooks are distinguished by their plain white covers,

generic messages such as “Thank You,” generic images such as the American Flag, or national and

regional chain store brand logos (such as Kroger, 7-Eleven, Shurfine, or Giant). Commodity matchbooks

are characterized by the petitioner as always entering retail channels, where they may be re-sold or given

away, typically with the purchase of cigarettes.9

Description and Applications

Commodity matchbooks consist of paper match stems fastened into a matchbook cover. The

cover is usually made of plain white paperboard, which is sometimes printed with a simple generic

message or image (such as “Thank You” or an American Flag) or printed with a chain store logo. A

slurry composition containing red phosphorus, polyvinyl acetate, and ground glass is applied to the cover

to use as a striker surface for the match head. The match stem is made from paperboard and is tipped

with a match head composed of a chemical formula (usually potassium chlorate, ground glass, gelatin,

sulfur, diatomaceous earth, and carboxymethylcellulose (“CMC”)), which ignites when struck against the

striker surface. Figure I-1 shows the composition of an individual paper match stick. Each matchbook

typically consists of 20 matches, mirroring the quantity of cigarettes contained in a pack.10 
 11 Strike-anywhere matches substitute the key component red phosphorus contained in the striker surface with

phosphorus sesquisulfide added to the tip of the match head to achieve the strike-anywhere physical characteristic.

***.

 12 Petition, p. 5 and exh. 6.

 13 Ibid., p. 8.

 14 Petition, exh. 5 and ***, and petition, p. 4.

I-7

Figure I-1

Commodity matchbooks: Anatomy of a match

Source: D.D. Bean, http://www.ddbean.com/products/match_facts.html, retrieved September 3, 2009.

 The flame is produced as the result of a chemical reaction which takes place on contact between

potassium chlorate and red phosphorus. Safety matches separate the principal chemicals by adding the

potassium chlorate into the formulation of the match head and the red phosphorous into the formulation

 of the striker surface. All matchbooks and most wooden matches are safety matches.11 All commodity

matchbooks, whether imported or made in the United States, are required to meet U.S. Consumer Product

Safety Standards (16 C.F.R. §§ 1202.1 et seq.)12

Commodity matchbooks always enter the retail channels of trade and are intended for resale by

large supermarkets or similar chains (in boxes of 50 matchbooks each), or as give-aways by convenience

store owners with the purchase of a pack of cigarettes. Commodity matchbooks are intended for use as

portable ignition devices, and the petitioner estimates that 95 percent of all such ignitions are for

cigarettes.13 Figure I-2 presents a depiction of a type of commodity matchbook produced by petitioner

D.D. Bean.

Manufacturing Process14

The production process for commodity matchbooks is an automated process involving dedicated

machinery. Match stem stock is purchased in large rolls and continuously fed into a punch press with a

die that stamps out strips of 120 individual matches. The match strips are inserted into a carrier chain that

passes through a paraffin dip followed by immersion into the match head composition. The carrier chain

continues through a drying process and the strips are extracted and conveyed directly to the assembly

area. The printing of the match cover may be outsourced to a commercial printer or done internally. 

High speed roll-to-roll printing is commonly used to produce commodity matchbook covers. A slurry

composition containing red phosphorous is applied to either a sheet or roll of printed covers using a

variety of application methods and then dried. The tray or caddy that contains the 50 matchbooks is die

cut from rolls or sheets of recycled chipboard and folded and glued by machine to form the finished
 15 The Commission did not find wooden matches in boxes to be properly includable in the domestic like product

because of differences in physical characteristics and uses; limited interchangeability; different channels of

(continued...)

I-8

caddy. The caddies are transported to the assembly machines either manually or typically by conveyor

belts. 

The finished match stems and the sheets or rolls of match covers are simultaneously loaded into

an automatic assembly machine. While in the automatic assembly machine, the match strips are cut into

sections containing the appropriate number of individual matches (20 match stems per book) at the same

time the cover is cut to individual size. The cover is then folded over the match stems and stitched to

complete the finished book. The assembled matchbooks are then accumulated and presented for

packaging, either manually or automatically, into caddies of 50 matchbooks. After being packed with 50

matchbooks, the caddies are most commonly paper-wrapped but may also be inserted into a folding

carton (made of recycled clay-coated carton stock), with or without shrink-wrap. Finished caddies are

accumulated and packaged into cases. Fifty caddies per case is the standard size but variations of 40, 30,

and 20 caddies per case are not uncommon. Upon completion of this step, finished cases are palletized

and are ready for shipment to the customer. 

Figure I-2

Commodity matchbooks: Product forms

Source: D.D. Bean.

 DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6) price. In the preliminary phase of these

investigations, the Commission defined a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope

of the investigations. The Commission did not include wooden matches in boxes or promotional

matchbooks in the domestic like product, but stated that in any final phase of these investigations it would

revisit the issue of including promotional matchbooks in the domestic like product.15 16 17
 15 (...continued)

distribution at the end-user level of trade; different manufacturing facilities, processes, and employees; and

differences in producer and customer perceptions. The Commission did not include promotional matchbooks

because the two types of matchbooks are not fully interchangeable; there are differences in the production process

and machinery used; producers’ perceptions of commodity and promotional matchbooks differ; and there are

significant differences in price between the two types of matchbooks.

 16 Commodity Matchbooks from India, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-459 and 731-TA-1155 (Preliminary), USITC

Publication 4054, December 2008, pp. 6-9.

 17 Staff notes that the petitioner, D.D. Bean, ***.

 18 Petition, p. 8.

 19 Indian respondent’s postconference brief, p. 4.

 20 Consumer Product Safety Commission Safety Standard for Matchbooks, petition, exh. 6, p. 2.

 21 ***.

I-9

The petitioner contends that the Commission should determine that commodity matchbooks are a

single domestic like product that does not include promotional matchbooks, wooden stick matches in

boxes, or any other kind of ignition device.18 The Indian Government (“Indian respondent”) contended in

the preliminary phase of the investigations that promotional matchbooks should be included in the

domestic like product,19 and did not comment on the issue of domestic like product in the final phase of

the investigations.

In its safety standard for matchbooks, the Consumer Product Safety Commission divides

matchbooks into two basic categories: resale matchbooks and special reproduction matchbooks. “Resale

matchbooks can be subdivided into advertising and nonadvertising matchbooks. Nonadvertising

matchbooks are generally sold by large chain stores, and constitute a small portion of the total resale

matchbook volume. Resale matchbooks with advertising are generally given away by tobacco shops,

drug stores, vending firms, and other mass distribution outlets. Special reproduction matchbooks,

characterized by their distinctive and unique cover designs, are purchased and distributed for promotional

purposes by hotels, restaurants, financial institutions, and other business enterprises, and are given free to

users.”20

Producers and importers were asked to compare commodity and promotional matches on physical

characteristics; interchangeability and uses; manufacturing processes; channels of distribution; customer

and producer perceptions; and price. They were requested to report if the products were fully, mostly,

somewhat, rarely, or never comparable and to explain these answers. Table I-4 summarizes U.S.

producers’ and importers’ responses.

Table I-4

Commodity matchbooks: Number of producers and importers reporting commodity and

promotional matchbooks as fully, mostly, somewhat, rarely, or never comparable

* * * * * * *

Physical Characteristics

Producers reported that commodity matches are very homogeneous and typically contain 20

match stems per matchbook. Promotional matchbooks tend to have more match stems, typically 30, in

order to provide more space for advertising on the cover. Promotional matchbooks can convey

customized messages, use special embossing or die stamping, and use a variety of colors in the match

heads, stems, and covers.21 One firm also noted that because promotional matchbooks are designed to
 22 ***.

 23 Hearing transcript, p. 22 (M. Bean).

 24 ***.

 25 D.D. Bean clarified its estimate of promotional matchbooks that are preserved by collectors, stating that

matchbook collecting as a hobby is not a large percentage of the total, but that a very large percentage of

promotional matchbooks are being collected as a souvenir. Hearing transcript, p. 56 (M. Bean). Atlas agreed that

there is a very small percentage of “hard core collectors” and that there is a larger percentage of “casual collectors.” 

Hearing transcript, pp. 57-58 (Bradley). 

 26 Hearing transcript, p. 51 (Bradley).

 27 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 11.

 28 Ibid., pp. 10-11.

I-10

convey the desired image of the advertiser, the quality of the cover board, finish, match stems, and

printing tends to be of a much higher caliber than that of commodity matchbooks.22

Interchangeability and Uses

Most producers and importers reported that commodity and promotional matchbooks are rarely or

never interchangeable. Only the *** indicated that the two products are fully interchangeable. 

Commodity matches are typically given away with the sale of cigarettes, as an inexpensive way of

lighting cigarettes. Commodity matchbooks usually contain 20 match stems, corresponding to the

number of cigarettes in one pack. Promotional matchbooks primarily serve as a method of advertisement

rather than having a utilitarian purpose. D.D. Bean stated that the end user of a commodity matchbook is

most likely a smoker and would be unlikely to keep a plain white matchbook or even one printed with a

national store’s logo for any purpose other than to light cigarettes.23 End users tend to keep promotional

matchbooks as souvenirs, adding them to match cover collections or storing them for future reference to

addresses or telephone numbers. Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to estimate the

proportions of promotional matchbooks that are preserved by collectors versus those that are used and

discarded. U.S. producers ***24 ***.25 Most importers and purchasers could not provide an estimate; one

importer estimated that 70 percent of promotional matchbooks are preserved by collectors and one

purchaser estimated that all promotional matchbooks are used and discarded.

Manufacturing Processes

While both commodity and promotional matchbooks have a similar basic manufacturing process,

the process for promotional matchbooks tends to be less mechanized, more customized, and more labor

intensive than that for commodity matchbooks. Commodity matchbooks are produced on high-speed,

roll-to-roll presses, while promotional matchbooks are made on slower, sheet-fed presses.26 Commodity

matchbooks are made in a continuing production process using an assembly line of machines specifically

designed for high speed long runs; promotional matchbooks, on the other hand, are made in a discrete

production process using machines best suited for short runs, rapid changeovers, a high degree of

customization, and varying inputs.27

*** reported using the same employees to produce both commodity and promotional

matchbooks. However, *** the same equipment and machinery in the production of commodity

matchbooks as in the production of promotional matchbooks. D.D. Bean noted that while it is possible to

adapt or modify a machine from production of promotional matchbooks to production of commodity

matchbooks, and, with much more difficulty, vice versa, it is neither easy nor economical to do so.28
 29 Correspondence with ***, September 23, 2009.

 30 Hearing transcript, p. 21 (M. Bean).

 31 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 12.

I-11

Producers were asked to what extent, if any, commodity matchbooks are transformed by

aftermarket printing into promotional matchbooks. *** reported that they do not convert commodity

matchbooks to promotional matchbooks. *** also stated that most aftermarket printing is done for

weddings in very small quantities, and that un-printed 30 match stem promotional matchbooks would be

most commonly used for such transformations.29

Channels of Distribution

All producers and importers reported that commodity and promotional matchbooks rarely or

never enter the same channels of distribution. Commodity matches are typically sold through distributors

and wholesalers who sell to grocery stores, convenience stores, drug stores, and mass merchandisers;

promotional matchbooks are either sold directly to restaurants, bars, casinos, and similar businesses or

sold through advertising specialty distributors that also sell other advertising products.

Table I-5 presents the respective channels of distribution for U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of

commodity and promotional matchbooks. Additional details regarding the channels of distribution for

domestically produced and imported commodity matchbooks are presented in Part II of this report,

Conditions of Competition in the U.S. Market.

Table I-5

Commodity matchbooks: Channels of distribution for U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of

commodity and promotional matchbooks, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Customer and Producer Perceptions

Producers and one importer stated that customers typically perceive commodity matches as a tool

for lighting cigarettes, while promotional matches are perceived as a souvenir or a reference for the

telephone number or address of a particular establishment. D.D. Bean stated that even if the end user

were a smoker, it is fairly certain that no one would go into a bar, restaurant, hotel or casino purely with

the intention of obtaining a matchbook.30 Producers perceive commodity matchbooks as a high volume

production business and promotional matchbooks as an entirely different business model requiring

customization and production in smaller quantities. 

Price

Commodity matchbooks are much lower priced than promotional matchbooks. D.D. Bean credits

the higher price for promotional matchbooks to smaller order quantities having more elaborate and

customized design requirements.31 Table I-6 presents average unit values for U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of commodity and promotional matchbooks in the United States. Pricing practices and prices

reported for domestically produced and imported commodity matchbooks in response to the

Commission’s questionnaires are presented in Part V of this report, Pricing and Related Information.
I-12

Table I-6

Commodity matchbooks: Average unit values of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of commodity

and promotional matchbooks, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 1

 Petition, p. 8.

 2

 In Parts II and V of this report, purchaser responses include the responses of all purchasers including those

which are also U.S. producers and/or importers except when the same questions are also asked in the U.S. producer

and/or importer questionnaires.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Commodity matchbooks are “intended for use as portable ignition devices, and 95 percent of all

such ignitions are for cigarettes. They are often purchased from wholesalers by convenience store owners

to give away for free with the purchase of a pack of cigarettes.”1

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

The quantity of U.S. shipments of domestic and imported commodity matchbooks sold to

wholesalers/distributors, convenience/grocery stores, food service companies, membership warehouses,

and other channels of distribution is shown in table II-1. In 2008, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments were

divided among three principal categories: D.D. Bean sold ***, and Atlas sold ***. In 2008, *** sold ***

and *** sold ***. There were *** reported sales of imported product to food service companies or

membership warehouses.

Table II-1

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of reported U.S. shipments, by

sources and channels of distribution, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

*******

Purchasers

Purchaser questionnaires were sent to 25 firms, and 12 purchasers returned completed

questionnaires (table II-2). Purchasers include ***. ***. ***.2

 Of the remaining nine responding

purchasers, seven were distributors/wholesalers and two were retailers. 

Table II-2

Commodity matchbooks: Purchasers, type of firm, volume purchased, sources, and whether

promotional matches were purchased

*******

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

Based on available information, U.S. commodity matchbooks producers have the ability to

respond to changes in demand with *** changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced
 3

 Hearing transcript, p. 98 (Bartlett).

 4

 Table VII-1.

II-2

commodity matchbooks to the U.S. market. The main contributing factor to the *** degree of

responsiveness of supply is the low capacity utilization rate.3

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ capacity utilization decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008,

and was *** percent during January-June 2009. 

Alternative markets

Exports, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in

2008, and were *** percent during January-June 2009. 

Inventory levels

The ratio of U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories to their total shipments tended to be ***,

fluctuating between a high of *** percent in *** and a low of *** percent in ***.

Production alternatives

*** on the same equipment as commodity matchbooks, while *** on the same equipment as it

produced commodity matchbooks. *** reported that workers used to produce commodity matchbooks

also produced promotional matchbooks.

Supply of Subject Imports to the U.S. Market

Based on available information, the responding Indian producer has the ability to respond to

changes in demand with *** changes in the quantity of shipments of commodity matchbooks to the U.S.

market. The main contributing factor to the *** degree of responsiveness of supply is the availability of

unused capacity.

Industry capacity

The capacity utilization rate for the only responding producer of commodity matchbooks in India,

Triveni Safety, was *** percent in 2006, then decreased to *** percent by 2008; capacity utilization is

projected to *** to *** percent in 2009 and 2010 ***.

Alternative markets

Triveni Safety reported that *** percent of its sales were to the Indian home market. Exports to

non-U.S. markets were a *** share of its shipments, increasing from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent

in 2008.4
 5

 *** reported that commodity matchbooks were also produced in Egypt and Guatemala, and that Guatemalan

commodity matchbooks did not meet U.S. safety standards.

 6

 Hearing transcript, p. 92 (M. Bean). ***.

 7

 Two of these firms attributed the reduced demand for commodity matchbooks to both lighters and reduced

smoking.

 8

 Petition, exhibit 6. The Consumer Product Safety Commission's regulations (16 U.S.C. § 1202.2(d)2)), as of

July 30, 2008.

 9 Cigarette Consumption, United States, 1900-2007 - Tobacco Outlook Report, Economic Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Accessed on December 1, 2008. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908700.html. This

(continued...)

II-3

Inventory levels

Triveni Safety’s inventories, as a ratio to total shipments, fluctuated between *** percent in 2006

and *** percent in 2007. 

Production alternatives

Triveni Safety reported that *** produced on the same equipment as commodity matchbooks.

Nonsubject Imports

Commodity matchbooks were reported to be imported from China and Mexico while promotional

matchbooks were reported to be imported from India and Japan.5

Demand

Demand Characteristics

Since commodity matchbooks are mainly used to light cigarettes, the overall demand for

commodity matchbooks is closely linked to the demand for cigarettes. The price elasticity of demand for

commodity matchbooks is likely to be inelastic mainly because cigarette smoking tends to be relatively

insensitive to the price of matches, which accounts for a very small share of the total cost of smoking. 

The availability of good substitutes, however, somewhat increases the elasticity of demand for

commodity matchbooks.

U.S. demand for commodity matchbooks decreased over the period for which data were collected

as demand for cigarettes decreased. D.D. Bean, ***, and five of the nine responding purchasers reported

that U.S. demand had declined since January 2006.6

 Three purchasers reported that demand for

commodity matchbooks was unchanged and one reported that demand had fluctuated. D.D. Bean, ***

attributed the decline in demand to reduced smoking rates while *** also attributed the decline in demand

to the availability of inexpensive lighters. When asked if declining demand for commodity matchbooks

could be attributed to the use of lighters rather than the decline in smoking, four of seven responding

purchasers reported that low-priced lighters reduced demand for commodity matches7

 and three firms

reported that low-priced lighters had influenced demand for commodity matches but that this occurred

before 2006. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that substitute products such as

disposable lighters as well as business and economic conditions have led to the contraction in the

matchbook manufacturing industry in recent years.8

 Cigarette consumption in the United States is

estimated to have decreased from 372 billion in 2006 to an estimated 360 billion in 2007.9
 9

 (...continued)

report on cigarette consumption is no longer published and no similar sources were found.

 10 Petition, exhibit 6. 

 11 Selling prices provided by producers and importers are under two cents per commodity matchbook. Cigarette

wholesale prices for premium branded cigarettes increased from $2.47 per pack ($2.86 including the federal excise

tax) in 2006 to $2.85 per pack ($3.85 including the Federal excise tax) in April 2009. The average retail selling

price of a pack of cigarettes increased from $4.14 in 2006 to $4.60 in 2008. *** estimate, email correspondence

from ***.

II-4

Apparent U.S. consumption of commodity matchbooks decreased from *** cases in 2006 to ***

cases in 2008. During January-June 2008, apparent U.S. consumption was *** cases as compared to ***

cases during January-June 2009.

Business Cycles

Eleven of the 12 responding purchasers reported that commodity matchbooks were not subject to

any business cycle or unique competitive conditions. One purchaser, ***, reported that the availability of

lighters and imports of commodity matchbooks created competitive conditions unique to the commodity

matchbook market.

Substitute Products

*** importers, and two of nine responding purchasers reported substitutes for commodity

matchbooks including wooden matches, lighters, and promotional matchbooks. *** and the seven

remaining purchasers reported no substitutes. *** reported that changes in the price of substitutes

affected the price of commodity matchbooks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission10 indicated that

lighters had reduced demand for commodity matchbooks. Purchasers were asked to what extent the

declining demand for commodity matchbooks is attributable to the use of lighters instead of a decline in

the rate of smoking; all seven responding purchasers reported that the use of lighters had affected demand

for commodity matches.

Cost Share

Commodity matchbooks are a consumer product frequently given free with cigarettes and cost

retailers less than 1 percent of the cost of a packet of cigarettes.11 The cost of cigarettes is more likely to

determine the demand for commodity matchbooks than the cost of commodity matchbooks themselves. 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported commodity matchbooks depends upon

such factors as relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, etc.), preference for

U.S. sources, and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery

dates, payment terms, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is a high degree of

substitutability between U.S. and commodity matchbooks imported from India.
II-5

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Table II-3 summarizes purchasers’ responses concerning the top three factors in their purchase 

decisions. Price, quality, and traditional supplier/contracts were the most frequently reported number one

factor, price was the most frequently reported number two factor, and price and availability were the most

frequently reported number three factor.

Table II-3

Commodity matchbooks: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Availability 1 1 2

Price 3 3 2

Quality 3 1 1

Traditional supplier/contract 3 1 0

Other1 033

 1 Other factors include terms, service, and product line for the number two factor and delivery time, minimum

order size, and U.S.-produced for the number three factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 17 factors in their purchasing decisions (table

II-4). All nine responding purchasers reported that price, product consistency, and quality meets industry

standards were very important. Other factors reported by most purchasers to be very important were

availability and reliability of supply (8 purchasers); discounts offered (7 purchasers); delivery terms,

delivery time, and packaging (6 purchasers); and U.S. transportation costs and warranties and assurances

(5 purchasers).

Purchasers were not asked if they required certification or prequalification; however, ***

reported that commodity matchbooks should comply with Consumer Product Safety Commission

standards for matchbooks.

Purchasers were asked how frequently they were aware of the country of origin of the commodity

matchbooks they purchased, how often they knew the manufacturer, and how often their buyers were

interested in the country of origin of the goods they supply; responses are shown below.

Purchaser/customer decision Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser knows if product is U.S.-produced or imported 5 4 0 2

Purchaser knows producer 7 3 1 1

Purchaser’s customers know or are interested in country of

origin 5 1 3 3
II-6

Table II-4

Commodity matchbooks: Importance of purchasing factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Availability 8 1 0

Delivery terms 6 3 0

Delivery time 6 3 0

Discounts offered 7 1 1

Extension of credit 0 8 1

Minimum quantity requirements 4 3 2

Packaging 6 3 0

Price 9 0 0

Product range 0 3 6

Product consistency 9 0 0

Product traceability 4 3 2

Quality meets industry standards 9 0 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 4 5 0

Reliability of supply 8 0 1

Technical support/service 3 4 2

U.S. transportation costs 5 3 1

Warranties and assurances 5 3 1

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were also asked if they or their customers ever specifically order commodity

matchbooks from one country in particular over other possible sources of supply. Four of 12 purchasers,

***, responded affirmatively. *** reported that some purchasers prefer U.S.-produced product, and ***

reported that it supported U.S. manufacturing. None of the purchasers reported that certain grades, forms,

or types of commodity matchbooks were only available from a single source.

When asked how often they purchase the lowest priced commodity matchbooks, five of the

eleven responding firms responded “usually,” two responded “sometimes,” and four *** responded

“never.” Purchasers were also asked if they purchased commodity matchbooks from one source although

a comparable product was available at a lower price from another source. *** reported using only a

single domestic supplier, *** reported that it purchased only U.S.-produced product in 2008 and 2009 to

reduce inventories and lead times, *** reported purchasing U.S. product because it had a good

relationship with the U.S. producer and wanted to support a U.S. manufacturer, *** reported that it had a

supply contract with its U.S. supplier, and *** reported that some customers prefer U.S. product. In

addition, two other purchasers reported that they would purchase higher-priced product for the following

reasons: availability, length of time to fill orders, minimum order size, reliability of supply, and time to

clear customs.
II-7

Comparison of the U.S.-Produced and Imported Commodity Matchbooks

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced commodity matchbooks can generally be used in

the same applications as imports, U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers were asked whether

the products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. As shown in

table II-5, ***, both responding purchasers, and *** responding importers reported that U.S. product

could always be used interchangeably with product from India. *** reported that the products from these

countries frequently can be used interchangeably.

Table II-5

Commodity matchbooks: Perceived interchangeability between commodity matchbooks produced

in the United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AFSNAFSNA F S N

U.S. vs. India *** *** *** 0 *** *** 0 0 2 0 0 0

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries *** *** *** 0 *** *** 0 0 0 0 0 0

India vs. nonsubject countries *** *** *** 0 *** *** 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

As shown in table II-6, 8 of 11 responding purchasers reported that U.S.-produced commodity

matchbooks “always” meet minimum quality specifications and three reported that they “usually” meet

minimum quality specifications. Three of seven responding purchasers reported that Indian commodity

matchbooks “always” meet minimum quality specifications, three reported “usually,” and one reported

“never.” Three purchasers reported that product from nonsubject countries “usually” meet minimum

quality specifications, one purchaser reported that *** product “always” meets minimum quality

specifications, and one purchaser reported that *** product “never” meets minimum quality

specifications.

Table II-6

Commodity matchbooks: Ability to meet minimum quality specifications, by source

Country

Number of firms reporting1

Always Usually Sometimes Never

 United States 8 3 0 0

 India 3 3 0 1

 Nonsubject countries 1 3 0 1

 1 Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced or imported commodity matchbooks meet minimum

quality specifications for their own or their customers’ uses.

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked what they would do if they could not obtain commodity matchbooks from

India; all 10 responding purchasers reported that they would not reduce the overall volume of their

purchases. Six of the 10 reported that they would purchase more U.S. product, but only one of ten
II-8

reported that it would purchase more from nonsubject countries. All 12 responding purchasers reported

that they had not changed purchase amounts or sources because of the filing of the petition, although one

firm reported that it shifted to U.S. product due to Commerce’s preliminary determinations.

Purchasers were asked to compare domestically produced commodity matches and those

produced in India and nonsubject countries with respect to 15 different attributes (table II-7). Of the six

firms that compared U.S. and Indian product, a majority reported that the products were comparable for

all factors except for availability, delivery terms, delivery time, and technical support/service, for which

equal numbers reported that the U.S. product was superior and that Indian and U.S. product were

comparable; and lowest price, for which the majority reported that the U.S. product was inferior (i.e.,

higher in price). 

Table II-7

Commodity matchbooks: Comparisons between U.S.-produced, subject Indian, and nonsubjectcountry products, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

U.S. vs India

U.S. vs

nonsubject

India vs

nonsubject

S C I S C I S C I

Availability 3 3 0 1 1 0 0 3 0

Delivery terms 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0

Delivery time 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 1

Discounts offered 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

Extension of credit 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 2 0

Minimum quantity requirements 1 5 0 1 1 0 0 2 0

Packaging 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 2 0

Lowest price1 0 1 5 0 1 1 1 0 1

Product range 0 4 2 0 1 1 0 1 1

Product consistency 0 6 0 1 1 0 0 2 0

Quality meets industry standards 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 2 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 1 5 0 1 1 0 0 2 0

Reliability of supply 2 4 0 1 1 0 0 2 0

Technical support/service 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

U.S. transportation costs1 1 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

 1 A rating of superior means that the price or U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm

reports “U.S. superior,” this means that it rates the U.S. price or U.S. transportation costs as generally lower than

those of the other country.

Note.–S = Superior, C = Comparable, I = Inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Two firms compared U.S. and nonsubject-country product; they reported that the U.S. product

was superior with respect to delivery terms, delivery time, and technical support. With respect to the
 12 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

II-9

other factors, they generally reported that the U.S. and nonsubject country products were comparable. 

Three purchasers compared Indian with nonsubject-country product; they generally rated the products as

comparable on all factors except for technical support/service, for which the two responding firms both

rated the Indian product as inferior; and lowest price, product range, and U.S. transportation costs, for

which their responses were mixed.

Producers and importers were asked to compare U.S.-produced products, imports from India, and

nonsubject imports in terms of product differences other than price such as quality, availability, product

range, and technical support. Firms were asked whether these product differences are always, frequently,

sometimes, or never significant (table II-8). *** reported that such differences were sometimes

significant for all country pairs and *** reported that such differences were never significant for all

country pairs. *** reported that such differences were always significant between products from the

United States and India, and *** reported that such differences were never significant.

Table II-8

Commodity matchbooks: Differences other than price between products from different sources

*******

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates. Parties were asked to comment on these estimates. 

No comments were received.

U.S. Supply Elasticity12

The domestic supply elasticity for commodity matchbooks measures the sensitivity of the

quantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of commodity matchbooks. The

elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease

with which producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the

existence of inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced commodity

matchbooks. Analysis of these factors earlier indicates that the U.S. industry is likely to be able to 

greatly increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market in response to changes in demand; an estimate

in the range of 4.0 to 8.0 is suggested.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for commodity matchbooks measures the sensitivity of the overall

quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of commodity matchbooks. This estimate

depends on factors discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of

substitute products, as well as the component share of the commodity matchbooks in the production of

any downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand for commodity

matchbooks is likely to be inelastic; a range of -0.5 to -1.0 is suggested. 
 13 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-10

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.13 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., appearance, safety standards, etc.) and conditions of sale (availability, sales terms/discounts/

promotions, etc.). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced

commodity matchbooks and imported Indian commodity matchbooks is likely to be in the range of 3.0 to

6.0.
 1

 Petition, p. 3 and exh. 4.

 2

 Hearing transcript, p. 118 (M. Bean).

 3

 About Atlas Match, http://www.atlasmatch.com/about.html, retrieved September 8, 2009.

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the margin of dumping was presented earlier in this report

and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV

and V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part VI and (except as

noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of two firms that account for all known U.S. production of

commodity matchbooks during the period examined.

U.S. PRODUCERS

U.S. producer questionnaires were sent to both firms identified in the petition. The current

domestic producers of commodity matchbooks and each company’s position on the petition, production

location, and share of reported production of commodity matchbooks in 2008 are presented in table III-1.

Table III-1

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, and

shares of 2008 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position on

petition U.S. production location

Share of

production

(percent)

D.D. Bean Petitioner Jaffrey, NH ***

Atlas ***

Frankfort, IL (closed in 2008)

Euless, TX ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

D.D. Bean, the petitioner, is *** producer of commodity matchbooks in the United States. The

company is a family-owned business that was founded in 1938. It has operated continuously since that

time at its manufacturing facility in Jaffrey, NH.1

 The manufacturing facility is a converted textile mill

built in the 1800s and produces its own hydroelectricity to generate approximately 15 percent of its total

energy consumption.2

 Much of the machinery was custom-built by D.D. Bean and is original from its

startup in 1938. D.D. Bean concentrates its production on commodity matchbooks, but did report

producing *** promotional matchbooks *** in 2008. D.D. Bean does not import commodity or

promotional matchbooks, but does export to ***.

Atlas was founded in 1960 as a small customer-service-oriented business looking to meet the

needs of match advertisers.3

 In September 2007, Atlas merged with Bradley Industries (“Bradley”), a

family business that began production in 1969. As a result of the merger, Bradley’s facility in Frankfort,

IL, which produced commodity matchbooks, closed in the second quarter of 2008. Bradley cited the

decline of the commodity matchbook business and its inability to raise prices to offset rising costs as the

reasons it decided to close the Frankfort factory. All production is now contained in the Atlas facility in

Euless, TX. In addition to commodity matchbooks, Atlas also makes and distributes promotional
 4

 ***. Correspondence with ***, September 23, 2009.

 5

 ***. Correspondence with ***, September 23, 2009.

 6

 ***.

 7

 ***.

III-2

matchbooks and boxes, coasters, tissue packs, and other items. Atlas did report ***. It did not export

commodity matchbooks during the period of investigation, but did report exports of promotional

matchbooks to ***. 

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Both D.D. Bean and Atlas reported that they have experienced changes to their operations and

production of matchbooks since January 1, 2006. D.D. Bean stated that ***. It has also ***. As a result

of the September 2007 merger between Atlas and Bradley, production moved to the Atlas factory in

Euless, TX. The Frankfort, IL factory is now closed. Atlas stated that the decision to close the Frankfort

factory ***.

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for commodity matchbooks are

presented in table III-2. 

Table III-2

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, JanuaryJune 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Capacity in the United States remained steady throughout the period for which data were

collected, but was *** apparent U.S. consumption in each year and period for which data were collected. 

Production decreased in both 2007 and 2008, and was lower in January-June 2009 than in January-June

2008. Accordingly, capacity utilization declined throughout the period for which the data were collected. 

Capacity utilization for Atlas declined *** in 2008 and in the first half of 2009 after it closed the Bradley

plant in Frankfort, IL and moved all production to the Atlas plant in Euless, TX.

D.D. Bean cited *** as the principal factor affecting its capacity utilization. D.D. Bean stated in

its questionnaire response that it has ***. Atlas reported that its primary constraint on production is ***. 

Atlas also stated, “***.”

Atlas *** other products on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of

commodity matchbooks. D.D. Bean reported that ***. D.D. Bean produces ***. While the ***.4

 D.D.

Bean reported producing *** percent promotional matchbooks. D.D. Bean also ***5

 ***.6 D.D. Bean

and Atlas ***.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of commodity matchbooks are presented in table III-3. The

unit value of U.S. shipments decreased in each year from 2006 to 2008, but was higher in the JanuaryJune 2009 period than in the January-June 2008 period. As a share of the quantity of total shipments,

exports declined from 2006 to 2008; however, the share of total shipments accounted for by exports was

higher in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008. *** export shipments were made by ***. 

Exports were destined for ***. The only known countries with historical and current resale distribution

of commodity matchbooks outside the United States are Canada, Egypt, and Guatemala.7

 There were no

internal consumption shipments or transfers to related firms.
 8

 Hearing transcript, p. 77 (Bradley).

 9

 ***.

 10 *** and ***.

 11 ***.

 12 Correspondence with ***, November 21, 2008.

 13 ***. Correspondence with ***, September 23, 2009 and e-mail with attachment from Atlas to USITC auditor,

September 10, 2009. 

III-3

Table III-3

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

D.D. Bean reported that in 2008 ***. Atlas reported that in 2008 ***.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-4, which presents end-of-period inventories for commodity matchbooks, shows that

inventories decreased in 2007 and increased in 2008, although they were *** lower than 2006 levels. The

ratios of end-of-period inventories to production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments all were below ***

percent in all three years.

Table III-4

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-June 2008,

and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Neither U.S. producer reported importing commodity matchbooks. ***. Both D.D. Bean and

Atlas reported purchases ***. Atlas indicated that up until fairly recently it had sold commodity

matchbooks to D.D. Bean.8

 D.D. Bean explained ***.9 *** Atlas’ (Bradley’s) Frankfort, IL location,

which closed in September 2008 after Bradley decided to exit the commodity matchbook segment. With

the plant closing, ***.10 Atlas reported purchases from ***.11

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for commodity matchbooks are presented in

table III-5. Overall, the industry experienced a decrease in employment from 2006 to 2008. Employment

was also lower in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008. ***. Atlas reduced its workforce by

*** percent in 2008, and reported *** in the January-June 2009 period, corresponding with the

company’s closure of the Frankfort, IL facility. Hourly wages decreased in 2007 and then increased in

2008 ***.12 Hourly wages were also less in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008. ***.13 At

D.D. Bean, ***. Productivity at Atlas *** throughout the period for which data were collected.
III-4

Table III-5

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2006-08, January-June 2008,

and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms that, based on a

review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have imported commodity

matchbooks under HTS subheading 3605.00.00 in any one year since 2006. According to the petitioner, commodity

matchbooks may enter under both HTS statistical reporting numbers 3605.00.0060 (matches, not with natural wood

stems) and 3605.00.0030 (matches with natural wood stems).

 2

 Negative questionnaire responses were received from 12 firms that certified that they did not import commodity

matchbooks since 2006. One importer stated that the company dissolved in November 2007 and did not import

matchbooks from India. One firm was identified as a freight forwarder and does not import. Three firms, identified

as small non-subject-country importers according to Customs’ records, did not respond to the importer questionnaire. 

 3

 Petition, p. 6.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 20 firms believed to be importers of commodity

matchbooks, as well as to two U.S. producers of commodity matchbooks.1 Usable questionnaire

responses were received from five companies, two of which reported importing promotional matchbooks

only.2

 The three importers of commodity matchbooks are believed to represent almost all U.S. imports of

commodity matchbooks from India between 2006 and 2008. Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S.

importers of commodity matchbooks from India and other sources, their locations, and their shares of

U.S. imports from India in 2008. 

***, which began importing commodity matchbooks from India in ***, accounted for the

majority of subject imports, importing *** percent of subject imports during the period for which data

were collected. *** indicated in its questionnaire response that it is ***. *** was the second largest

importer, importing *** percent of subject imports during the period for which data were gathered. ***

only reported importing the commodity matchbooks from India ***, representing *** percent of all

imports during the period. ***.

Table IV-1

Commodity matchbooks: Reporting U.S. importers, U.S. headquarters, sources of imports, and

shares of imports in 2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS

The petition alleges that imports of commodity matchbooks, although properly imported under

HTS statistical subheading 3605.00.0060, covering paper matches, may have also entered under statistical

reporting number 3605.00.0030, which covers wooden matches.3

 Promotional paper matchbooks may

also enter under statistical reporting number 3605.00.0060. Accordingly, subject imports are based on

questionnaire responses. 

Imports of commodity matchbooks from nonsubject countries reported in questionnaire responses

were valued at far less than those reported in the appropriate HTS statistical reporting number, indicating

a large degree of imports of other items (as evidenced by the large number of importers reporting no

imports of commodity or promotional matchbooks since January 1, 2006). The value of reported imports

was as little as *** of imports entering under HTS statistical reporting number 3605.00.0060 during the
 4

 The landed, duty-paid value of imports from sources other than India under HTS statistical reporting number

3605.00.0060 was the following: 2006: $1,887,604; 2007: $824,846; and 2008: $590,534.

 5

 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 5. 

 6

 Interview with ***, November 12, 2008.

 7

 ***.

 8

 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1),

1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

 9

 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

IV-2

period for which data were examined.4

 Accordingly, nonsubject imports are based on questionnaire

responses. Table IV-2 presents data for U.S. imports of commodity matchbooks from India and all other

sources. 

Table IV-2

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and JanuaryJune 2009

* * * * * * *

The quantity of subject imports decreased in each year from 2006 to 2008. The quantity of

subject imports was also lower, ***, in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008. According to the

petitioner, imports continued to decline as a result of the domestic industry’s strategy to recapture the

volume lost to Indian imports. The domestic industry primarily worked to block Indian imports at the

first tier of distributors, or those distributors large enough to buy in container load quantities. Triveni

International in turn allegedly attempted to sell to second tier distributors who sold primarily to smaller

wholesalers and retailers.5

Nonsubject imports also decreased from 2006 to 2007 and ***. ***, the *** importer of

nonsubject imports from ***, reported importing until June 2007 and since then has only ***. The

reasons for discontinuing nonsubject imports include several factors: ***.6

The average unit value of the subject imports declined from $*** per case in 2006 to $*** in

2008. The average unit value of subject imports was lower in January-June 2009 at $*** per case than in

January-June 2008 when it was $*** per case. The average unit value of nonsubject imports declined

from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007. There were *** nonsubject imports during 2008 or the first half of

2009. 

As a share of the total quantity of imports, subject imports increased from *** percent to ***

percent between 2006 and 2007, then comprised *** percent in 2008 after nonsubject imports ***. U.S.

importers were not asked to report monthly import data; however, the value of monthly imports under

HTS statistical reporting number 3605.00.0060 fluctuated during the period for which data were

collected. There were no imports from India in both June and July 2009.7

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.8

 Negligible imports are generally defined in the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic

like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise

imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that

precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation.9

 Imports from India accounted for

*** percent of total imports of commodity matchbooks by quantity during 2008.
 10 Petition, p. 11.

 11 Correspondence with ***, November 24, 2008.

IV-3

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of commodity matchbooks during the period of

investigation are shown in table IV-3 and figure IV-1. In calculating apparent U.S. consumption, data on

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments were used, based on questionnaire responses. 

Apparent consumption, measured in both quantity and value, decreased from 2006 to 2008, and

was lower in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008. The decline in apparent consumption may be

attributed in part to the decline in sales of cigarettes; the petitioner estimates that more than 95 percent of

all commodity matchbooks are used to light cigarettes.10 The petitioner ***.11

U.S. producers and importers were asked to comment on the extent to which declining demand is

attributable to the use of lighters instead of a decline in the rate of smoking. A few importers did not

know and could not comment. Other importers indicated that lighters had the biggest effect on demand

when they entered the market in the 1970s and were relatively cheaper and easy to use. *** indicated that

while lighters did have an effect on demand, lower demand for cigarettes has had a larger effect. 

Table IV-3

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure IV-1

Commodity matchbooks: Apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2006-08, January-June 2008,

and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-4. Subject imports accounted for a decreasing

share of the quantity of the U.S. market between from 2006 to 2008. The market share measured on a

quantity basis held by subject imports was *** lower in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008. 

The market share of nonsubject imports also decreased from 2006 to 2007, and declined to *** in 2008

and the first half of 2009 when there were *** nonsubject imports. The U.S. producers’ market share

increased in each year from 2006 to 2008; U.S. producers’ market share was *** higher in the first half of

2009 than in the first half of 2008.

Table IV-4

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

RATIOS OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratios of imports to U.S. production of commodity matchbooks is

presented in table IV-5.
IV-4

Table IV-5

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production,

2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 1

 Hearing transcript, pp. 42-43 (Bartlett).

 2

 Hearing transcript, p. 59 (Bartlett).

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw materials, labor, and other factory costs accounted for ***, ***, and *** percent, 

respectively, of the cost of commodity matchbooks, and ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively, of the

cost of promotional matchbooks, during January 2006-June 2009. D.D. Bean reported that energy,

paraffin, match stem, and potassium chlorate prices all increased in 2008, increasing the cost of

commodity matchbook production.1

 Promotional matchbooks may be produced using more costly

materials such as elaborate matchbook cover designs, higher quality paper, larger numbers of colors,

special inks, match tip colors, different sized books, and other variations; also, promotional matchbooks’

shorter runs increase the costs of labor and overhead.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. inland transportation costs generally account for a small-to-moderate share of the delivered

price of commodity matchbooks. *** reported transportation costs of *** percent, respectively, while the

two responding importers reported costs of *** percent. 

*** responding U.S. producers and two of three responding importers of commodity matchbooks

from India reported selling nationwide. The other importer reported selling in the *** United States. ***

reported arranging transportation to their customers, while *** reported that its customers arranged

transportation. 

Both U.S. producers reported that *** their commodity matchbooks were sold within distances of

*** miles from their facilities. Two of the three responding importers reported selling most of their

commodity matchbooks *** from their storage facilities or the port of entry; the other importer sold ***

miles of its storage facilities or the port of entry.

*** reported selling all their commodity matchbooks from inventories, while *** commodity

matchbooks from inventories. Reported delivery lead times from inventories ranged from 1 to 15 days.

*** reported lead times ranging from 1 to 15 days. U.S. producer ***. 

PRICING PRACTICES

Firms reported that prices of commodity matchbooks are determined in a variety of ways. ***

has ***. *** reported that it sold most promotional matches at *** prices while the price of commodity

matches is ***. *** responding importers reported using ***. Discounts for commodity matchbooks

were reported by *** of the three responding importers ***. *** and one importer reportedly include

quantity discounts in their price lists and the other importer reported that it offers both quantity discounts

and promotional allowances. 

*** quote prices on a delivered basis. *** reportedly quote prices on an f.o.b. basis. 

Commodity matchbooks are sold on both a contract and on a spot basis. *** responding

importers reported selling all of their product on a spot basis. In contrast, *** sold *** of its product

using contracts, with *** percent sold in long-term contacts. D.D. Bean sold *** percent in long-term

contracts, *** percent in short-term contracts, and *** percent on a spot basis.2
 3

 D.D. Bean and Atlas provided data for U.S.-produced product. *** provided price data for imported commodity

matchbooks, and *** provided price data for promotional matchbooks.

V-2

PRICE DATA

U.S. producers and importers of commodity matchbooks were asked to provide quarterly data for

the total quantity and f.o.b. (U.S. point of shipment) value of selected products that were shipped to

unrelated customers in the U.S. market from January 2006-June 2009. The products for which pricing

data were requested were as follows:

Product 1. — Paper matchbooks with 20 match stems, secured into a plain white cover (referred 

to as “plain white)” or imprinted with THANK YOU packed into trays of 50 

books each, wrapped in a paper sleeve and packed 50 trays to a carton/case 

containing 2,500 matchbooks.

Product 2. — Paper matchbooks with 20 match stems, secured into a cover imprinted with a 

logo, packed into trays of 50 books each, wrapped in a paper sleeve and packed 50 

trays to a carton/case containing 2,500 matchbooks.

 Product 3. — Promotional paper matchbooks (“not for resale” or “specialty advertising”) with 20 

 match stems, secured into a cover imprinted with specialty advertising. Price

 should be reported by piece. (Firms were contacted to request quantities on a

 carton/case basis equivalent to that for commodity matchbooks.)

Two U.S. producers and five importers provided price data; three of the importers reported price

data for commodity matchbooks from India and two provided price data only for promotional

matchbooks.3

 For product 1, U.S. and Indian pricing data were reported. For product 2, U.S. and

Mexican pricing data were reported. For product 3, U.S., Indian, and Japanese pricing data were

reported. Reported pricing data for commodity matches accounted for *** percent of the quantity of U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments during January 2006-June 2009 and *** percent of U.S. imports from India. 

Reported pricing data for promotional matches accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments during January 2006-June 2009 and all U.S. imports from India. Quarterly weighted-average

sales prices for the above products are shown in tables V-1 through V-3 and figures V-1 and V-2.

Table V-1

Commodity matchbooks: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 1, and

margins of underselling/(overselling), January 2006-June 2009

*******

Table V-2

Commodity matchbooks: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 2, and

margins of underselling/(overselling), January 2006-June 2009

*******
 4

 Hearing transcript, pp. 74-75 (Bartlett and M. Bean).

 5

 ***. Staff telephone interview with ***, October 23, 2009.

V-3

Table V-3

Promotional matchbooks: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 3, and

margins of underselling/(overselling), January 2006-June 2009

*******

Figure V-1

Commodity matchbooks: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices for products 1 and 2, 

January 2006-June 2009

*******

Figure V-2

Promotional matchbooks: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices for product 3, January 2006-

June 2009

*******

Price Trends

A summary of price trends is shown in table V-4. Weighted-average prices for U.S.-produced

commodity matchbooks, products 1 and 2, fluctuated throughout the period with no apparent trend, and

were lower at the end of the period than at the beginning. D.D. Bean reported that its prices were higher

prior to 2006 when it began its strategy of reducing prices to compete with Indian commodity

matchbooks.4

 Prices for products 1 in 2005 were presented in the staff report for the preliminary phase of

these investigations. In 2005, product 1 prices ***.5

 

Table V-4

Commodity matchbooks: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1 and 2 from

the United States and India1

Item

Number of

quarters

Low price 

(per case)

High price

(per case)

Change in price

(percent)

Product 1 

United States 14 $*** $*** ***

India 14 *** *** ***

Product 2

United States 14 *** *** ***

 1 No pricing data for imports from India were reported for product 2. 

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Over the 2006 through June 2009 period, prices for imports from India also fluctuated, although

they were lower at the end of the period than they were at the beginning. Product 3 prices reflect the wide

range of types of promotional matches sold and differences between domestic and imported promotional

matches. For example, ***.
 6

 Prices of nonsubject Mexican product 2 were below U.S. prices for six of the seven quarters reported. Prices for

Indian and Japanese product 3, promotional matchbooks, were above U.S. prices for all 14 quarters, and Japanese

product 3 prices were above those of Indian product 3 for all 14 quarters.

V-4

Price Comparisons

Prices for imported commodity matchbooks from India were lower than those for U.S.-produced

commodity matchbooks in all comparisons.6 A summary of margins of underselling is presented in 

table V-5. 

Table V-5

Commodity matchbooks: Summary of underselling/(overselling) by product from India

Source

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

India 14 3.2 to 28.3 16.4 0 - -

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested U.S. producers of commodity matchbooks to report any instances of

lost sales or revenues they experienced due to competition from imports from India since January 2006. 

*** provided lost sales allegations involving *** firms and lost revenue allegations involving *** firms. 

The *** lost sales allegations totaled $*** and the *** lost revenue allegations totaled $***. Staff

contacted the 13 purchasers cited in the allegations; 10 firms, accounting for $*** of the lost sales

allegations and $*** of the lost revenue allegations, responded. Four purchasers agreed with the lost

sales allegations and two disagreed. Four purchasers agreed with the lost revenue allegations and one

disagreed. Tables V-6 and V-7 summarize the allegations and purchaser responses, and additional

purchaser comments are included below. 

Table V-6

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations due to imports from India

*******

Table V-7

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations due to imports from India

*******

***.

*** disagreed with the lost revenue allegation. It stated that ***.

***.

***.

***.

***.
 1

 October 21, 2009 verification report. USITC auditor posthearing notes (final). 

 2

 ***. E-mail from D.D. Bean with attachment to USITC auditor, September 10, 2009. 

 3

 ***. Atlas’ U.S. producer questionnaire response, III-5. With respect to commodity matchbooks, ***. E-mail

with attachment from Atlas to auditor, November 18, 2008. ***. 

 4

 ***. November 13, 2008 investigator phone notes. E-mail from Atlas with attachment to USITC auditor,

September 10, 2009.

 5

 ***.

 6

 ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. A. At the Commission’s hearing a D.D. Bean company official

stated that “. . . we budget for {a} five percent {decline} but we’ve created an environment and a business model

that we are trying to adapt to a declining market, whatever the declines in the market are, and in an orderly fashion

where we have some ability to charge fair pricing and . . . get a fair return on investment, to be able to make capital

improvements, to invest in new projects and other things.” Hearing transcript, p. 92 (M. Bean). Further testimony

indicated that the budgeted 5-percent annual decline does not mean that the company believes the entire market for

commodity matchbooks will effectively disappear at some point in the future. Hearing transcript, p. 112 (M. Bean).

 7

 ***. E-mail with attachment from Atlas to USITC auditor, September 10, 2009.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Two U.S. producers, Atlas and D.D. Bean, reported their commodity matchbook and promotional

matchbook financial results on the basis of generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and on a

calendar-year basis. All revenue represents commercial shipments, with the majority reflecting domestic

sales. A verification of D.D. Bean’s U.S. producer questionnaire response was conducted on October 14-

15, 2009.1

 Changes resulting from verification are reflected in this and other affected sections of this

report. 

As noted in a previous section of this report, *** of D.D. Bean’s overall establishment activity is

focused on commodity matchbooks, while Atlas’ overall establishment operations primarily reflect 

***.2 3 4

OPERATIONS ON COMMODITY MATCHBOOKS

Income-and-loss data for operations on commodity matchbooks are presented in table VI-1 and

on an average unit basis in table VI-2. Table VI-3 presents selected company-specific financial

information. A variance analysis of the overall financial results on commodity matchbooks is presented

in table VI-4.5

 (Note: ***.)

Revenue

 During 2006-08, overall commodity matchbook sales volume declined at an average annual rate

of around *** percent.6 7

 As shown in the revenue section of the variance analysis (see table VI-4), the

reduction in absolute revenue during the full-year period was *** due to declining sales volume, while the

direct impact of corresponding negative price variances was ***. Table VI-3 shows that between 2006

and 2008 D.D. Bean and Atlas both reported net declines in sales volume and revenue. 
 8

 Table VI-3 shows that the average per-case commodity matchbook sales value reported by D.D. Bean was ***

compared to Atlas’. ***. According to the petition, “{t}he lower end of the price range {of commodity

matchbooks} is for the plain white and generic giveaway matchbooks. The higher end represents private label resale

matchbooks imprinted with a supermarket or convenience store logo.” Petition, p. 22. 

 9

 According to D.D. Bean, ***. E-mail with attachment from D.D. Bean to USITC auditor, September 10, 2009. 

 ***. E-mail from D.D. Bean to USITC auditor, September 25, 2009. 

. 

VI-2

Table VI-1

Commodity matchbooks: Results of operations, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June

2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-2

Commodity matchbooks: Results of operations (per case), 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-3

Commodity matchbooks: Results of operations, by firm, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-4

Commodity matchbooks: Variance analysis of financial results, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Given the ***. When asked to comment on factors influencing the pattern of lower average sales

value throughout most of the period (e.g., declining prices, changes in product mix, and/or changes in

primary input costs), D.D. Bean indicated that the decline was due ***.8 9

Cost of Goods Sold

Although higher average per-case cost of goods sold (“COGS”) during the full-year periods

contributed to the decline in commodity matchbook gross profitability, table VI-2 shows that the overall

increase in COGS was *** and that increases in average raw material costs between 2006 and 2008 were

*** alternating declines in overall average direct labor and other factory costs. In contrast, the ***

declines in both average direct labor and other factory costs in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008, as

discussed below, *** the corresponding increase in average raw material cost. As a result, interim 2009

average per-case COGS was ***. (See footnote 16 and footnote 22 regarding ***.) 
 10 USITC auditor preliminary notes. Percentage calculations based on exh. 49 of the petition. ***. 

 11 E-mail with attachment from Atlas to USITC auditor, November 18, 2008.

 12 E-mail with attachment from D.D. Bean to USITC auditor, September 10, 2009.

 13 At the Commission’s hearing a D.D. Bean company official stated that “{o}ur raw material costs, in 2008

particularly, started rising . . . because we inventory, we average the cost, so a lot of those increases we felt {at} the

end of 2008, and then well into 2009 they were in full force.” Hearing transcript pp. 79-80 (Bartlett). 

 14 E-mail from Atlas to USITC auditor, November 19, 2008.

 15 With respect to its direct labor component, D.D. Bean stated that ***. E-mail from D.D. Bean to USITC

auditor, November 20, 2008. Verification report, pp. 4-5.

 16 D.D. Bean stated that ***. E-mail with attachment from D.D. Bean to USITC auditor, September 10, 2009.

 17 With regard to the unusual pattern of its 2008 average direct labor cost (see table VI-3), Atlas stated that ***. 

E-mail with attachment from Atlas to USITC auditor, September 10, 2009.

 18 ***. E-mail with attachment from Atlas to USITC auditor, November 18, 2008. ***. E-mail (second) with

attachment from D.D. Bean to USITC auditor, November 20, 2008. 

 19 E-mail with attachment from Atlas to USITC auditor, November 18, 2008. 

 20 According to Atlas, ***. E-mail with attachment from Atlas to USITC auditor, September 10, 2009. ***. 

Ibid. 

VI-3

Raw Material Costs

The cost of raw materials is *** component of commodity matchbook COGS, representing ***

percent on a cumulative basis. Detailed information submitted by D.D. Bean in its petition indicates that

*** are the two most significant raw material components, representing on average *** percent and ***

percent, respectively, of total raw material costs.10 ***, Atlas identified *** as primary components of its

raw material costs.11

With respect to the pattern of its higher average per-case raw material costs, D.D. Bean stated that

***.12 13

Direct Labor

Direct labor is *** component of commodity matchbooks COGS on a cumulative basis,

representing *** percent. Notwithstanding a high level of automation, both Atlas and D.D. Bean

provided descriptions of their operations which indicate that labor is an important component in

commodity matchbook production.14 15 As noted above, the relative stability of average per-case COGS

was due in part to generally ***. According to D.D. Bean, this pattern was due to ***.16 Table VI-3

shows that, in contrast with the general pattern of declining average per-case direct labor cost, Atlas

reported an *** increase in its average direct labor cost in 2008 (interim and full year). According to

Atlas, this pattern is due primarily to the ***.17

 Other Factory Costs

At *** percent of COGS on a cumulative basis, other factory costs is *** cost component of

commodity matchbooks.18 According to Atlas, the pattern of higher average other factory costs during

the first part of the period was in part due to ***.19 With regard to the *** decline in its average other

factory costs in 2008 (interim and full-year period), Atlas stated that this was likely due to ***.20 
 21 E-mail (second) with attachment from D.D. Bean to auditor, November 20, 2008. 

 22 Specifically, D.D. Bean stated that other factory costs were lower in interim 2009 due to ***. E-mail with

attachment from D.D. Bean to USITC auditor, September 10, 2009.

 23 ***.

 24 As indicated previously, Atlas’ sales of the commodity matchbooks that it produces are ***.

 25 E-mail (second) with attachment from D.D. Bean to USITC auditor, November 20, 2008. ***. Ibid. ***. Email with attachment from Atlas to auditor, November 18, 2008. 

 26 E-mail with attachment from Atlas to USITC auditor, September 10, 2009.

VI-4

 D.D. Bean attributed its generally higher average other factory costs throughout most of the

period to ***.21 In contrast, D.D. Bean’s average other factory costs were lower in interim 2009

compared to interim 2008 largely because of reductions in expenses related to ***.22 

Profitability

While lower absolute gross profitability on commodity matchbooks during the full-year period is

consistent with the decline in overall sales volume noted above, the reduction in gross profit between

2006 and 2008 also reflects lower gross profit margins resulting from negative price variances and

marginally higher average per-case COGS.23 As shown in table VI-3, Atlas and D.D. Bean’s gross profit

margins on commodity matchbooks were generally ***. The *** of company-specific gross profit

margins in interim 2008 is largely due to changes in ***. In interim 2009, D.D. Bean reported its ***. 

While Atlas and D.D. Bean reported *** in terms of *** SG&A expense ratios, D.D. Bean’s

SG&A expenses ratios were ***.24 According to D.D. Bean, ***.25

Table VI-1 shows that overall declines in SG&A expenses as a ratio to net sales partially offset

the decline in gross profit margin in 2007 and then enhanced the relative improvement in gross profit

margin in full-year 2008 and interim 2009, respectively. 

OPERATIONS ON PROMOTIONAL MATCHBOOKS

Income-and-loss data for operations on promotional matchbooks are presented in table VI-5 and

on an average unit basis in table VI-6. Table VI-7 presents selected company-specific financial

information. A variance analysis of the overall financial results on promotional matchbooks is not

presented because, as noted below, changes in promotional matchbook average per-case sales values were

attributed to changes in both product mix and sales discounts. (Note: ***.) 

Revenue

The overall decline in promotional matchbook sales volume (at an annual rate of *** percent

between 2006 and 2008) was *** the decline in commodity matchbook sales volume noted previously

(*** percent). In addition to different trends in sales volume, changes in average per-case promotional

matchbook sales value were *** compared to commodity matchbooks. With regard to the *** decline in

the average per-case sales value in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008, Atlas stated that ***.26 

Cost of Goods Sold

Unlike commodity matchbooks, the average per-case COGS of promotional matchbooks

increased throughout the period. Also in contrast with commodity matchbooks and consistent with a 
 27 E-mail from Atlas to USITC auditor, November 19, 2008.

 28 E-mail with attachment from D.D. Bean to USITC auditor, September 10, 2009.

 29 In response to a question regarding how the marketing of its commodity matchbooks differs from promotional

matchbooks, D.D. Bean stated that ***. E-mail with attachment from D.D. Bean to USITC auditor, September 10,

2009. 

VI-5

Table VI-5

Promotional matchbooks: Results of operations, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June

2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-6

Promotional matchbooks: Results of operations (per case), 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-7

Promotional matchbooks: Results of operations, by firm, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

more specialized product, *** represented the largest share of promotional matchbooks COGS (***

percent), followed *** (*** percent), and then *** (*** percent). 

With regard to the direct labor component, several factors appear generally to explain *** of

COGS reflected in promotional matchbooks compared to commodity matchbooks. According to Atlas,

***.27

Profitability

While promotional matchbook profitability declined due to a combination of lower sales volume

and reduced gross profit margins, similar to commodity matchbooks, promotional matchbooks were ***

on both an absolute basis and as a percent of sales (see table VI-1 and table VI-5). 

With regard to the ***, Atlas stated that ***.28 In contrast, D.D. Bean’s commodity matchbook

SG&A expense ratios are *** its promotional matchbook SG&A expense ratios. D.D. Bean’s description

of its operations indicates that the difference in SG&A expense ratios is at least in part due to ***.29

While the combination of lower gross profitability and higher relative SG&A expense ratios

resulted in declining operating income (on an absolute basis and as a percent of sales), promotional

matchbooks, unlike commodity matchbook operations, *** throughout the period examined. 

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, 

ASSETS, AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Data on capital expenditures, research and development (“R&D”) expenses, assets, and return on

investment related to commodity matchbooks and promotional matchbooks are presented in table VI-8

and table VI-9, respectively. 
 30 E-mail (second) with attachment from D.D. Bean to USITC auditor, November 20, 2008. In response to a

question at the Commission’s hearing regarding anticipated capital expenditures if final orders are imposed in this

case, a D.D. Bean company official stated that “. . . there are some capital programs that we . . . had sort of on the

drawing boards as far as being able to offer different kinds of packaging and some . . . value added type features to

the product that we would like to have the resources to be able to complete . . . we had other plans to be able to

expand our product line that we would like to be able to have. Our equipment, other than the continuing kind of

overall deferred maintenance . . . that we’ve put off and some fine . . . tuning of some things, then there wouldn’t be

an extensive capital investment.” Hearing transcript, p. 104 (M. Bean). 

 

VI-6

Table VI-8

Commodity matchbooks: Capital expenditures, R&D expenses, total assets, and return on

investment, by firms, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-9

Promotional matchbooks: Capital expenditures, R&D expenses, total assets, and return on

investment, by firms, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

According to D.D. Bean, ***.30 Atlas ***. 

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or anticipated negative effects

of imports of commodity matchbooks from India on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise

capital, existing development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the product), or the scale of capital investments. 

Actual Negative Effects

Atlas: ***.

D.D. Bean: ***.

Anticipated Negative Effects

Atlas: ***.

D.D. Bean: ***.
 1

 Interview with ***, November 12, 2008.

 2

 *** and conference transcript, p. 46 (M. Bean).

 3

 Triveni Safety could only provide data based on its fiscal year ending March 31. As such, it did not provide

data for the January-June 2008 and January-June 2009 periods.

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(i)). Information on the nature of the subsidies was presented earlier in this report; information

on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and V; and

information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development

and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise;

foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if

applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the

report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries and the

global market.

THE INDUSTRY IN INDIA

Overview

The petition alleged that there are two producers/exporters of commodity matchbooks in India,

Triveni Safety and Hind Matches Pvt. Ltd (“Hind”). Foreign producer questionnaires were issued to both

producers in the petition, one additional Indian producer identified by Commission staff, as well as one

producer in Mexico and one producer in China. Triveni Safety was the only foreign producer that

provided a questionnaire response. In its questionnaire response, Triveni Safety indicated that ***. 

Triveni Safety did, however, estimate in its questionnaire during the preliminary phase of the

investigations that it accounted for *** percent of production of commodity matchbooks in India in 2007,

and *** percent of exports of commodity matchbooks to the United States in that year.

*** stated in an interview with Commission staff that it imported *** of commodity matchbooks

from Hind during the period for which data was gathered, but it believed that Hind ***.1

 The petitioner

likewise stated that it believed that ***.2

Triveni International *** does have a related firm, namely Triveni Safety, engaged in both the

production and exporting of commodity matchbooks from India to the United States. Triveni

International stated that ***.

Commodity Matchbook Operations

Table VII-1 presents data for reported production and shipment of commodity matchbooks in

India by Triveni Safety. Capacity remained steady during the period for which data were gathered. 

Production decreased in each year between 2006 and 2008; however, it increased in the six-month period

October 2008-March 2009 from the previous six-month period April 2008-September 2008.3

 
 4

 ***.

 5

 ***. Correspondence with ***, October 14, 2009.

 6

 D.D. Bean indicated that Triveni Safety is producing only plain white commodity matchbooks but that Triveni

Safety claims to have the capabilities to produce the private label and national brands. Hearing transcript, p. 81 (M. 

Bean).

 7

 Triveni Safety’s fiscal year is from April 1-March 31.

 8

 Petitioner estimates that this translates to *** per year. Triveni Safety also indicated in correspondence to D.D.

Bean that it had the capacity to *** in 2003. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. 9 and exh. 3.

 9

 Triveni Safety, http://www.trivenimatches.com/about/main.htm, retrieved September 23, 2009.

VII-2

Table VII-1

Commodity matchbooks: Triveni Safety’s reported production capacity, production, shipments,

and inventories, 2006-08, April-September 2008, and October-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Triveni Safety reported that ***.4

 Triveni Safety stated that ***.5 Due to the ***, Triveni Safety

did not provide production or capacity projections; ***.

Triveni Safety reports that commodity matchbooks6

 accounted for *** percent of its total sales at

the end of its fiscal year 2008.7

 Promotional matchbooks, which ***, accounted for the remaining ***

percent of total sales. It has *** plans to import commodity matchbooks into the United States and holds

*** inventories of the subject product in the United States. Triveni Safety began exporting commodity

matches to the United States in ***. Triveni Safety cited *** as its primary motivation to invest in

commodity matchbooks despite low home market demand. Triveni Safety’s initial business plan called

for exporting approximately *** containers a month.8

 Its website indicates that the company is 100

percent export-oriented.9

U.S. INVENTORIES OF COMMODITY MATCHBOOKS FROM INDIA

Reported inventories held by U.S. importers of subject merchandise from India are shown in table

VII-2. 

Table VII-2

Commodity matchbooks: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of subject imports, by source,

2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

*** importers reported that they had imported or arranged for the importation of commodity

matchbooks from India after June 30, 2009. 

ANTIDUMPING DUTY INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There were no antidumping duty investigations on commodity matchbooks reported in thirdcountry markets. 
 10 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008), quoting

from Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52;

see also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 11 Petition, exh. 32, p. 1.

 12 Interview with ***, November 12, 2008.

VII-3

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”10

The Commission sought pricing data from U.S. importers of commodity matchbooks from India

and also from all other countries. Those data are presented in Part V of this report. The primary

nonsubject suppliers of commodity matchbooks during the period for which data were gathered were

Mexico and China. The Commission sought production and export data from Compania Cerillera la

Central S.A. de C.V. (“Cerillera”) in Mexico and Qingdao Anshan Wood Products Co. in China. Neither

of the firms responded to the Commission questionnaire, and as such, there are no production data

available for commodity matchbooks produced in the nonsubject countries of China or Mexico. 

Global Market

Official import statistics from Commerce are not useful in these investigations with regard to

nonsubject imports, as they contain promotional matchbooks and other items. Also, there is no

information available from the World Trade Atlas regarding world exports of commodity matchbooks

from China or Mexico. According to the petitioner, there is limited use of commodity matchbooks in

international markets. The only known countries with historical and current resale distribution of

commodity matchbooks are the United States, Canada, Egypt, and Guatemala. Only the United States,

Egypt, Guatemala, Mexico and India have known manufacturing capabilities for commodity

matchbooks.11 

*** importer, ***, reported importing nonsubject commodity matchbooks from ***, and *** for

the following reasons: ***.12 *** identified the Mexican supplier as ***. It also reported importing a

Chinese product from ***. *** submitted a ***.

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34783 

Heights, OH); Insteel Wire Products Co. 

(‘‘Insteel’’) (Mt. Airy, NC); and Sumiden 

Wire Products Corp. (‘‘Sumiden’’) 

(Dickson, TN), alleging that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured and threatened with material 

injury by reason of LTFV and 

subsidized imports of prestressed 

concrete steel wire strand from China. 

Accordingly, effective May 27, 2009, the 

Commission instituted countervailing 

duty investigation No. 701–TA–464 and 

antidumping duty investigation No. 

731–TA–1160 (Preliminary). 

Notice of the institution of the 

Commission’s investigations and of a 

public conference to be held in 

connection therewith was given by 

posting copies of the notice in the Office 

of the Secretary, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, Washington, DC, 

and by publishing the notice in the 

Federal Register of June 3, 2009 (74 FR 

26731). The conference was held in 

Washington, DC, on June 17, 2009, and 

all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these investigations to 

the Secretary of Commerce on July 13, 

2009. The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 4086 

(July 2009), entitled Prestressed 

Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China: 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–464 and 

731–TA–1160 (Preliminary). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: July 13, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–16998 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–459 (Final) and 

731–TA–1155 (Final)] 

Commodity Matchbooks From India 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–459 (Final) 

under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and 

the final phase of antidumping 

investigation No. 731–TA–1155 (Final) 

under section 735(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine whether 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

subsidized and less-than-fair-value 

imports from India of commodity 

matchbooks, provided for in subheading 

3605.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: June 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Sherman (202–205–3289), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of these 

investigations is being scheduled as a 

result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that certain benefits which 

constitute subsidies within the meaning 

of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b) are being provided to 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

in India of commodity matchbooks, and 

that such products are being sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

within the meaning of section 733 of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The 

investigations were requested in a 

petition filed on October 29, 2008, by 

D.D. Bean & Sons Co., Jaffrey, NH. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of these 

investigations available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigations, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days prior to the hearing date specified 

in this notice. Authorized applicants 

must represent interested parties, as 

defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are 

parties to the investigations. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigations need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of these 

investigations will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on October 2, 2009, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the final 

phase of these investigations beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. on October 20, 2009, at the 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before October 9, 2009. A nonparty who 

has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on October 14, 

2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34784 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 

1Section 207.21(b) of the Commission’s rules 

provides that, where the Department of Commerce 

has issued a negative preliminary determination, 

the Commission will publish a Final Phase Notice 

of Scheduling upon receipt of an affirmative final 

determination from Commerce.

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is October 9, 2009. Parties may 

also file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is October 27, 

2009; witness testimony must be filed 

no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the investigations may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigations, including statements of 

support or opposition to the petition, on 

or before October 27, 2009. On 

November 10, 2009, the Commission 

will make available to parties all 

information on which they have not had 

an opportunity to comment. Parties may 

submit final comments on this 

information on or before November 12, 

2009, but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with section 

207.30 of the Commission’s rules. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigations must be served on all 

other parties to the investigations (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: July 13, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–16994 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–460–461 (Final)] 

Ni-Resist Piston Inserts From 

Argentina and Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

countervailing duty investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of countervailing duty 

investigation Nos. 701–TA–460–461 

(Final) under section 705(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the 

Act) to determine whether an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured or threatened with material 

injury, or the establishment of an 

industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

subsidized imports from Argentina and 

Korea of Ni-resist piston inserts, 

provided for in subheading 8409.99.91 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Dates: July 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angela M.W. Newell (202–708–5409), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

as a result of an affirmative preliminary 

determination by the Department of 

Commerce that certain benefits which 

constitute subsidies within the meaning 

of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b) are being provided to 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

in Argentina of Ni-resist piston inserts. 

These investigations were requested in 

a petition filed on January 26, 2009, by 

Korff Holdings LLC d/b/a Quaker City 

Castings, Salem, OH. 

Although the Department of 

Commerce has preliminarily determined 

that imports of Ni-resist piston inserts 

from Korea are not being and are not 

likely to be subsidized, for purposes of 

efficiency the Commission hereby 

waives rule 207.21(b) 1 so that the final 

phase of the investigations may proceed 

concurrently in the event that 

Commerce makes a final affirmative 

determination with respect to such 

imports. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of these 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

54536 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 

1Such commodity matchbooks are also referred 

to as ‘‘for resale’’ because they always enter into 

retail channels, meaning businesses that sell a 

general variety of tangible merchandise, e.g., 

convenience stores, supermarkets, dollar stores, 

drug stores and mass merchandisers. 

2The gross distinctions between commodity 

matchbooks and promotional matchbooks may be 

summarized as follows: (1) if it has no printing, or 

is printed with a generic message such as ‘‘Thank 

You’’ or a generic image such as the American Flag, 

or printed with national or regional store brands or 

corporate brands, it is commodity; (2) if it has 

printing, and the printing includes the name of a 

bar, restaurant, resort, hotel, club, cafe ́/coffee shop, 

grill, pub, eatery, lounge, casino, barbecue, or 

individual establishment prominently displayed on 

the matchbook cover, it is promotional. 

addressed in the most complete manner 

possible. 

For the reasons identified above, we 

are postponing the preliminary 

determination under section 

733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, by 50 days to no 

later than December 28, 2009. The 

deadline for the final determination will 

continue to be 75 days after the date of 

the preliminary determination, unless 

extended. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to sections 733(c)(2), 733(f) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: October 16, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–25444 Filed 10–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–848] 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Commodity 

Matchbooks from India 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

SUMMARY: We determine that imports of 

commodity matchbooks are being, or are 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value (LTFV), as provided 

in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Holly Phelps or Elizabeth Eastwood, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0656 and (202) 

482–3874, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 2, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV in the antidumping duty 

investigation of commodity matchbooks 

from India. See Commodity Matchbooks 

from India: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 26366 (June 2, 

2009) (Preliminary Determination). 

In June 2009, we verified the 

questionnaire responses of the sole 

respondent in this case, Triveni Safety 

Matches Pvt. Ltd. (Triveni), in 

accordance with section 782(i) of the 

Act. Although we provided interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

the Preliminary Determination and the 

Department’s verification findings, no 

interested party submitted a case brief. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is October 

1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. 

This period corresponds to the four 

most recent fiscal quarters prior to the 

month of the filing of the petition. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

commodity matchbooks, also known as 

commodity book matches, paper 

matches or booklet matches.1

Commodity matchbooks typically, but 

do not necessarily, consist of twenty 

match stems which are usually made 

from paperboard or similar material 

tipped with a match head composed of 

any chemical formula. The match stems 

may be stitched, stapled, or otherwise 

fastened into a matchbook cover of any 

material, on which a striking strip 

composed of any chemical formula has 

been applied to assist in the ignition 

process. 

Commodity matchbooks included in 

the scope of this investigation may or 

may not contain printing. For example, 

they may have no printing other than 

the identification of the manufacturer or 

importer. Commodity matchbooks may 

also be printed with a generic message 

such as ‘‘Thank You’’ or a generic image 

such as the American Flag, with store 

brands (e.g., Kroger, 7–Eleven, Shurfine 

or Giant); product brands for national or 

regional advertisers such as cigarettes or 

alcoholic beverages; or with corporate 

brands for national or regional 

distributors (e.g., Penley Corp. or 

Diamond Brands). They all enter retail 

distribution channels. Regardless of the 

materials used for the stems of the 

matches and regardless of the way the 

match stems are fastened to the 

matchbook cover, all commodity 

matchbooks are included in the scope of 

this investigation. 

All matchbooks, including 

commodity matchbooks, typically 

comply with the United States 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) Safety Standard for Matchbooks, 

codified at 16 CFR § 1202.1 et seq. 

The scope of this investigation 

excludes promotional matchbooks, often 

referred to as ‘‘not for resale,’’ or 

‘‘specialty advertising’’ matchbooks, as 

they do not enter into retail channels 

and are sold to businesses that provide 

hospitality, dining, drinking or 

entertainment services to their 

customers, and are given away by these 

businesses as promotional items. Such 

promotional matchbooks are 

distinguished by the physical 

characteristic of having the name and/ 

or logo of a bar, restaurant, resort, hotel, 

club, cafe ́/coffee shop, grill, pub, eatery, 

lounge, casino, barbecue or individual 

establishment printed prominently on 

the matchbook cover. Promotional 

matchbook cover printing also typically 

includes the address and the phone 

number of the business or establishment 

being promoted.2 Also excluded are all 

other matches that are not fastened into 

a matchbook cover such as wooden 

matches, stick matches, box matches, 

kitchen matches, pocket matches, penny 

matches, household matches, strike– 

anywhere matches (aka ‘‘SAW’’ 

matches), strike–on-box matches (aka 

‘‘SOB’’ matches), fireplace matches, 

barbeque/grill matches, fire starters, and 

wax matches. 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is properly classified 

under subheading 3605.00.0060 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Subject 

merchandise may also enter under 

subheading 3605.00.0030 of the HTSUS. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under investigation is 

dispositive. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our findings at verification, 

we have made certain changes to the 

margin calculations for Triveni. For a 

discussion of these changes, see the 

October 15, 2009, memorandum from 

Holly Phelps, Analyst, to the File, 

entitled, ‘‘Calculations Performed for 

Triveni Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd. for the 

Final Determination in the 2007–2008 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54537 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Commodity Matchbooks from India.’’ 

See also the October 15, 2009, 

memorandum from LaVonne Clark, 

Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, 

‘‘Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Final Determination 

- Triveni Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd.’’ 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the sales and cost 

information submitted by Triveni for 

use in our final determination. We used 

standard verification procedures 

including an examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, and 

original source documents provided by 

Triveni. Our sales and cost verification 

results are outlined in separate 

verification reports. See the June 24, 

2009, memorandum from Holly Phelps, 

Analyst, to James P. Maeder, Director, 

Office 2, entitled, ‘‘Verification of the 

Sales Response of Triveni Safety 

Matches Pvt. Ltd. (Triveni) in the Less– 

Than-Fair–Value Investigation on 

Commodity Matchbooks from India.’’ 

See also the July 16, 2009, 

memorandum from LaVonne Clark, 

Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of 

Triveni Safety Matches Pvt., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Commodity Matchbooks from India.’’ 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

merchandise from India, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after June 2, 2009, 

the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. CBP shall require a 

cash deposit or the posting of a bond 

equal to the estimated amount by which 

the normal value exceeds the U.S. price 

as shown below, adjusted for export 

subsidies found in the final 

determination of the companion 

countervailing duty investigation of this 

merchandise. Specifically, consistent 

with our practice, where the product 

under investigation is also subject to a 

concurrent countervailing duty 

investigation, we instruct CBP to require 

a cash deposit or posting of a bond 

equal to the amount by which the 

normal value exceeds the export price 

or constructed export price, as indicated 

below, less the amount of the 

countervailing duty determined to 

constitute an export subsidy. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 

67306, 67307 (Nov. 17, 2004). 

Accordingly, for cash deposit 

purposes, we are subtracting from the 

applicable cash deposit rate that portion 

of the rate attributable to the export 

subsidies found in the affirmative 

countervailing duty determination for 

each respondent (i.e., 9.88 percent for 

Triveni, and 9.88 percent for ‘‘All 

Others’’). After the adjustment for the 

cash deposit rates attributed to export 

subsidies, the resulting cash deposit 

rates will be 56.19 percent for Triveni 

and 56.19 percent for ‘‘All Others.’’ 

These instructions suspending 

liquidation will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted–average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Producer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (percent) 

Triveni Safety Matches 

Pvt. Ltd. ..................... 66.07 

All Others ...................... 66.07 

‘‘All Others’’ Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that the estimated ‘‘All Others’’ 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. Triveni is the 

only respondent in this investigation. 

Therefore, for purposes of determining 

the ‘‘All Others’’ rate and pursuant to 

section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are 

using the weighted–average dumping 

margin calculated for Triveni, as 

referenced above. See, e.g., Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 

30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999); and Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 72 FR 30753, 

30757 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 

60636 (Oct. 25, 2007). 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our final determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

imports of the subject merchandise are 

causing material injury, or threat of 

material injury, to an industry in the 

United States. If the ITC determines that 

material injury or threat of injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

This notice will serve as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act. 

Dated: October 15, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–25446 Filed 10–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–960, A–583–845] 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners From 

the People’s Republic of China and 

Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations 

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations Office 7, (202) 482–6312 or 

(202) 482–0649, respectively (Taiwan); 

Susan Pulongbarit or Jerry Huang, AD/ 

CVD Operations Office 9, (202) 482– 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54547 

1Such commodity matchbooks are also referred 

to as ‘‘for resale’’ because they always enter into 

retail channels, meaning businesses that sell a 

general variety of tangible merchandise, e.g., 

convenience stores, supermarkets, dollar stores, 

drug stores and mass merchandisers. 

include, but are not limited to: ASTM A194, 

ASTM A307, ASTM A325, ASTM A325M, 

ASTM A354, ASTM A449, ASTM A490, 

ASTM A563, ASTM F568M, ASTM F1852, 

ASTM F2280, SAE J429, SAE J1199, ISO 

898–1, ISO 898–2, ISO 4759–1, ISO 8992, 

and comparable foreign and domestic 

specifications (including, but not limited to, 

metric versions of specifications such as 

those listed above). 

Excluded from the scope of the 

investigation are bolts, cap screws, and nuts 

produced for an original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) part number specific to 

any ‘‘automobile’’ as defined in 49 U.S.C. 

Section 32901(a)(3), any ‘‘work truck’’ as 

defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 32901(a) (19), or 

any ‘‘medium-duty passenger vehicle’’ as 

defined in 40 C.F.R. Section 86.1803–01 

(2009). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

investigation are bolts, cap screws, and nuts 

produced for an OEM part number specific 

to any ‘‘aircraft’’ as defined in 14 CFR 1.1 

(2009). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

investigation are track bolts. Track bolts have 

a circular, rounded head and a shank which, 

immediately beneath the head, possesses an 

oval or elliptical shape, such that the nonround shape would restrict rotational 

movement of the bolt. Also excluded from 

the scope of the investigation are carriage 

bolts. Carriage bolts have a circular, rounded 

head and a shank which, immediately 

beneath the head, possesses a non-round 

shape (e.g., square, finned), such that the 

non-round shape would restrict rotational 

movement of the bolt. Also excluded from 

the scope of the investigation are socket 

screws. Socket screws have a head with a 

recessed cavity into which a shaped bit may 

be inserted to turn and drive the fastener. 

Unless explicitly excluded from the scope 

of the investigation, bolts, cap screws, and 

nuts meeting the description of subject 

merchandise are covered by the 

investigation. 

Merchandise covered by the investigation 

is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under 

subheadings: 7318.15.2030, 7318.15.2055, 

7318.15.2065, 7318.15.8065, 7318.15.8085, 

and 7318.16.0085. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the merchandise under the 

investigation is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–25197 Filed 10–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–849] 

Commodity Matchbooks From India: 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

commodity matchbooks from India. For 

information on the estimated subsidy 

rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Carey or Dana Mermelstein, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3964 and (202) 

482–1391, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

investigation (POI), is January 1, 2007 

through December 31, 2007. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the publication of the 

Department’s preliminary determination 

in the Federal Register. See Commodity 

Matchbooks from India: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

74 FR 15444 (April 6, 2009). The 

Department conducted a verification of 

the Government of India’s (GOI) 

questionnaire responses regarding the 

administration of the Export Promotion 

Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) on May 

4, 2009, in New Delhi, India. See 

Memorandum to Dana Mermelstein, 

Program Manager for AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, from Sean Carey, 

Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, ‘‘Verification of the 

Questionnaire Responses Submitted by 

the Government of India,’’ dated August 

7, 2009. On May 5 through 8, 2009, the 

Department verified the information 

submitted by the sole respondent in this 

investigation, Triveni Safety Matches 

Pvt. Ltd. (Triveni), at its corporate 

headquarters in Mumbai, India. See 

Memorandum to Dana Mermelstein, 

Program Manager for AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, from Sean Carey, 

Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, ‘‘Verification of the 

Questionnaire Responses Submitted by 

Triveni Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated 

August 7, 2009. The Department 

released its briefing schedule on August 

7, 2009, notifying all parties of the 

deadlines for submission of case and 

rebuttal briefs. No case briefs were filed 

by any of the interested parties. The 

memoranda cited above are available at 

the Department’s Central Records Unit 

(Room 1117 in the HCHB Building) 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘CRU’’). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

commodity matchbooks, also known as 

commodity book matches, paper 

matches or booklet matches.1

Commodity matchbooks typically, but 

do not necessarily, consist of twenty 

match stems which are usually made 

from paperboard or similar material 

tipped with a match head composed of 

any chemical formula. The match stems 

may be stitched, stapled or otherwise 

fastened into a matchbook cover of any 

material, on which a striking strip 

composed of any chemical formula has 

been applied to assist in the ignition 

process. 

Commodity matchbooks included in 

the scope of this investigation may or 

may not contain printing. For example, 

they may have no printing other than 

the identification of the manufacturer or 

importer. Commodity matchbooks may 

also be printed with a generic message 

such as ‘‘Thank You’’ or a generic image 

such as the American Flag, with store 

brands (e.g., Kroger, 7–Eleven, Shurfine 

or Giant); product brands for national or 

regional advertisers such as cigarettes or 

alcoholic beverages; or with corporate 

brands for national or regional 

distributors (e.g., Penley Corp. or 

Diamond Brands). They all enter retail 

distribution channels. Regardless of the 

materials used for the stems of the 

matches and regardless of the way the 

match stems are fastened to the 

matchbook cover, all commodity 

matchbooks are included in the scope of 

this investigation. All matchbooks, 

including commodity matchbooks, 

typically comply with the United States 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) Safety Standard for Matchbooks, 

codified at 16 CFR § 1202.1 et seq. 

The scope of this investigation 

excludes promotional matchbooks, often 

referred to as ‘‘not for resale,’’ or 

‘‘specialty advertising’’ matchbooks, as 

they do not enter into retail channels 

and are sold to businesses that provide 

hospitality, dining, drinking or 

entertainment services to their 

customers, and are given away by these 

businesses as promotional items. Such 

promotional matchbooks are 

distinguished by the physical 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54548 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 

2The gross distinctions between commodity 

matchbooks and promotional matchbooks may be 

summarized as follows: (1) if it has no printing, or 

is printed with a generic message such as ‘‘Thank 

You’’ or a generic image such as the American Flag, 

or printed with national or regional store brands or 

corporate brands, it is commodity; (2) if it has 

printing, and the printing includes the name of a 

bar, restaurant, resort, hotel, club, cafe ́/coffee shop, 

grill, pub, eatery, lounge, casino, barbecue, or 

individual establishment prominently displayed on 

the matchbook cover, it is promotional. 

characteristic of having the name and/ 

or logo of a bar, restaurant, resort, hotel, 

club, cafe ́/coffee shop, grill, pub, eatery, 

lounge, casino, barbecue or individual 

establishment printed prominently on 

the matchbook cover. Promotional 

matchbook cover printing also typically 

includes the address and the phone 

number of the business or establishment 

being promoted.2 Also excluded are all 

other matches that are not fastened into 

a matchbook cover such as wooden 

matches, stick matches, box matches, 

kitchen matches, pocket matches, penny 

matches, household matches, strike– 

anywhere matches (aka ‘‘SAW’’ 

matches), strike–on-box matches (aka 

‘‘SOB’’ matches), fireplace matches, 

barbeque/grill matches, fire starters, and 

wax matches. 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is properly classified 

under subheading 3605.00.0060 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Subject 

merchandise may also enter under 

subheading 3605.00.0030 of the HTSUS. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under investigation is 

dispositive. 

Injury Test 

Because India is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) is 

required to determine, pursuant to 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act, whether 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

India materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a United States 

industry. On December 19, 2008, the 

ITC published its preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of allegedly subsidized imports 

from the PRC of subject merchandise. 

See Commodity Matchbooks from India; 

Determinations, 73 FR 77840 (December 

19, 2008); and Commodity Matchbooks 

from India (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 

4054, Inv. Nos. 701–TA–459 and 731– 

TA 1155 (December 2008). 

Analysis of Programs 

A complete description and 

discussion of the programs that the 

Department investigated are addressed 

in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Commodity Matchbooks from India, 

from John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary, to Ronald K. 

Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary, 

dated October 15, 2009 (‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’). Modifications 

to the calculations based on verification 

are also discussed in this memorandum. 

Parties can find this public 

memorandum in the Department’s CRU. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on the internet at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 

calculated an individual subsidy rate for 

the company under investigation, 

Triveni, below. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of 

the Act states that for companies not 

investigated, we will determine an all 

others rate equal to the weighted 

average countervailable subsidy rates 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero and de minimis countervailable 

subsidy rates, and any rates determined 

entirely under section 776 of the Act. As 

Triveni was the only exporter/ 

manufacturer under investigation, the 

all others rate is based on Triveni’s total 

subsidy rate calculated for this final 

determination. 

Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate 

Triveni Safety Matches 

Pvt. Limited ............... 9.88% 

All Others ...................... 9.88% 

In accordance with section 703(d) of 

the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection to discontinue the 

suspension of liquidation for 

countervailing duty purposes for subject 

merchandise entered on or after August 

4, 2009, but to continue the suspension 

of liquidation of entries made from 

April 6, 2009 through August 3, 2009. 

We will issue a countervailing duty 

order and reinstate the suspension of 

liquidation under section 706(a) of the 

Act if the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, and we will 

require a cash deposit of estimated 

countervailing duties for such entries of 

merchandise in the amounts indicated 

above. If the ITC determines that 

material injury, or threat of material 

injury, does not exist, this proceeding 

will be terminated and all estimated 

duties deposited or securities posted as 

a result of the suspension of liquidation 

will be refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all non– 

privileged and nonproprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an Administrative Protective 

Order (APO), without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an APO of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 705(d) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: October 15, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–25445 Filed 10–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 070827327–7327–01] 

RIN 0648–XS21 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean 

Quahog Fisheries; Notice that Vendor 

Will Provide Year 2010 Cage Tags 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Commodity Matchbooks from India

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-459 and 731-TA-1155 (Final)

Date and Time: October 20, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

A session was held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (room 101),

500 E Street, S.W., Washington, DC.

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Paul G. Gaston, Law Offices of Paul G. Gaston)

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing

 Duty Orders:

Law Offices of Paul G. Gaston

Washington, DC

on behalf of

The Domestic Industry

Christopher V. Bean, Owner, Director, and Corporate

Counsel, D.D. Bean & Sons Co.

Mark C. Bean, Owner, Director, and President, Match

Division, D.D. Bean & Sons Co.

Julia M. Bartlett, Vice President, Fulfillment

Management, D.D. Bean & Sons Co.

Jonathan M. Bradley, President, Bradley Industries

LLC and Atlas Match LLC

Paul G. Gaston ) – OF COUNSEL

CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Paul G. Gaston, Law Offices of Paul G. Gaston)

C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA
C-2
C-3

Table C-1

COMMODITY MATCHBOOKS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-June

2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table C-2

PROMOTIONAL MATCHBOOKS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-June

2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table C-3

COMMODITY & PROMOTIONAL MATCHBOOKS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-

08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *