U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4160 June 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

China, Malaysia, and Thailand

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Nathanael Comly, Investigator 

 Raymond Cantrell, Industry Analyst 

 Cindy Cohen, Economist 

 Charles Yost, Accountant 

 Mara Alexander, Statistician 

Karl von Schriltz, Attorney 

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

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4160 June 2010

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

China, Malaysia, and Thailand

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Review)
 
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Part I: Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Related Title VII investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Commerce’s results of expedited reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

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

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

Purchaser characteristics ........................................................ II-1

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-4

Supply ................................................................... II-4

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-11

Knowledge of country sources ................................................ II-11

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-15

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-17

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-17

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-18

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-18

i
CONTENTS

Page

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry ............................................ III-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Background ............................................................... III-1

Changes experienced in operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization .......................... III-1

Constraints on capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments ............. III-2

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

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

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

Financial experience of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

Background ............................................................... III-4

Operations on PRCBs ....................................................... III-4

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

Capital expenditures, research and development expenses, 

and investment in productive facilities ......................................... III-6

Assets and return on investment ............................................... III-7

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

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

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Geographical markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Simultaneous presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

PRCB operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

The industry in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

PRCB operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

The industry in Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

PRCB operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Investigations in third-country markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Information on nonsubject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

The global PRCB market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

ii
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Bidding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-11

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-12

Appendixes

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

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

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

D. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers regarding the 

effects of the antidumping duty orders and the likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Delivered prices of PRCBs imported directly by purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-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.

iii
 
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Review)

POLYETHYLENE RETAIL CARRIER BAGS FROM CHINA, MALAYSIA, AND THAILAND

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on polyethylene retail carrier

bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on July 1, 2009 (74 F.R. 31750, July 2, 2009) and

determined on October 5, 2009 that it would conduct full reviews (74 F.R. 54069, October 21, 2009). 

Notice of the scheduling of the Commission’s reviews 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 on November

23, 2009 (74 F.R. 61172). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on April 27, 2010, and all persons

who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

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

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject

imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags (“PRCBs”) from China, Malaysia, and Thailand would be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Original Investigations

On August 3, 2004, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of less than fair value (“LTFV”) imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia,

and Thailand.1

 Consequently, on August 9, 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)

imposed antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.2

 

Because it found de minimis antidumping duty margins for three subject producers in the original

investigations, Commerce excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty orders two foreign producers

in China, Hang Lung Plastic Manufactory, Limited, and Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd.,

and one foreign producer in Malaysia, Bee Lian Plastic Industries Sdn. Bhd.3

B. The Current Reviews

The Commission instituted these reviews of the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China,

Malaysia, and Thailand effective July 1, 2009.4

 The Commission found that the domestic interested party

group response to the notice of institution, and the Malaysian interested party group response to the notice

of institution, were adequate, and therefore determined to conduct full reviews of all the orders, in the

interest of administrative efficiency.5

Participating in the reviews are the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual

members Hilex Poly Co., LLC; Superbag Corporation; Unistar Plastics, LLC; Command Packaging;

Roplast Industries, Inc.; and Genpak LLC (collectively, the “domestic interested parties”). Also

participating in the reviews is the Task Force of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Manufacturers of the

Malaysian Plastic Manufacturers Association and its members in their capacity as Malaysian producers

and exporters of PRCBs (collectively, the “Malaysian interested parties”). No respondent interested party

from either China or Thailand has participated in the reviews as parties. 

In these reviews, the Commission received usable domestic producers’ questionnaire responses

from 12 domestic firms that accounted for virtually all U.S. production and sales of PRCBs in 2009.6

 The

 1 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at I-2; Public Staff Report (“PR”) at I-2.

 2

 CR at I-2; PR at I-2.

 3

 CR/PR at IV-1 n.4.

 4

 CR at I-1; PR at I-1. 

 5

 See CR/PR at Appendix A.

 6

 CR at I-30; PR at I-20; CR/PR at Table I-10. Omega Plastics Corporation (“Omega”), accounting for

approximately *** percent of domestic production in 2009, provided a questionnaire response late in the reviews. 

CR at I-30 n.37; PR at I-20 n.37. Due to *** in Omega’s questionnaire response, see Domestic Interested Parties’

Final Comments, at 13-14, we do not rely on these data. We note, however, that the inclusion of Omega’s reported

(continued...)

3
Commission also received importers’ questionnaire responses from 52 firms, which accounted for

approximately 48 percent of subject imports in 2009,7

 and purchasers’ questionnaire responses from

48 firms, which accounted for *** percent of the value of apparent U.S. consumption over the period of

review.8

The Commission received foreign producers’ questionnaire responses from two Chinese

producers, 16 Malaysian producers, and five Thai producers.9

 Responding Malaysian producers

estimated that they accounted for *** percent of Malaysian PRCB production, and *** percent of

Malaysian PRCB exports to the United States in 2009.10 Data coverage of the Chinese and Thai PRCB

industries, however, is more limited. One responding Chinese producer estimated that it accounted for

*** percent of Chinese PRCB exports to the United States in 2009, and both responding Chinese PRCB

producers reported combined PRCB exports to the United States equivalent to *** percent of subject

imports from China.11 Responding Thai producers estimated that they accounted for *** percent of Thai

PRCB production, but *** percent of Thai PRCB exports to the United States, in 2009.12 The exports to

the United States reported by these Thai firms in 2009 were equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of

subject imports from Thailand that year.13

C. Other Investigations/Reviews/Orders Involving the Same or Related Products

The Commission recently completed antidumping duty investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam, and a countervailing duty investigation of PRCBs from Vietnam, which involved

the same scope of merchandise as these reviews, and determined that a U.S. industry is threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of PRCBs from Vietnam that Commerce determined are subsidized,

and by reason of imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam that Commerce determined are sold in the

U.S. market at LTFV.14 Consequently, on May 4, 2010, Commerce issued a countervailing duty order on

PRCBs from Vietnam, and antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam.15 

 6 (...continued)

data in domestic industry data has no significant effect on domestic industry trends. Compare CR/PR at Table C-1

with id. at Table C-2. Our conclusions would be the same were Omega’s data included in our analysis.

 7

 CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1.

 8

 CR at II-1; PR at II-1.

 9

 CR at IV-11, 14, 18; PR at IV-7, 8, 11.

 10 CR at IV-15; PR at IV-8. Responding Malaysian producers *** to the United States during the period of

review. Id.

 11 CR at IV-12; PR at IV-7. Neither responding Chinese producer provided a useful estimate of its share of

Chinese PRCB production in 2009. Id.

 12 CR at IV-18; PR at IV-11.

 13 CR at IV-18; PR at IV-11.

 14 CR at I-15; PR at I-8; see also PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and

731-TA-1156-1158 (Final), USITC Pub. 4144 (April 2010).

 15 CR at I-15; PR at I-8.

4
II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, the Commission defines “the

domestic like product” and the “industry.”16 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 under this subtitle.”17 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the

like product definition from the original determinations and any completed reviews and consider whether

the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior finding(s).18

A. Product Description

Commerce has defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these reviews as follows:19

The merchandise subject to these investigations is [PRCBs], which also may be referred

to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject

merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including

drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with

or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch

(0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width

shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the

bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are

typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail

establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount

stores, and restaurants to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. 

The scope of these investigations excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with

logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film

and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers

to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail

establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.20 

 16 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 17 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v.

Dep’t of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT

450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S.

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

 18 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub.

3614 at 4 (Jul. 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub.

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 19 We note that the scope of the recent investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam was

identical to the scope of these reviews. 

 20 CR at I-23; PR at I-15. Since publication of the antidumping duty orders, Commerce has issued several scope

rulings, determining that a variety of specific products are not within the scope of one or more of the orders. See CR

at I-23 n.23; PR at I-15 n.23. 

5
Imports of merchandise included within the scope of these investigations are currently reported

under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.21

PRCBs are bags with handles made of polyethylene film that are intended to be provided by

retailers to their customers free of charge for packaging and carrying purchased goods home from the

point of sale.22 PRCBs come in several varieties. T-shirt bags, so called due to their resemblance to tanktop styled undershirts, are made of thinner, typically 1 mil or less, denser polyethylene film and are

generally printed with simple designs of one or two, but up to four, colors.23 So-called higher-end PRCBs

range from medium-scale die-cut bags to higher-scale die-cut, drawstring, and soft-loop handle bags,

which can possess flat bottoms and detailed higher-quality multicolored printing and graphics.24 

B. The Original Investigations

In the original investigations, the Commission defined a single domestic like product

encompassing a continuum of PRCBs made in a wide range of shapes and sizes with a variety of

features.25 The Commission rejected respondents’ argument that certain high-end PRCBs be defined as a

separate domestic like product because the argument “[did] not account for the vast array of PRCBs that

fall in the middle of the continuum.”26

C. The Current Reviews

For purposes of these reviews, we define the domestic like product in the same manner as in the

original investigations. The record of these reviews contains no information that would dictate a

reconsideration of the domestic like product definition from the original determinations.27 No party

urged the Commission to adopt a different like product definition. We therefore define a single domestic

like product comprised of a continuum of PRCB products, coextensive with the scope of the reviews. 

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act defines the relevant industry 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.”28 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

 21 CR at I-24; PR at I-16.

 22 CR at I-25; PR at I-16.

 23 CR at I-25-26; PR at I-17; see also PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, USITC Pub. 4144 at 5. 

 24 CR at I-26; PR at I-17.

 25 See PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final), USITC Pub. 3710

(August 2004) (“Original Views”), at 9.

 26 Original Views, at 9.

 27 Moreover, in the recent investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, which involved the

same scope of merchandise as these reviews, CR at I-15; PR at I-8, the Commission defined a single domestic like

product, comprised of a continuum of PRCB products. PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, USITC Pub.

4144, at 7.

 28 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 apply to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

6
domestic merchant market.29 In the original investigations, the Commission defined the domestic

industry to include all domestic producers of PRCBs.30 For purposes of these reviews, based on our

definition of the domestic like product, we again define the domestic industry to include all domestic

producers of PRCBs. 

Under the related parties provision of the statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1677 (4)(B), the Commission may,

under appropriate circumstances, exclude certain producers from the domestic industry that import

subject merchandise or have a corporate affiliation with importers or exporters of subject merchandise. 

In the original investigations, the Commission found that 14 domestic producers qualified as related

parties, but concluded that circumstances did not warrant the exclusion of any of them from the domestic

industry.31

In these reviews, six domestic producers, ***, qualify as related parties because they were

importers of subject merchandise from China, Malaysia, or Thailand during the period of review.32 In

addition, *** is related to a subject foreign producer of PRCBs and an importer of subject PRCBs.33

We find that circumstances do not warrant the exclusion of any related party for the following

reasons. Five of the six related parties, ***, reported that their ratio of subject imports to domestic

production remained *** throughout the period of review, never exceeding *** percent in any one

year.34 Moreover, *** reported a lower ratio of subject imports to domestic production in 2009 than in

2004.35 Although *** ratio of subject imports to domestic production was higher than that of other

related parties, *** reported that its ratio of subject imports to domestic production *** at *** percent in

2006, and was lower in 2009, at *** percent, than in 2004, at *** percent.36 Thus, the record indicates

that all related parties are more interested in domestic production than in importing subject merchandise. 

Further, there is no evidence that the six related parties derived a significant financial benefit

from their importation of PRCBs from subject countries, since the operating profit margins of each

producer did not differ significantly from the operating profit margins of domestic producers that did not

 29 See, e.g., United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96

F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 30 Original Views at 12.

 31 See Original Views at 10-12.

 32 See CR/PR at Table III-6; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Although *** and *** purchased subject imports from

China, see CR/PR at Table III-6, we find that neither company qualifies as a related party because neither party

controls large volumes of subject imports. Specifically, there is no evidence that either company was “responsible

for a predominant proportion of an importer’s purchases.” See id.

 33 CR at I-31; PR at I-21; CR/PR at Table I-10. 

 34 CR/PR at Table III-6.

 35 See CR/PR at Table III-6. *** ratio of subject imports to domestic production was higher in 2009, at ***

percent, than in 2004, at *** percent, though the ratio remained *** and *** from *** percent in 2006 and ***

percent in 2007 and 2008. Id.

 36 CR/PR at Table III-6.

7
import from subject countries.37 38 39 For this reason, the inclusion of data from these producers would

not skew data for the rest of the industry. Indeed, the inclusion of related party data is essential for a

complete picture of the domestic industry’s performance, given that related parties accounted for ***

percent of domestic industry production in 2009.40 Furthermore, no party argues that any related party

should be excluded from the domestic industry. 

In conclusion, we define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of PRCBs, and do not

find appropriate circumstances exist to exclude any related parties from the domestic industry.

IV. CUMULATION

A. The Original Investigations

In the original investigations, the Commission found a reasonable overlap of competition among

the subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and between subject imports from each source

and the domestic like product, and therefore cumulated subject imports from all three sources.41 In

support of its cumulation determination, the Commission found that there was a high degree of 

substitutability between subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and between subject

imports from each source and the domestic like product; that subject imports from all three sources and

the domestic like product were generally sold throughout the United States; that subject imports from all

sources were simultaneously present in the U.S. market, during the period examined; and that there was

sufficient overlap in the channels of distribution through which subject imports from all three sources

and the domestic like product were sold, despite some differences in such channels.42 

B. Legal Standards

With respect to five-year reviews, section 752(a) of the Tariff Act provides as follows:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the

subject merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section

1675(b) or (c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be

likely to compete with each other and with domestic like products in the United States

market. The Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of

 37 See CR/PR at Table III-9. 

 38 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Commissioner Aranoff does not rely on

individual-company operating income margins, which reflect a domestic producer’s financial operations related to

production of the domestic like product, in assessing whether a related party has benefitted from importation of

subject merchandise. Rather, she determines whether to exclude a related party based principally on its ratio of

subject imports to domestic production and whether its primary interests lie in domestic production or importation. 

 39 Commissioner Pinkert does not rely upon companies’ financial performance as a factor in determining whether

there are appropriate circumstances to exclude them from the domestic industry in these reviews. The record is not

sufficient to infer from their profitability on U.S. operations whether they have derived a specific benefit from

importing. See Allied Mineral Products v. United States, 28 C.I.T. 1861, 1865-1867 (2004). He notes that in these

reviews, unlike the recent final phase antidumping investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam,

the Commission does not have financial data regarding the domestic producers’ import operations. 

 40 See CR/PR at Table I-10. The three largest of these producers, ***, accounted for *** percent of domestic

production that year. Id.

 41 Original Views at 16.

 42 Original Views at 14-16.

8
imports of the subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.43

Cumulation therefore is discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike original investigations, which are

governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act.44 The Commission may exercise its discretion to cumulate,

however, only if the reviews are initiated on the same day, the Commission determines that the subject

imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market, and

imports from each such subject country are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry in the event of revocation. Our focus in five-year reviews is not only on present

conditions of competition, but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable

future.

The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in these reviews, because the reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand were all initiated on the same

day.

We consider three issues in deciding whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject

imports: (1) whether imports from any of the subject countries are precluded from cumulation because

they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry; (2) whether there is a

likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition among imports of PRCBs from the subject countries

and the domestic like product; and (3) other considerations, such as whether there are similarities and

differences in the likely conditions of competition under which subject imports are likely to compete in

the U.S. market for PRCBs.45 In so doing, we take into account the various arguments by the parties.46

 43 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 44 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370,

1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the types of factors it

considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews);

Nucor v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. United

States, Slip Op. 08-82 (Aug. 5, 2008).

 45 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun note that while they consider the same issues discussed in this

section in determining whether to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports, their analytical

framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of

competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, they

next proceed to consider whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition whereby those imports

are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis they

intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, they analyze whether they are

precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries, assessed

individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. See Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (Jul. 2007) (Separate and Dissenting Views of

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation). Accord Nucor Corp.

v. United States, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d

1302, 1345-47 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008), aff’d, Slip. Op. 2009-1234 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2010).

 46 In these reviews, the domestic interested parties argue that the Commission should exercise its discretion to

consider subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand on a cumulated basis because there would likely be a

reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from all three sources after revocation and subject

imports from all three sources would likely face similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market. See Domestic

Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 19-21; Domestic Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 3-9. Malaysian interested

parties argue that the Commission cannot cumulate subject imports from Malaysia with subject imports from China

and Thailand because subject imports from Malaysia would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry after revocation. See Malaysian Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 1, 4-6. Even if the

(continued...)

9
Based on the record, we find that subject imports from each of the three countries would not be

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry were the antidumping duty orders

revoked. We also find a likely reasonable overlap of competition among the subject imports and

between the subject imports and the domestic like product were the orders revoked. We do not find

significant differences in the likely conditions of competition affecting subject imports from China,

Malaysia, and Thailand.47 We therefore exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from all

three countries. 

C. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country

are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.48 Neither the statute nor the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides

specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely

to have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.49 With respect to this provision, the

Commission generally considers the likely volume of subject imports and the likely impact of those

imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.

Our analysis for each of the subject countries takes into account the nature of the product and the

behavior of subject imports in the original investigations and during the current reviews. The record of

these reviews indicates that there would likely be a high degree of substitutability between subject

imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, respectively, and between subject imports from each

source and the domestic like product, after revocation.50 Such competition is likely to be based, at least

in part, on price, due to the importance of price in purchasing decisions.51 For sales of PRCBs, subject

imports from each of the subject countries undersold the domestic like product in a majority of pricing

comparisons during the original investigations, and subject imports from China and Thailand undersold

the domestic like product with even greater frequency during the period covered by these reviews,

despite the discipline of the antidumping duty orders.52

 46 (...continued)

Commission were to find that subject imports from Malaysia would likely have a discernible adverse impact after

revocation, Malaysian interested parties argue, the Commission should nevertheless exercise its discretion to not

cumulate subject imports from Malaysia for two reasons. First, Malaysian interested parties claim that subject

imports from Malaysia could not possibly contribute to any “hammering effect” after revocation, which is the

primary purpose of cumulation in their view, because it is “inconceivable” that the Commission would revoke the

orders on PRCBs from China and Thailand. See Malaysian Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 8; Malaysian

Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 9. Second, Malaysian interested parties argue that subject imports from

Malaysia would likely face different conditions of competition in the U.S. market after revocation, as compared to

subject imports from China and Thailand. See Malaysian Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 5-8.

 47 As explained in footnote 102 below, Commissioners Lane and Pinkert, applying a different analytical

framework, have cumulated subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.

 48 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 49 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I at 887 (1994).

 50 CR at II-16.

 51 See CR at II-16-18; PR at II-11-13; CR/PR at Tables II-8-9.

 52 See CR/PR at Tables V-11, 13. No pricing data were reported for imports from Malaysia. CR at V-10; PR at

V-5.

10
China. During the original period of investigation, subject imports from China increased from

*** bags in 2001, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to *** bags in 2002, or *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption, and *** bags in 2003, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.53 

Over the period of review, subject Chinese producers maintained a significant, if reduced,

presence in the U.S. market notwithstanding imposition of the antidumping duty order. Subject imports

from China declined to *** bags in 2004, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, but then

increased to *** bags in 2005, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and *** bags in 2006, or

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.54 Subject imports from China declined *** to *** bags in

2007, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, increased to *** bags in 2008, or *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption, and declined to *** bags in 2009, or *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption.55 These data indicate that subject Chinese producers remain interested in the U.S. market

and capable of serving U.S. customers.56

The limited questionnaire data concerning the Chinese PRCB industry in these reviews57

indicates that responding Chinese producers have significant capacity and were *** over the period of

review. Reported Chinese PRCB capacity was *** bags from 2004 through 2007, increasing to ***

bags in 2008 and 2009.58 Reported Chinese PRCB production increased from *** bags in 2004 to ***

bags in 2005, *** bags in 2006, *** bags in 2007, and *** bags in 2008, and remained at *** bags in

2009.59 Reported Chinese industry capacity utilization rates increased throughout the period of review,

from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent

in 2008, and *** percent in 2009.60 Reported Chinese PRCB exports increased from *** bags in 2004 to

*** bags in 2005, *** bags in 2006, *** bags in 2007, and *** bags in 2008, remaining at *** bags in

2009.61 Responding Chinese PRCB producers reportedly exported *** shipments throughout the period

of review.62

 53 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 54 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 55 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 56 We find further support for this finding in evidence that the volume of nonsubject imports from China was also

significant over the period of review, increasing irregularly from *** bags in 2006, or *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption, to *** bags in 2009, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption. CR/PR at Tables I-11-12. Were

the order on PRCBs from China revoked, we find it likely that subject producers in China would exhibit a similar

degree of interest in serving the U.S. market, and a similar capability of doing so, as nonsubject producers in China

demonstrated over the period of review.

 57 The Commission sent foreign producers’ questionnaires to 182 firms in China believed to be PRCB producers,

but received only two responses. CR at IV-11; PR at IV-7. Neither firm provided a useful estimate of its share of

Chinese PRCB production in 2009, but one estimated that it accounted for *** percent of Chinese PRCB exports to

the United States in 2009. CR at IV-12; PR at IV-7. In 2009, responding Chinese PRCB producers reported PRCB

exports to the United States equivalent to *** percent of subject imports from China. CR at IV-12; PR at IV-7. The

seeming disparity between the reported capacity and production of subject Chinese producers and the volume of

subject imports from China stems from the fact that only *** of subject Chinese producers reported capacity and

production data, while subject import volume data are derived from comprehensive proprietary Customs data and

official Commerce statistics. 

 58 CR/PR at Table IV-4. The *** apparent increase in the capacity, production, and exports of responding

Chinese producers between 2007 and 2008 resulted from the fact that ***. See CR/PR at Table IV-4, note. 

 59 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 60 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 61 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 62 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

11
Given the extremely low questionnaire response rate of Chinese producers, however, we also

rely on public information concerning the Chinese PRCB industry submitted by the domestic interested

parties. This information indicates that Chinese PRCB capacity was approximately 36.3 billion bags in

2009, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption that year.63 Thus, Chinese producers

possess significant PRCB capacity with which to increase exports to the U.S. market after revocation,

and also an incentive to increase exports to the U.S. market after revocation, given the Chinese

government’s recent imposition of restrictions on PRCB usage in China.64

Based on this evidence, as well as the high degree of substitutability between subject imports

from China and the domestic like product and the importance of price, we do not find that subject

imports from China would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the

antidumping duty order on PRCBs from China were revoked.

Malaysia. During the original period of investigation, subject imports from Malaysia increased

from *** bags in 2001, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to *** bags in 2002, or ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and *** bags in 2003, or *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption.65 

Over the period of review, subject Malaysian producers maintained a presence in the U.S.

market notwithstanding imposition of the antidumping duty order, with an increased presence in 2008

and 2009. Subject imports from Malaysia were *** bags in 2004, or *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption, declining to *** bags in 2005, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and to ***

bags in 2006 and *** bags in 2007.66 Subject imports from Malaysia then *** to *** bags in 2008, or

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, before declining to *** bags in 2009, or *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption.67 These data indicate that subject Malaysian producers remain interested in

the U.S. market and capable of serving U.S. customers.

It also is noteworthy that nonsubject Malaysian producers maintained a significant and

increasing presence in the U.S. market during the period of review. Nonsubject imports from Malaysia

increased from *** bags in 2004, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to *** bags in 2005, or

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, before declining to a still significant *** bags, *** bags, and

*** bags in 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively, or about *** to *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption in each of those years, and then increasing to *** bags in 2009, or *** percent of apparent

U.S. consumption. Were the order on PRCBs from Malaysia revoked, we find it likely that subject

producers in Malaysia would exhibit a similar degree of interest in serving the U.S. market, and a similar

capability of doing so, as nonsubject producers in Malaysia demonstrated over the period of review.68

 63 Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 34, Exhibit 16; CR/PR at Table I-12.

 64 See CR at II-15, IV-9-11; PR at II-11, IV-6-7. Effective June 1, 2008, the Chinese government imposed a new

regulation requiring retailers to charge customers for plastic shopping bags or face fines. CR at IV-9; PR at IV-6. 

Retailers may set their own prices for plastic bags, provided that the prices are greater than the retailers’ cost of the

bags. Id. In addition, the Chinese government has promulgated standards specifying that plastic shopping bags must

be at least 0.025 millimeters (1 mil) in thickness, among other requirements, which have reportedly hurt Chinese

producers that supplied ultra-thin bags under 0.025 millimeters (1 mil). CR at IV-9-10; PR at IV-6-7.

 65 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 66 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 67 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 68 The Malaysian interested parties argue that Malaysia will likely continue its historic role as a “minor player” in

the U.S. market given that Malaysia’s share of apparent U.S. consumption was low during the original period

examined, never exceeding *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and also during the period of review, never

exceeding *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption. Malaysian Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 1, 4-5. 

Subject imports from Malaysia had a continued presence in the U.S. market, particularly in 2008-2009, although we

(continued...)

12
Subject Malaysian producers also possessed significant excess capacity with which to increase

exports to the U.S. market after revocation.69 Reported Malaysian PRCB capacity increased throughout

the period of review, from 7.8 billion bags in 2004 to 8.3 billion bags in 2005, 9.1 billion bags in 2006,

10.5 billion bags in 2007, 11.3 billion bags in 2008, and 13.8 billion bags in 2009.70 Reported Malaysian

PRCB production also increased throughout the period, from 7.2 billion bags in 2004 to 7.5 billion bags

in 2005, 8.3 billion bags in 2006, 9.8 billion bags in 2007, 10.1 billion bags in 2008, and 11.7 billion

bags in 2009.71 Reported Malaysian industry capacity utilization rates, however, fluctuated over the

period, declining from 92.5 percent in 2004 to 89.8 percent in 2005, increasing to 91.1 percent in 2006

and 93.3 percent in 2007, and then declining to 89.5 percent in 2008 and 84.8 percent in 2009.72 Thus,

in 2009, responding Malaysian producers reported excess capacity of a significant 2.1 billion bags,

equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption that year.73 

Responding Malaysian producers were highly dependent on exports throughout the period of

review, with the European Union their primary market.74 Reported Malaysian PRCB exports increased

 68 (...continued)

recognize that they accounted for a lower share of apparent U.S. consumption than subject imports from China or

Thailand during the original period of investigation and the period of review. CR/PR at Tables I-1, 12. The

significant and increasing presence of nonsubject imports from Malaysia in the U.S. market, however, indicates that

nonsubject producers in Malaysia, unrestrained by any antidumping duty discipline, have not remained “minor

players” in the U.S. market. Were the order on PRCBs from Malaysia revoked, we find it likely that subject

producers in Malaysia would exhibit a similar degree of interest in serving the U.S. market, and a similar capability

of doing so, as nonsubject producers in China demonstrated over the period of review. 

 69 The Malaysian interested parties argue that subject Malaysian producers operated at a high level of capacity

utilization over the period of review, and are incapable of fully utilizing their production capacity. Malaysian

Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 5; Hearing Tr. at 145 (Macrory). Even so, responding Malaysian producers

reported excess capacity of 2.1 billion bags in 2009, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption that

year, which is significant. CR/PR at Tables I-12, IV-5. That Malaysian producers reported capacity utilization rates

ranging from *** to *** percent during the original period of investigation indicates that the Malaysian industry is

capable of operating at high capacity utilization levels. See Original Confidential Staff Report at Table VII-4. 

 70 CR/PR at Table IV-5. The Commission sent foreign producers’ questionnaires to 27 firms in Malaysia

believed to be PRCB producers, and received 16 usable responses. CR at IV-14; PR at IV-8. Responding

Malaysian producers estimated that they accounted for *** percent of Malaysian PRCB production, and *** percent

of Malaysian PRCB exports to the United States, in 2009. CR at IV-14; PR at IV-9. Responding Malaysian

producers *** to the United States during the period of review. CR at IV-14; PR at IV-9.

 71 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 72 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 73 See CR/PR at Tables I-12, IV-5.

 74 The Malaysian interested parties argue that subject Malaysian producers are unlikely to reduce their focus on

the EU market given that their exports to the EU surged from *** billion bags in 2004 to *** billion bags in 2009 as

they capitalized on the opportunity for increased sales that resulted from the EU’s imposition of antidumping duty

orders on competing PRCBs from China and Thailand. See Malaysian Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 5-6. 

However, the recent orders imposed by the United States on imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam will likely increase competition in the EU market, as producers in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam redirect

exports from the U.S. market to third country markets and reduce competition in the U.S. market. Increased

competition in the EU market and reduced competition in the U.S. market, in turn, would likely give subject

Malaysian producers an incentive to shift exports from the EU market to the U.S. market were the antidumping order

on PRCBs from Malaysia to be revoked. Moreover, Malaysian producers were able to increase capacity and

production rapidly when they saw a market opportunity in the EU and have given no persuasive reason why they

would not increase capacity and production to serve the U.S. market just as quickly. Thus, we are unpersuaded by

the Malaysian interested parties’ argument that subject Malaysian producers would likely remain focused on the EU

(continued...)

13
from 6.4 billion bags in 2004 and 2005 to 7.2 billion bags in 2006, and 9.1 billion bags in 2007, declined 

to 9.0 billion bags in 2008, and then increased to 10.6 billion bags in 2009.75 In 2009, responding

Malaysian producers reportedly exported 91.3 percent of their total shipments.76

Based on this evidence, as well as the high degree of substitutability between subject imports

from Malaysian and the domestic like product and the importance of price, we do not find that subject

imports from Malaysia would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the

antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia were revoked.

Thailand. During the original period of investigation, subject imports from Thailand increased

from *** bags in 2001, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to *** bags in 2002, or ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and *** bags in 2003, or *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption.77 

Over the period of review, Thai producers maintained a significant presence in the U.S. market

notwithstanding imposition of the antidumping duty order. Subject imports from Thailand declined to

5.8 billion bags in 2004, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, before increasing sharply to 11.0

billion bags in 2005, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and 17.0 billion bags in 2006, or ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption.78 Subject imports from Thailand then declined to 5.9 billion bags

in 2007, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, before increasing to 7.8 billion bags in 2008, or

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and declining to 3.7 billion bags in 2009, or *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption.79 These data indicate that Thai producers remain interested in the U.S.

market and capable of serving U.S. customers. 

The limited questionnaire data on the Thai PRCB industry indicate that Thai producers possess

significant excess capacity with which to increase exports to the U.S. market after revocation.80

Reported Thai PRCB capacity fluctuated between 2004 and 2006, increasing from *** bags in 2004 to

*** bags in 2005 before declining to *** bags in 2006, *** bags in 2007, *** bags in 2008, and ***

bags in 2009.81 Reported Thai PRCB production increased from *** bags in 2004 to *** bags in 2005,

declined to *** bags in 2006 and *** bags in 2007, increased to *** bags in 2008, and declined to ***

bags in 2009.82 Reported Thai industry capacity utilization rates fluctuated over the period of review,

increasing from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2005, declining to *** percent in 2006 and

 74 (...continued)

market after revocation. 

 75 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 76 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 77 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 78 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 79 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 80 The Commission sent foreign producers’ questionnaires to 33 firms in Thailand believed to be PRCB

producers, and received five usable responses. CR at IV-18; PR at IV-11. Responding Thai producers estimated

that they accounted for *** percent of Thai PRCB production, and *** percent of Thai PRCB exports to the United

States, in 2009. Id. The exports to the United States reported by these firms in 2009 were equivalent to *** percent

of the quantity of subject imports from Thailand that year. Id. The seeming disparity between the reported capacity

and production of subject Thai producers and the volume of subject imports from Thailand stems from the fact that

only *** of subject Thai producers reported capacity and production data, while subject import volume data reflect

comprehensive official Commerce statistics.

 81 CR/PR at Table IV-6. 

 82 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

14
*** percent in 2007, increasing to *** percent in 2008, and declining to *** percent in 2009.83 Thus, in

2009, responding Thai producers alone possessed *** bags of excess capacity, equivalent to *** percent

of apparent U.S. consumption that year.84 

Responding Thai producers also reported a high degree of export orientation. Reported Thai

PRCB exports increased from *** bags in 2004 to *** bags in 2005, before declining to *** bags in

2006, *** bags in 2007, *** bags in 2008, and *** bags in 2009.85 Responding Thai PRCB producers

reportedly exported *** percent of their total shipments in 2009.86

Based on this evidence, as well as the high degree of substitutability between subject imports

from Thailand and the domestic like product and the importance of price, we do not find that subject

imports from Thailand would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the

antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Thailand were revoked.

D. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition

The Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for

determining whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.87

Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.88 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is

whether there likely would be competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are

absent from the U.S. market.89

In the original investigations, the Commission found a reasonable overlap of competition among

the subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and between subject imports from each source

and the domestic like product, and therefore cumulated subject imports from all three sources.90 In these

reviews, no party has argued that circumstances have changed so as to warrant a different result

concerning the likely overlap of competition for cumulation purposes. 

 83 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 84 See CR/PR at Table I-12.

 85 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 86 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 87 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each

other and with the domestic like product are as follows: (1) the degree of fungibility between subject imports from

different countries and between subject imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific

customer requirements and other quality-related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same

geographical markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common

or similar channels of distribution for subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4)

whether subject imports are simultaneously present in the market with one another and the domestic like product. 

See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 88 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Wieland Werke, 718 F. Supp.

at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 

673, 685 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We note, however, that there have been

investigations where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate

subject imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle From Canada and Mexico, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-386 and 731-TA-812 to 813

(Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d sub nom, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v.

United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the

Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-761 to 762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998).

 89 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002).

 90 Original Views at 16.

15
With respect to fungibility,91 the record of these reviews indicates that there would likely be a

high degree of substitutability among subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand and between

subject imports from each source and the domestic like product, after revocation.92 Almost all

responding domestic producers and a majority of responding importers and purchasers reported that

PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, respectively, are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable

with the domestic like product.93 Moreover, almost all responding domestic producers, importers, and

purchasers reported that PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand are “always” or “frequently”

interchangeable with each other.94 A majority of responding purchasers reported that subject imports

from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, respectively, are generally comparable with the domestic like

product in terms of 14 of 18 purchasing factors, including availability, customization, quality meets

industry standards, and U.S. transportation costs.95 When asked whether factors other than price were

ever significant for purchasers choosing among PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and the

domestic like product, a majority of responding domestic producers and importers responded

“sometimes” or “never.”96

The record also indicates that there would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition among

subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and between these imports and the domestic like

product, in terms of geographic markets, channels of distribution, and simultaneous presence in the U.S.

market. During the period of review, subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand entered the

United States through multiple ports of entry, dispersed across the country, and responding importers

reported that they served customers throughout the United States.97 Responding domestic producers also

reported that they served customers throughout the United States.98 Domestic producers and importers

 91 Commissioner Lane notes that, with respect to fungibility, her analysis does not require such similarity of

products that a perfectly symmetrical fungibility is required and that this factor would be better described as an

analysis of whether subject imports from each country and the domestic like product could be substituted for each

other. See Separate Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China,

Germany, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1128 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3964 at 32-33 (Nov.

2007).

 92 CR at II-16; PR at II-11.

 93 CR at II-20-21; PR at II-16; CR/PR at Table II-11.

 94 CR/PR at Table II-11.

 95 CR/PR at Table II-13. Fewer responding purchasers were in agreement with respect to delivery time, price,

reliability of supply, and technical support and service. With respect to delivery time, a plurality of responding

purchasers reported that the domestic like product was superior to subject imports from China, Malaysia, and

Thailand, respectively. Id. With respect to price, a plurality of responding purchasers reported that the domestic like

product was comparable to subject imports from China and Thailand, respectively, but inferior (i.e., higher in price)

with respect to subject imports from Malaysia. Id. With respect to reliability of supply, a majority of responding

purchasers reported that the domestic like product was comparable with respect to subject imports from China and

Malaysia, respectively, while a plurality of responding purchasers reported that the domestic like product was

comparable to subject imports from Thailand. Id. With respect to technical support and service, a majority of

responding purchasers reported that the domestic like product was comparable to subject imports from China and

Thailand, respectively, while a plurality reported that the domestic like product was comparable to subject imports

from Malaysia. Id.

 96 CR at II-21-22; PR at II-16; CR/PR at Table II-12.

 97 CR at II-4, IV-5; PR at II-3, IV-4-5; CR/PR at Table II-3. In addition, responding importers reported that 46.7

percent of their shipments were shipped less than 100 miles, 29.6 percent of their shipments were shipped from 101

to 1,000 miles, and 23.7 percent of their shipments were shipped over 1,000 miles. CR at V-3; PR at V-2.

 98 CR at II-4; PR at II-3; CR/PR at Table II-3. In addition, responding domestic producers reported that 12.5

percent of their shipments were shipped less than 100 miles, 56.4 percent of their shipments were shipped from 101

(continued...)

16
of PRCBs from Malaysia and Thailand reported selling most PRCBs directly to end users, with the

balance sold to distributors.99 Importers of PRCBs from China, however, reported selling most PRCBs

to distributors, with the balance sold to end users, in every year of the period of review but 2009, when

they reported selling most PRCBs to end users with the balance sold to distributors.100 Subject imports

from China, Malaysia, and Thailand were imported into the United States during the last 12 months for

which data were collected.101

Based on the four reasonable overlap in competition factors that the Commission considers, we

conclude that subject imports from the subject countries likely would be fungible, move in the same

channels of distribution, and compete simultaneously in the same geographic markets if the antidumping

duty orders were revoked. No party has asserted an argument that a reasonable overlap of competition is

not likely. Accordingly, we conclude that there likely would be a reasonable overlap of competition

between subject imports and the domestic like product, and among the subject imports themselves, if the

antidumping duty orders were revoked. 

E. Other Considerations102 103

 In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports, we assess

whether the subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand are likely to compete under similar or

different conditions in the U.S. market after revocation of the orders.104 We find that subject imports

from each country would be likely to compete under similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market

after revocation, based on the following considerations.

First, subject imports from all three sources maintained a presence in the U.S. market throughout

the period of review, as addressed in section IV.C above, indicating that subject producers in all three

 98 (...continued)

to 1,000 miles, and 31.1 percent of their shipments were shipped over 1,000 miles. CR at V-2; PR at V-2.

 99 See CR/PR at Table II-1.

 100 See CR/PR at Table II-1.

 101 CR at IV-6; PR at IV-5.

 102 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert do not join in this section and explain their analysis of other considerations

as follows. Where, in a five-year review, they do not find that the subject imports would be likely to have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked, and find that such imports would be

likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market, they cumulate such imports

unless there is a condition or propensity – not merely a trend – that is likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable

time and that significantly limits competition such that cumulation is not warranted.

Based on the record in these reviews, they find that there is no such condition or propensity with respect to the

subject imports. The subject Malaysian producers’ recent focus on the European Union does not rise to the level of

such a condition or propensity – it is simply a trend. It does not reduce their ability to direct more exports to the U.S.

market, which they could do out of unused capacity and/or current exports to the European Union (whose market for

PRCBs is likely to see increased competition as a result of recent orders imposed by the United States on imports of

PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam).

 103 Commissioner Pinkert rejects the Malaysian interested parties’ “hammering effects” argument as it would have

the Commission perform its sunset analysis backwards. See Malaysian Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 8;

Malaysian Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 9. In accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7), he does not make

five-year review likelihood of injury determinations for each country before determining whether to cumulate

subject imports from various countries. 

 104 See, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 475 F. Supp. 2d at 1378 (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission

has in selecting the type of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate

subject imports in five-year reviews); Nucor v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d at 1337-38; United States Steel, Slip

Op. 08-82.

17
countries have an interest in serving the U.S. market and the ability to do so. There is no evidence on the

record that subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand differed significantly in terms of product

mix. 

Subject imports from China and Thailand exhibited similar patterns of over- and underselling

over the period of review, although no pricing data were reported for subject imports from Malaysia,

given their smaller volumes. Subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product in 115 of

179 quarterly comparisons, or 64.2 percent of the time, with an average underselling margin of 26.4

percent, while subject imports from Thailand undersold the domestic like product in 81 of 124 quarterly

comparisons, or 65.3 percent of the time, with an average underselling margin of 17.2 percent.105

Responding subject producers in China, Malaysia, and Thailand reported a similar dependence

on exports and lack of a significant home market. In 2009, responding Chinese producers reported

exporting *** percent of their total shipments, responding Malaysian producers reported exporting 91.3 

percent of their total shipments, and responding Thai producers reported exporting *** percent of their

total shipments.106 

Responding producers in Malaysia and Thailand also reported *** excess capacity in 2009, at

*** bags and *** bags, respectively.107 Although questionnaire data on Chinese excess capacity are

limited, public information placed on the record by the domestic interested parties indicates that Chinese

PRCB producers possess an enormous capacity of approximately *** bags, and these producers confront

significant government restrictions on PRCB usage in their home market.108 Thus, subject producers in

China, Malaysia, and Thailand would likely have similar capabilities and incentives to increase their

exports to the United States after revocation of the orders.

In sum, we find that the similarities in the likely conditions of competition outweigh the

differences and have exercised our discretion to cumulate subject imports from China, Malaysia, and

Thailand for our analysis in these reviews.109

 105 CR/PR at Table V-11. 

 106 CR/PR at Tables IV-4-6. As addressed in section IV.C above, we are unpersuaded by the Malaysian interested

parties’ argument that subject Malaysian producers would likely remain focused primarily on the EU market after

revocation of the order. 

 107 CR/PR at Tables IV-5-6.

 108 See Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at Exhibit 16; CR at IV-9-11; PR at IV-6-7.

 109 The Malaysian interested parties assert that subject imports from Malaysia could not possibly contribute to any

“hammering effect” after revocation, which is the primary purpose of cumulation in their view, because it is

“inconceivable” that the Commission would revoke the orders on PRCBs from China and Thailand. See Malaysian

Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 8; Malaysian Interested Parties’ Posthearing Br. at 9. 

We note that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of International Trade have both

rejected the view that the Commission’s exercise of its discretion to cumulate in sunset reviews should be guided by

the likelihood of “hammering effects” from subject imports originating in different countries. See Nucor Corp. v.

United States, Court Nos. 2009-1234, -1235, slip. op. at 10 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2010); Nucor Corp. v. United States,

605 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009) (holding that “[i]f Congress had intended the Commission to

consider ‘hammering effect’ as an independent factor in its discretionary cumulation analysis, it would have done

so” but “did not” and instead “gave the Commission wide discretion in the types of factors to consider”). 

Further, our reviewing courts have rejected the notion that the Commission may engage in a “circular analysis,

relying on the same factors to refuse to cumulate as for an ultimate negative injury determination,” such as volume

or market share alone. Neenah Foundry Co. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d at 771-777. See also Nucor Corp. v.

United States, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1370 n. 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009) (referencing “an impermissible circular

analysis” by basing an exercise of discretion not to cumulate solely on the likely volume of subject imports); 

Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1379 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (the Commission

decision not to cumulate was valid because it “did not rely only on low volume figures and pre-order imports in

(continued...)

18
V. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS UNDER REVIEW ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standards

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or subsidization is likely to

continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping duty

order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably

foreseeable time.”110 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in

a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an

important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of

its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”111 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective

in nature.112 The CIT has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Tariff

Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.113 114 115

 109 (...continued)

making its cumulation determination, but also based its analysis [of differing conditions of competition] on productmix trends, production capacity trends, and volume trends” and “provided sufficient evidence and ‘further

justification’ not to cumulate” beyond low volume and price impact). 

Thus, the Malaysian interested parties’ “hammering effects” argument would have the Commission engage in a

circular analysis and perform its sunset analysis backwards, first determining that revocation of the orders on PRCBs

from China and Thailand would likely result in the continuation or recurrence of material injury and then

determining, on that basis, to exercise its discretion to decumulate subject imports from Malaysia. Under the statute,

however, the Commission must consider the issue of cumulation first, before considering the likelihood of the

continuation of recurrence of material injury after revocation. See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7) (providing that the

Commission must first consider “if such imports would be likely to compete with each other and with domestic like

products in the United States market” before it “may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the

subject merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or (c) of this title were

initiated on the same day”).

 110 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 111 SAA at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of

the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an

industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883.

 112 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued {sic} prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 113 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 114 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views

of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362

(continued...)

19
The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or

termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”116

According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will

exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”117

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute

provides that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effects, and impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is

terminated.”118 It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any

improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order under review, whether the industry is

vulnerable to material injury if the order were revoked, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty

absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).119 The statute further provides that the presence or

absence of any factor that the Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive

guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination.120

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review

were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.121 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

factors, as follows: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity

in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in

inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries

other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the

foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to

produce other products.122

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review were revoked,

the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the

subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to

 114 (...continued)

(Review) and 731-TA-707 to 710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 115 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (Jun. 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in these reviews and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue. 

 116 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 117 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 118 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 119 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 120 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 121 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 122 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

20
enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect

on the price of the domestic like product.123

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review were

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to the following: 

(1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and

utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth,

ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of

the domestic like product.124 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the

business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry. As instructed by the

statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is

related to the orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders were

revoked.125

In these reviews, a limited number of subject foreign producers in China and Thailand responded

to the Commission’s questionnaires, as addressed above. Accordingly, we have relied on the facts

otherwise available when appropriate in these reviews, which consist primarily of information from the

original investigations, information available from published sources, and information submitted in these

reviews, including by the domestic interested parties and other questionnaire respondents.126 127

 123 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in investigations, in

considering the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely

on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” 

SAA at 886.

 124 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 125 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

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 may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885.

 126 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or any other

person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time or in the form or

manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to

19 U.S.C. § 1677m(I). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(I) only apply to Commerce. See

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of Commission investigations.”).

 127 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

21
B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”128

In the original investigations, the Commission identified several conditions of competition that

were relevant to its analysis. With respect to demand conditions, the Commission found that apparent

U.S. consumption had increased steadily from 77 billion bags in 2001 to 87.5 billion bags in 2003, and

noted that, despite the many types of PRCBs, 90 percent of the U.S. market was comprised of t-shirt and

die-cut handle PRCBs.129 With respect to supply conditions, the Commission noted that 22 domestic

producers had completed domestic producers’ questionnaire responses; that subject imports were

diffused among many importers; that PRCBs are imported directly by large retailers, purchased from

importers and domestic producers, and purchased from distributors; that nonsubject import market share

increased from 1.5 percent in 2001 to 4.4 percent in 2003; and that subject imports and domestic

producers alike served the higher end of the PRCB market.130 With respect to substitutability, the

Commission found that there was a high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the

domestic like product, and that price was an important factor in purchasing decisions.131 

The Commission noted that polyethylene resin was the primary raw material input for PRCB

production, and that petitioners argued that 50 to 80 percent of their sales volume was subject to formal

or informal agreements to adjust PRCB prices in tandem with resin price trends.132 The Commission

also found that domestic producers and importers increasingly sold PRCBs over the internet during the

period examined, sometimes through reverse auctions that, according to purchasers, tended to focus

competition on price.133 

In these reviews, we find the following conditions of competition relevant to our analysis.

1. Demand Conditions 

 Apparent U.S. consumption for PRCBs increased from *** billion bags in 2004 to *** billion

bags in 2005 and *** billion bags in 2006 before declining to *** billion bags in 2007, *** billion bags

in 2008, and *** billion bags in 2009, a level still *** percent higher than in 2004.134 When asked how

demand for PRCBs in the U.S. market has changed since 2004, 24 responding producers, importers, and

purchasers reported a decrease, 23 reported no change, 20 reported an increase, and 16 reported that

demand fluctuated.135 Reasons given by questionnaire respondents for the decline in PRCB demand

 128 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 129 Original Views at 16-17.

 130 Original Views at 17-18.

 131 Original Views at 18-19.

 132 Original Views at 19.

 133 Original Views at 19-20.

 134 CR/PR at Tables I-11, C-1.

 135 CR/PR at Table II-4. Specifically, six responding producers reported an increase, four reported a decrease,

one reported no change, and two reported that demand fluctuated; thirteen responding importers reported no change,

nine reported a decrease, nine reported that demand fluctuated, and two reported an increase; twelve responding

purchasers reported an increase, eleven reported a decrease, nine reported no change, and five reported that demand

fluctuated. Id.

22
since 2006 included the increased use of alternative bag types and bans or taxes on PRCBs related to

environmental concerns.136 

Petitioners project that PRCB demand has undergone a structural decline since 2006 that is

likely to continue into the foreseeable future, as environmental concerns will likely spawn additional

measures designed to reduce PRCB consumption.137 When asked how demand in the U.S. market is

likely to change, 31 responding producers, importers, and purchasers reported that they project no

change, 25 reported that they project declining demand, 13 reported that they project increasing demand,

and 9 reported that they project fluctuating demand.138

The record indicates that laws and regulations taxing, banning, or limiting the use of PRCBs

have been enacted in San Francisco, CA; Westport, CT; the Outer Banks of North Carolina; Seattle,

WA; and Washington, DC, and have been considered, but not implemented, in 32 states and localities

throughout the United States.139 When asked whether they expect the passage of laws regulating PRCB

use and disposal to affect PRCB demand, 28 of 45 responding purchasers answered yes, with an average

projected decline in demand of 19.5 percent.140 

2. Supply Conditions

API, Hilex, Inteplast, and Superbag were *** domestic producers during the period of

investigation, accounting for *** percent, *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent of domestic PRCB

production in 2009, respectively.141 All other domestic producers combined accounted for only ***

percent of domestic production that year.142 Since the original investigations, *** ceased operations and

dissolved in late 2009, Vanguard was acquired by Hilex in October 2005, and four PRCB production

facilities were closed, one by *** and three by Hilex.143

Imports from subject and nonsubject sources accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption in 2009, by volume.144 The principal sources of nonsubject imports were China, Vietnam,

Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Canada,145 with PRCBs from Indonesia and Taiwan subject to

antidumping duty orders, and PRCBs from Vietnam subject to antidumping and countervailing duty

 136 CR at II-10; PR at II-7.

 137 Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 16-17.

 138 CR/PR at Table II-4. Specifically, five responding producers project a decline, four project no change, three

project an increase, and none project fluctuating demand; twelve responding imports project a decline, twelve project

no change, four project an increase, and three project fluctuating demand; fifteen responding purchasers project no

change, eight project a decline, six project an increase, and six project fluctuating demand. Id. *** projects that

U.S. demand for high-density polyethylene (“HDPE”) bags will increase about *** percent annually over the 2008-

2013 period, though we note that HDPE bags include bags other than PRCBs. CR at II-11; PR at II-8. 

 139 CR at II-13-14; PR at II-9. The record also indicates that the 5-cent per-bag tax imposed on PRCBs in

Washington, DC has had a significant impact on PRCB demand there. CR at II-14; PR at II-9. 

 140 CR/PR at Table II-5.

 141 CR/PR at Table I-10.

 142 CR/PR at Table I-10.

 143 CR at I-32-33; PR at I-21-22. On May 6, 2008, Hilex, the dominant domestic producer of PRCBs, voluntarily

filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy code, reportedly to reduce its overall debt and strengthen its

balance sheet. CR at III-25 n.15; PR at III-5 n.15. Hilex emerged from bankruptcy protection in July 2008. Id.

 144 CR/PR at Table I-12.

 145 CR at II-6; PR at II-5; CR/PR at Table I-11.

23
orders, as of May 2010.146 Nonsubject import volume increased from 5.1 billion bags in 2004,

equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to 9.5 billion bags in 2005, equivalent to ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption, 18.4 billion bags in 2006, equivalent to *** percent of apparent

U.S. consumption, and 25.0 billion bags in 2007, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption.147 Nonsubject import volume then declined to 22.7 billion bags in 2008, equivalent to ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and 21.6 billion bags in 2009, equivalent to *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption.148 

3. Substitutability and Other Conditions of Competition

As addressed in section IV.D above, the record indicates that there is a high degree of

substitutability between PRCBs, regardless of the source.149 The record also indicates that price is an

important consideration in purchasing decisions.150 When asked whether factors other than price were

ever significant for purchasers choosing among PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and the

domestic like product, a majority of responding domestic producers and importers responded

“sometimes” or “never.”151 When asked to identify the three major factors considered in selecting

among different suppliers of PRCBs, 47 of 48 responding purchasers ranked price among their top three

factors, more than any other factor, and 19 responding purchasers reported that price was the most

important factor.152 Twenty-seven of 46 responding purchasers reported that they always or usually

purchase the lowest-priced PRCBs.153 When asked to rate the importance of 18 factors relevant to

selecting among different suppliers of PRCBs, more responding purchasers (41 of 42) reported that price

was a “very important” factor than any other factor, followed by product consistency (39 of 42

responding purchasers).154

Two additional conditions of competition inform our analysis in these reviews. First, at the

hearing, witnesses from Hilex and Superbag testified that their PRCB production facilities must operate

around the clock to reduce unit costs to an economical level, and that this factor has compelled them to

defend their key high-volume customers, their “baseload business,” by meeting low subject import 

 146 CR at I-15; PR at I-8.

 147 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 148 CR/PR at Tables I-11-12.

 149 See CR at II-16; PR at II-11; CR/PR at Tables II-11-3.

 150 See CR at II-21, 22-23; PR at II-15-16. The record also indicates that bidding events, including bidding events

conducted over the internet, were a factor in the U.S. market during the period examined, and that price was often

the determinative factor in such events. See CR at V-3; PR at V-2. Fifteen of 48 responding purchasers reported

that they had participated in bidding events and provided data on 34 bidding events, whose winning bids accounted

for 5.4 percent of apparent U.S. consumption over the period of review. CR at V-4-5; PR at V-3. The country with

the lowest bidder was the country with the winning bid in 23 of the 28 bidding events for which such data were

reported. CR at V-5; PR at V-3; CR/PR at Table V-1. 

 151 CR at II-21-22; PR at II-16; CR/PR at Table II-12.

 152 CR at II-16; PR at II-11; CR/PR at Table II-8.

 153 CR at II-17; PR at II-12.

 154 CR/PR at Table II-9.

24
prices.155 Customers lost to subject imports, the domestic interested parties claim, may only be regained

by undercutting the new incumbent supplier’s price.156

Second, we note that raw materials, principally polyethylene resin, accounted for *** percent of

the total cost of goods sold reported by domestic producers in 2009, and *** percent when resin prices

peaked in 2008.157 The price of polyethylene resin was volatile over the period of review, increasing

irregularly from 2004 through early 2006, declining irregularly during 2006 and into early 2007, and

then increasing irregularly through August 2008, when it reached a period high.158 The price of

polyethylene resin then decreased rapidly through January 2009 before trending higher into early 2010,

as confirmed by multiple responding domestic producers.159 Two responding producers reported that for

certain contracts, prices adjust with changes in resin prices.160

C. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders Under Review 

Is Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury

1. Likely Volume of Cumulated Subject Imports

a. The Original Investigations

In the original investigations, the Commission found that subject import volume increased

significantly from 8.7 million bags in 2001, or 10.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to 11.6 

million bags in 2002, or 13.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and to 17.0 million bags in 2003, or

18.6 percent of apparent U.S. consumption.161 The Commission also found that the increase in subject

import market share came at the expense of the domestic industry, which lost 11.0 percentage points of

market share, although the Commission recognized that nonsubject imports captured market share from

the domestic industry as well.162 

b. The Current Reviews

Several factors support our conclusion that cumulated subject import volume is likely to be

significant in the event of revocation.

First, the volume of subject imports from the cumulated subject countries increased rapidly in

the original investigations, both absolutely and relative to apparent U.S. consumption and production.163

Notwithstanding imposition of the antidumping duty orders, cumulated subject imports maintained a

significant presence in the U.S. market over the period of review. Specifically, cumulated subject import

volume increased from 12.6 billion bags in 2004, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption, to 17.6 billion bags in 2005, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and

23.5 billion bags in 2006, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, declined to 10.6

 155 Hearing Tr. at 16-17, 21 (Bazbaz), 33 (Rizzo); see also id. at 8 (Dorn); Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing

Br. at 12-13.

 156 Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 13.

 157 CR at V-1; PR at V-1.

 158 CR at V-1; PR at V-1; CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 159 CR at V-1; PR at V-1; CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 160 CR at V-3; PR at V-2.

 161 Original Views at 20-21. Ratios to apparent U.S. consumption are based on U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments.

 162 Original Views at 21.

 163 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

25
billion bags in 2007, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, increased to 13.7 billion

bags in 2008, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and declined to 8.9 billion bags in

2009, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.164 These data indicate that subject

foreign producers remain interested in serving the U.S. market and are capable of doing so.165 

We find further support for this finding in the significant and increasing presence of imports

from China and Malaysia in the U.S. market from producers excluded from the antidumping duty orders

over the period of review. Nonsubject imports from China and Malaysia increased from 1.0 billion bags

in 2004, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to 4.8 billion bags in 2005, equivalent

to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and 5.6 billion bags in 2006, equivalent to *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption, declined slightly to 5.5 billion bags in 2007, equivalent to *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption, and 5.2 billion bags in 2008, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption, and then increased to 7.6 billion bags in 2009, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption, a level 641.9 percent higher than in 2004.166 Thus, nonsubject producers in China and

Malaysia rapidly increased their penetration of the U.S. market over the period of review, and we find it

likely that subject producers in China and Malaysia would be no less interested in serving the U.S. 

market were the orders to be revoked. 

Second, there is significant and increasing production capacity in the subject countries. 

Collectively, responding subject foreign producers in China, Malaysia, and Thailand, reported a ***

percent increase in their capacity over the period of review, from *** billion bags in 2004 to *** billion

bags in 2009, and the actual capacity of subject foreign producers is likely much higher in light of the

limited questionnaire coverage of the Chinese and Thai industries.167 Public information submitted by

the domestic interested parties indicates that subject Chinese producers possess a capacity of

approximately 36.3 billion bags, and that at least 21 new PRCB production facilities have been

commissioned in China since the original investigations, representing an additional annual capacity of

approximately 206.6 million bags.168 It also indicates that Suiping Huaqiang, which had been China’s

largest PRCB producer with an annual capacity of 250,000 metric tons, closed after the Chinese

government imposed certain restrictions on PRCB usage in June 2008, but then reopened as Suiping

Huiqiang Plastic Co., with an annual capacity of 180,000 metric tons or 31.7 billion bags.169 With

respect to Thailand, public information submitted by the domestic interested parties indicates that a

single Thai producer, King Pac Industrial Co. Ltd., reportedly possesses a capacity of 16.9 billion bags,

with plans to increase its capacity to 38.0 billion bags and become one of the top PRCB producers in the

world.170

Third, there is significant unused capacity in the subject countries. Collectively, responding

subject foreign producers reported a capacity utilization rate of *** percent in 2009, resulting in excess

 164 CR/PR at Tables I-11-12.

 165 The record also contains evidence that importers and purchasers would be receptive to purchasing increased

volumes of subject imports after revocation. Six responding importers reported that they would likely increase their

imports of subject imported PRCBs were the orders to be revoked, and nine responding purchasers reporting that

they would likely increase their purchases of subject imported PRCBs were the orders to be revoked. See CR/PR at

Appendix D. 

 166 CR/PR at Tables I-11-12.

 167 CR/PR at Tables IV-4-6.

 168 Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 38-39, Exhibit 25.

 169 Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 39-40, Exhibits 29-30. 

 170 See Domestic Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at Exhibits 16 (conversion factor of 12.5 pounds per 1,000

bags and 2,204.6 pounds per metric ton), 45.

26
capacity of *** bags, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption that year.171 Moreover,

given the low questionnaire coverage of the subject Chinese and Thai industries, actual cumulated excess

capacity in the subject countries is likely to be far higher. The enormous capacity of the Chinese PRCB

industry coupled with significant restrictions on PRCB usage in the Chinese market suggest that

cumulated excess capacity in the subject countries is likely far higher than reported by responding

subject foreign producers. 

Fourth, responding subject foreign producers reported that they are highly export oriented, with

a relatively low proportion of their sales directed at home market customers. In 2009, responding

Chinese producers reported exporting *** percent of their total shipments, responding Malaysian

producers reported exporting 91.3 percent of their total shipments, and responding Thai producers

reported exporting *** percent of their total shipments.172

Fifth, competition in major third country markets is likely to intensify in the reasonably

foreseeable future given the likelihood of stagnant or declining demand in the Chinese and EU markets

and the recent imposition of antidumping duty orders on imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam, and a countervailing duty order on imports of PRCBs from Vietnam, in the United States

earlier this year. When asked how PRCB demand is likely to change outside the United States, 23

responding domestic producers, importers, and purchasers projected that demand will remain unchanged,

19 projected a decline in demand, 4 projected an increase in demand, and 3 projected that demand will

fluctuate.173 PRCB demand in China will likely remain adversely affected by government restrictions on

PRCB usage.174 PRCB demand in the EU market, which is the principal export market for subject

Malaysian producers, is likely to be subjected to similar pressure from taxes, bans, or voluntary

initiatives to limit PRCB use in numerous member countries, including Belgium, Denmark, Ireland,

France, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom.175 At the same time, PRCB producers in

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, which collectively possessed a reported capacity of *** bags in 2008,

have become subject to antidumping discipline, and in the case of Vietnamese producers, countervailing

duty discipline, in the U.S. market, which will likely displace a significant volume of their exports from

the U.S. market into third country markets.176 For all of these reasons, subject producers in China,

Malaysia, and Thailand are likely to experience intensified competition for their exports to third country

markets in the reasonably foreseeable future, creating an incentive for them to shift exports from third

country markets to the U.S. market after revocation.

Finally, the antidumping duty orders recently imposed on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam, and the countervailing duty order imposed on PRCBs from Vietnam, would likely create an

 171 CR/PR at Tables I-11, IV-4-6.

 172 CR/PR at Tables IV-4-6. 

 173 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 174 See CR at II-15, IV-9-11; PR at II-11, IV-6-7. Effective June 1, 2008, the Chinese government imposed a new

regulation requiring retailers to charge customers for plastic shopping bags or face fines. CR at IV-9; PR at IV-6. 

Retailers may set their own prices for plastic bags, provided that the prices are greater than the retailers’ cost of the

bags. Id. The Chinese government also has promulgated standards specifying that plastic shopping bags must be at

least 0.025 millimeters (1 mil) in thickness, among other requirements. CR at IV-9; PR at IV-6. These actions by

the Chinese government have had an adverse impact on PRCB demand in China, as evidenced by the 60 percent

decline in plastic bag use in Chinese-owned supermarkets and the 80 percent reduction in plastic bag use by foreignowned stores like Walmart and Carrefour. See CR at II-15, IV-9-10; PR at II-11, IV-6-7. 

 175 CR at II-15; PR at II-10-11. *** projects that EU demand for HDPE film and sheet will increase about ***

percent annually over the 2008-2013 period, though we note that HDPE film and sheet may also be used in

applications other than PRCBs. CR at II-11; PR at II-8. 

 176 PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Final),

Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010) at Table VII-4.

27
additional incentive for subject producers in China, Malaysia, and Thailand to increase exports to the

U.S. market after revocation.177 Given antidumping duty margins ranging from 36.54 to 95.81 percent

and countervailing duty margins ranging from 5.28 to 52.56 percent, these orders will likely result in a

significant decline in nonsubject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam in the reasonably

foreseeable future, which would reduce competition and increase PRCB prices in the U.S. market.178

Reduced competition and higher prices in the U.S. market, in turn, would likely create an incentive for

subject foreign producers in China, Malaysia, and Thailand to increase exports to the U.S. market after

revocation, particularly in light of the likely intensification of competition in third country markets.179 In

addition, subject producers in China and Thailand are subject to antidumping duty orders imposed by the

EU, which limit their access to the EU market.180 

Accordingly, based on the demonstrated ability of subject foreign producers to increase exports

to the U.S. market rapidly and their continued presence in the U.S. market even after imposition of the

antidumping duty orders; the significant and increasing presence of nonsubject imports from China and

Malaysia in the U.S. market over the period of review; the subject foreign producers’ substantial

production capacity and significant excess capacity; their high degree of export orientation and lack of

significant home market sales; the likely intensification of competition for their exports to third country

markets; and the likely attractiveness of the U.S. market relative to third country markets, we find that

the likely volume of cumulated subject imports, in absolute terms and relative to both U.S. production

and consumption, would be significant in the event of revocation.181

 177 CR at I-15; PR at I-8.

 178 See CR at I-15 n.14; PR at I-8 n.14; see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Vietnam: Countervailing

Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 23670 (May 4, 2010).

 179 The Malaysian interested parties argue that Malaysian producers are unlikely to reduce their focus on the EU

market after revocation because the antidumping duty orders imposed by the EU on PRCBs from China and

Thailand in 2006 have provided Malaysian producers with a competitive advantage in the EU market, permitting

them to double their exports to the EU between 2004 and 2009. Malaysian Interested Parties’ Prehearing Br. at 10.

We see no reason, however, why subject Malaysian producers would not similarly capitalize on the U.S. orders

covering PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam by increasing their exports to the U.S. market after

revocation, just as they capitalized on the EU orders on PRCBs from China and Thailand by increasing their exports

to the EU market. Indeed, subject Malaysian producers would likely have an incentive to shift exports from the EU

market to the U.S market after revocation, as competition in the EU market intensifies due to demand pressure and

PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam displaced from the U.S. market. Moreover, Malaysian producers were

able to increase capacity and production rapidly when they saw a market opportunity in the EU and have given no

persuasive reason why they would not increase capacity and production to serve the U.S. market just as quickly. 

 180 CR at IV-20; PR at IV-11.

 181 We note that all but two responding subject producers in Malaysia reported that they could switch from the

production of other products to the production of PRCBs in response to a relative change in the price of PRCBs,

with the reported cost of doing so ranging from minimal to high. CR at II-8; PR at II-6. One responding subject

producer in China also reported that it could shift production from other products to PRCBs with minimal expense. 

CR at II-7; PR at II-6. The other responding subject producer in China and all responding subject producers in

Thailand, however, reported that they are unable to switch from the production of other products to the production of

PRCBs. CR at II-9; PR at II-5-6.

With respect to existing inventories of subject merchandise, U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of subject

and nonsubject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand were *** bags in 2009, equivalent to *** percent of

U.S. shipments of such imports that year. CR/PR at Table IV-2. For the same year, responding subject producers in

China reported end-of-period inventory of *** bags, equivalent to *** percent of their total shipments that year,

responding subject producers in Malaysia reported end-of-period inventory of 658.3 million bags, equivalent to 5.7

percent of their total shipments that year, and subject producers in Thailand reported end-of-period inventory of ***

bags, equivalent to *** percent of their total shipments that year. CR/PR at Tables IV-4-6. We note that inventories

(continued...)

28
2. Likely Price Effects of Cumulated Subject Imports

a. The Original Investigations

In the original investigations, the Commission began its analysis of pricing by noting that

subject imports and the domestic like product were largely substitutable, and that price was the most

important factor in purchasing decisions.182 The Commission then found subject import underselling

significant based on evidence that subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 72 of 84

quarterly comparisons.183 Finally, the Commission found that subject imports had depressed and

suppressed domestic like product prices to a significant degree.184 The Commission also found that the

record did not support the respondents’ arguments that subject import underselling reflected a price

premium commanded by the domestic like product, and that the depression of domestic like product

prices resulted from internet reverse auctions rather than subject import competition.185

b. The Current Reviews

As addressed in section V.B.3 above, the record indicates that there is a high degree of

substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product and that price is an important

consideration in purchasing decisions.186 The record also indicates that bidding events, including

bidding events conducted over the internet, were a factor in the U.S. market during the period examined,

and that price was often the determinative factor in such events.187

Even with the orders in place, the record of these reviews indicates that subject import

underselling remained significant during the period of review. Thirteen domestic producers, 11

importers of PRCBs from China, and 9 importers of PRCBs from Thailand provided usable quarterly net

U.S. f.o.b. selling price data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing

for all products for all quarters.188 No sales price data were reported for PRCBs imported from

Malaysia.189 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 62.4 percent of the

domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of PRCBs, 10.6 percent of PRCBs imported from China, and 31.5

percent of PRCBs imported from Thailand over the 2004-2009 period, by value.190 These data indicate

that subject imports from China and Thailand undersold the domestic like product in 196 of 303

quarterly comparisons, with an average underselling margin of 22.6 percent, and oversold the domestic

 181 (...continued)

held by importers and subject foreign producers, like inventories held by domestic producers, are largely customized

for specific customers. See PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, USITC Pub. 4144 at 25 n.157. Thus, we

recognize that subject merchandise inventoried by importers and foreign producers may be earmarked for specific

customers pursuant to sales that have already taken place. 

 182 Original Views at 22.

 183 Original Views at 22.

 184 Original Views at 22-23.

 185 Original Views at 23.

 186 See CR at II-16; PR at II-11; CR/PR at Tables II-11-13.

 187 See CR at V-4-5; PR at V-2-3; CR/PR at Table V-1.

 188 CR at V-10; PR at V-5. 

 189 CR at V-10; PR at V-5.

 190 CR at V-10; PR at V-5.

29
like product in 107 of 303 quarterly comparisons, with an average overselling margin of 22.3 percent.191

Subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 64.7 percent of quarterly comparisons in these

reviews, up from 54.7 percent of quarterly comparisons in the original investigations.192 

In view of our finding that subject import volume would likely increase significantly after

revocation, the high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product, the

importance of price, and the significance of subject import underselling even with the antidumping duty

orders in place, we find that subject import underselling would likely intensify after revocation of the

orders, as subject foreign producers seek to increase their penetration of the U.S. market. We also find

that significant subject import underselling after revocation would likely result in the depression or

suppression of domestic like product prices to a significant degree. Domestic producers would likely be

compelled to defend their baseload business by meeting low-priced subject import competition in order

to maintain an economical rate of capacity utilization. That domestic producers would do so against a

backdrop of flat to declining demand and increasing resin prices would create a significant likelihood of

price suppression. We note that small changes in raw material costs relative to net sales value can have a

significant impact on the domestic industry’s financial performance, magnifying the vulnerability of the

domestic industry to the effects of subject imports in the reasonably foreseeable future.193 

Thus, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty orders were revoked, significant volumes of

subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand likely would significantly undersell the domestic

like product to gain market share and likely would have significant depressing or suppressing effects on

the prices of the domestic like product. 

 191 CR/PR at Table V-11. We rely on pricing data reported on a per-pound basis to control for the wide range of

sizes, and hence weights, encompassed by each pricing product definition. CR at V-27; PR at V-11. PRCB prices

vary with bag weight given that raw material costs represented *** percent of the total cost of producing PRCBs in

2009. CR at V-1; PR at V-1. The probative value of average unit value data is questionable, given evidence from

our recent investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand, that PRCBs range widely in price,

depending on their weight and other physical attributes. See PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, USITC

Pub. 4144 at 27 n.168. We therefore do not rely on such data in our analysis of likely price effects.

 192 Compare CR/PR at Table V-11 with id. at Table V-13. We note that the Commission relied upon pricing data

expressed in terms of dollars per thousand bags in the original investigation, whereas we rely upon pricing data

expressed in terms of dollars per pound in these reviews for the reasons addressed above. Table V-13 of the staff

report is based on pricing data collected in the original investigations in terms of dollars per pound. See CR/PR at

Table V-13, note.

 193 For example, between 2007 and 2008, the domestic industry’s unit raw material costs increased by *** percent

while the unit value of its net sales increased by only *** percent, contributing to a *** percent decline in the

domestic industry’s gross profits. CR/PR at Table III-8. This pattern reversed between 2008 and 2009, when the

domestic industry’s unit raw material costs declined by *** percent while the unit value of its net sales declined by

only *** percent, contributing to a *** percent increase in the domestic industry’s gross profits. Id.

30
3. Likely Impact of Cumulated Subject Imports194

a. The Original Investigations

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the domestic industry’s production,

U.S. shipments, capacity utilization, and market penetration declined between 2001 and 2003, despite a

13.6 percent increase in apparent U.S. consumption, and that the greatest decline in these factors

coincided with the greatest increase in subject import volume and market share, between 2002 and

2003.195 As subject imports captured market share from the domestic industry, the Commission found,

the domestic industry experienced a cost-price squeeze, as the industry’s declining rate of capacity

utilization increased its fixed unit costs and low-priced subject import competition prevented the

industry from recouping sharply higher resin and energy costs through higher prices.196 The

Commission further found that the domestic industry’s operating income and operating margins declined

significantly over the period examined, and particularly between 2002 and 2003, as did the industry’s

cash flow and capital expenditures.197 Based on the significant volume of subject imports and their 

adverse effects on domestic prices, the Commission concluded that subject imports had a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry.198 

The Commission rejected respondents’ arguments that nonsubject imports, not subject imports,

accounted for the domestic industry’s adverse trends, and that domestic producers injured themselves by

importing subject PRCBs. In this regard, the Commission observed that subject imports had increased

 194 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

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 may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885, 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Tariff Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” in making its

determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of

dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the

administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. 

Commerce conducted expedited sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia,

and Thailand and found likely antidumping duty margins ranging from 19.79 to 77.57 percent with respect to

imports from China, 84.94 to 101.74 percent with respect to imports from Malaysia, and 2.26 to 122.88 percent with

respect to imports from Thailand. CR/PR at Tables I-3-5. 

Section 751(a)(4) of the Act requires Commerce, if requested by a party in an administrative review, to

determine whether a foreign producer or importer of subject merchandise has absorbed antidumping duties. The

Commission is specifically directed to take into account the findings of Commerce regarding duty absorption. 19

U.S.C. § 1675a(b)(1)(D). Commerce has found that Chinese producer Nozawa absorbed antidumping duties on all

U.S. sales during the August 1, 2005 through July 31, 2006 period of review, that Malaysian producer Euro Plastics

absorbed antidumping duties on all U.S. sales during the August 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008 period of review, and

that Thai producer UPC/API absorbed antidumping duties on all U.S. sales during the August 1, 2005 through July

31, 2006 period of review. CR/PR at Tables I-6 n.1, I-7 n.1, and I-8 n.1. 

 195 Original Views at 24-25. The Commission also found that domestic industry employment and wages declined

over the period examined, while productivity increased. Id. at 25.

 196 Original Views at 26.

 197 Original Views at 26.

 198 Original Views at 26.

31
their penetration of the U.S. market to a much greater extent than nonsubject imports, and that subject

imports were no less injurious for being imported by domestic producers.199

b. The Current Reviews

The condition of the domestic industry declined irregularly between 2004 and 2008, before

improving somewhat in 2009. Domestic industry production fluctuated over the period of review,

increasing from *** bags in 2004 to *** bags in 2005, declining to *** bags in 2006, increasing to ***

bags in 2007, declining to *** bags in 2008, and increasing to *** bags in 2009.200 Domestic PRCB

capacity increased from *** bags in 2004 to *** bags in 2005, declined irregularly to *** bags in 2008,

but then increased *** to *** bags in 2009, a level *** percent higher than in 2004.201 The *** increase

in capacity between 2008 and 2009 reportedly resulted from *** purchases of new equipment and ***

efficiency gains.202 In contrast to domestic industry production and capacity, the domestic industry’s

rate of capacity utilization trended lower over most of the period of review, declining from *** percent

in 2004 to *** percent in 2005 and *** percent in 2006, increasing *** to *** percent in 2007, and then

declining to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.203 

Domestic industry employment also declined throughout much of the period of review,

increasing from *** workers in 2004 to *** workers in 2005 before declining to *** workers in 2006,

*** workers in 2007, *** workers in 2008, and *** workers in 2009.204 Hours worked followed a

similar trend, declining irregularly from *** hours in 2004 to *** hours in 2009, while productivity

increased irregularly from *** bags per hour to *** bags per hour.205

The domestic industry’s net sales fluctuated with production, increasing from *** bags in 2004

to *** bags in 2005, declining to *** bags in 2006, increasing to *** bags in 2007, declining to ***

bags in 2008, and then increasing to *** bags in 2009, a level *** below that in 2004.206 The domestic

industry’s U.S. shipments of PRCBs followed a similar trend, increasing from *** bags in 2004 to ***

bags in 2005, declining to *** bags in 2006, increasing to *** bags in 2007, declining to *** bags in

2008, and then increasing to *** bags, a level *** percent lower than in 2004.207 The domestic

industry’s share of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption, by contrast, declined irregularly over the

period of review, from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2005 and *** percent in 2006, before

increasing to *** percent in 2007, declining to *** percent in 2008, and then increasing to *** percent

in 2009, a level *** percentage points lower than in 2004.208 

The domestic industry’s financial performance declined *** from 2004 through 2008, before

recovering in 2009. The domestic industry’s net sales value fluctuated over the period, increasing from

$*** in 2004 to $*** in 2005, declining to $*** in 2006 and $*** in 2007, increasing to $*** in 2008,

 199 Original Views at 26-27.

 200 CR/PR at Table III-3.

 201 CR/PR at Table III-3. 

 202 CR at III-4; PR at III-2.

 203 CR/PR at Table III-3.

 204 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 205 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 206 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 207 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 208 CR/PR at Table I-12.

32
and then declining to $*** in 2009.209 The domestic industry’s operating income, however, declined

steadily from $*** in 2004, or *** percent of net sales, to $*** in 2005, or *** percent of net sales, and

to $*** in 2006, or *** percent of net sales, increased *** to $*** in 2007, or *** percent of net sales,

declined *** to a loss of $*** in 2008, or negative *** percent of net sales, and then recovered to $***

in 2009, or *** percent of net sales.210 Similarly, the domestic industry’s capital expenditures declined

steadily from $*** in 2004 to $*** in 2009, a level *** percent below that in 2004, and its research and

development expenses also declined irregularly from $*** in 2004 to $*** in 2009, a level *** percent

lower than that in 2004.211 Its return on investment declined from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in

2006, increased *** to *** percent in 2007, declined to negative *** percent in 2008, and then

rebounded to *** percent in 2009.212 

Based on these data, we find that the domestic industry is vulnerable to the recurrence or

continuation of material injury by reason of subject imports were the orders to be revoked.213 The

domestic industry’s performance deteriorated markedly over the 2005-2008 period according to most

measures, with weak profitability in 2006 and 2007 and substantial operating losses in 2008.214

Although the domestic industry’s performance improved in 2009 according to several measures, its

operating income margin was *** percent, and other measures of the domestic industry’s performance

declined, including its rate of capacity utilization, employment, hours worked, capital expenditures, and

R&D expenditures.215 Even a small increase in the domestic industry’s cost of raw materials relative to

its net sales value could reverse much of the domestic industry’s apparent progress, and raw material

costs trended higher in 2010.216 We find further support for our vulnerability finding in evidence that

PRCB demand is likely to stagnate or decline in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

As addressed above, we have found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs

from China, Malaysia, and Thailand would likely result in a significant increase in subject import 

volume that would likely undersell the domestic like product, thereby depressing or suppressing

domestic like product prices to a significant degree. We find that the likely volume and price effects of

the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales,

market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. These reductions would have a direct adverse

impact on the industry’s profitability and employment as well as its ability to raise capital and make and

maintain necessary capital investments. We therefore conclude that, if the antidumping duty orders were

revoked, subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Taiwan would be likely to have a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

We have considered whether there are other factors that likely would affect the domestic

industry. As discussed above, nonsubject imports significantly increased their share of U.S. apparent

 209 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 210 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 211 CR/PR at Table III-11.

 212 CR/PR at Table III-12.

 213 Vice Chairman Pearson finds that the domestic industry is not vulnerable to the recurrence or continuation of

material injury by reason of subject imports were the orders to be revoked. As also expressed in his dissenting views

in the investigations of Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, he bases this determination on the recent improvement in

the financial performance ***. Because ***, this has contributed to a healthier domestic industry that is not

vulnerable.

 214 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 215 See CR/PR at Tables III-7-8, 11.

 216 See CR at V-1; PR at V-1; CR/PR at Figure V-1. 

33
consumption over the period of review from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009, by volume.217

We nevertheless find that nonsubject imports are unlikely to prevent subject imports from increasing

their penetration of the U.S. market significantly after revocation. That is because nonsubject imports

from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, which accounted for a predominant share of nonsubject imports

towards the end of the period of review,218 became subject to antidumping and/or countervailing duty

orders on May 4, 2010, and are therefore likely to decline significantly in the reasonably foreseeable

future.219 Indeed, the likely significant decline in nonsubject imports from these sources would make the

U.S. market relatively more attractive to subject foreign producers in China, Malaysia, and Thailand

after revocation, particularly as they face intensified competition in third country markets from

Indonesian, Taiwan, and Vietnamese PRCBs displaced from the U.S. market. 

Finally, we have considered the likely future effects of stagnant or declining demand on the

domestic industry. Legal and voluntary efforts to curb PRCB usage, motivated by environmental

concerns, will likely continue to affect U.S. demand for PRCBs adversely into the reasonably

foreseeable future. Nevertheless, for the reasons addressed above, we find that subject imports would

further reduce domestic sales volumes and prices significantly, or suppress domestic prices significantly,

and thus would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of

revocation regardless of demand levels. We also observe that subject foreign producers should prove

just as capable as are nonsubject producers at increasing their penetration of the U.S. market, as

nonsubject producers, including nonsubject producers in China and Thailand, significantly increased

their penetration of the U.S. market between 2006 and 2009 notwithstanding weakening demand.220

Accordingly, we find that cumulated subject imports are likely to have a significant adverse impact upon

the domestic industry in the event of revocation, notwithstanding the significant presence of nonsubject

imports in the U.S. market during the period of review, and the stagnant or declining demand. 

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on

PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 217 CR/PR at Table I-12. 

 218 See CR at II-6; PR at II-5; CR/PR at Table I-12.

 219 CR at I-15 & n.14; PR at I-8 & n.14.

 220 See CR/PR at Table I-12. Nonsubject imports from China and Malaysia increased their share of apparent U.S.

consumption from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2009, even as apparent U.S. consumption declined ***

percent from *** billion bags to *** billion bags. Id.

34
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

Effective July 1, 2009, the Commission gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930 (the Act), that it had instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags (“PRCBs”)1

 from China, Malaysia, and Thailand would likely

lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. Effective October 5,

2009, the Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the

Act. Information relating to the background and schedule of the reviews is provided in the following

tabulation.2

Effective date Action

August 9, 2004 Commerce’s antidumping duty orders (69 FR 48201)

July 1, 2009 Commission’s institution of reviews (74 FR 31750, July 2, 2009)

October 5, 2009 Commission’s decision to conduct full reviews (74 FR 54069, October 21, 2009)

October 19, 2009 Commerce’s final results of expedited reviews (74 FR 53470)

November 17, 2009 Commission’s scheduling of the reviews (74 FR 61172, November 23, 2009)

April 27, 2010 Commission’s hearing1

June 8, 2010 Date of the Commission’s vote

June 22, 2010 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 App. B contains a list of witnesses who appeared at the hearing.

The Original Investigations

On June 20, 2003, a petition was filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and

the Commission alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports

of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand that were sold at less than fair value (“LTFV”).3

 

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

merchandise subject to these reviews.

 2

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy appear in app. A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address www.usitc.gov). 

Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct expedited or full reviews may also be found at the web site. The U.S.

Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) notice of final results of its expedited reviews also appears in app. A.

 3

 The petition was filed by the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee, an ad hoc coalition of U.S. PRCB

producers (consisting of Inteplast Group, Ltd. (“Inteplast”), Livingston, NJ; PCL Packaging, Inc. (“PCL”), Barrie,

Ontario; Sonoco Products Co., Hartsville, SC (the High Density Film Division of Sonoco Products Co., which

manufactures PRCBs, was purchased by Hilex Poly Co., LLC (“Hilex”) in February 2004); Superbag Corp.

(continued...)

I-1
On June 18, 2004, Commerce made final affirmative dumping determinations,4

 which were amended with

respect to China and Thailand on July 15, 2004.5

 The Commission made its final affirmative injury

determinations on August 3, 2004 and Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on August 9, 2004.6

On 26 November 2008, Thailand requested consultations pursuant to Article XXIII:1 of the

GATT concerning the United States’ alleged application of the practice known as “zeroing” of negative

dumping margins in its determination of sales at LTFV in its 2004 antidumping investigation of PRCBs

from Thailand. After failing to resolve the dispute, on March 20, 2009, pursuant to the request from

Thailand, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) established a panel. The Panel concluded that the

United States acted inconsistently with the first sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

by using “zeroing” in its final determination of sales of LTFV, as amended, and in its antidumping duty

order for individually investigated Thai exporters whose margins of dumping were not based on total

facts available. On February 18, 2010, the DSB adopted the panel report.7

SUMMARY DATA

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigations, which is compiled from 

data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.8 9

 Table I-2 presents a summary of data from

these reviews, which is compiled from official Commerce statistics and data submitted in response to

 3 (...continued)

(“Superbag”), Houston, TX; and Vanguard Plastics, Inc. (“Vanguard”), Farmers Branch, TX).

 4 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the

People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 34125, June 18, 2004; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia, 69 FR 34128, June 18, 2004; Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand, 69 FR 34122,

June 18, 2004.

 5 Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags

From Thailand, 69 FR 42419, July 15, 2004; Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 42419, July 15, 2004.

 6 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 69 FR 47957, August 6, 2004;

Antidumping Duty Orders: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, 69 FR 48201 (China), 69 FR 48203 (Malaysia) 69 FR

48204 (Thailand), August 9, 2004.

 7

 http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds383_e.htm, retrieved March 18, 2010.

 8

 Prior to July 2005 the HTS statistical reporting number under which subject imports were categorized contained

many different types of out-of-scope merchandise. The import data obtained from questionnaire responses in the

original final investigations were believed to account for the great majority of U.S. imports in 2003. Polyethylene

Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final), USITC

Pub. 3710, August 2004, p. IV-2.

 9

 On July 15, 2004, Commerce amended its determination concerning Thailand, including revising its dumping

margins for Thai Plastic Bags Industries Group (“TPBG”) from de minimis to 2.26 percent. Notice of Amended

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand, 69 FR

42419, July 15, 2004. Imports from TPBG were reported as nonsubject imports in the original staff report; in the

current report, these imports have been reported under subject imports from Thailand.

I-2
Commission questionnaires.10 11 Figure I-1 shows the quantity of subject U.S. imports of PRCBs from

China, Malaysia, and Thailand since 2004. 

While subject imports of PRCBs declined between 2004 and 2009, they increased at the

beginning of the period, crested in 2006, then declined by more than half between 2006 and 2007 before

increasing in 2008 and then ending the period at their lowest level. In contrast, the quantity of U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments remained fairly constant during the 2004-09 period.

Table I-1

PRCBs: Summary data from the original investigations, 2001-03

(Quantity=1,000 bags; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per 1,000 bags)

Item

Calendar year

2001 2002 2003

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount 77,055,893 82,020,663 87,506,101

Producers’ share1 88.0 84.0 77.0

Importers’ share--1

Subject sources:

China *** *** ***

Malaysia *** *** ***

Thailand *** *** ***

Subtotal, subject 10.5 13.5 18.6

Table continued on following page.

 10 Prior to July 2005, PRCBs were reported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0090, a “basket

category.” After July 2005, imports of PRCBs were reported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085,

and the remainder of the imports reported under the former basket category were reported under HTS statistical

reporting number 3923.21.0095. To estimate the imports of PRCBs during 2004-05, Commission staff, for each

subject country and all other sources, applied (1) the ratio of imports under HTS statistical reporting number

3923.21.0085 to the combined imports under HTS statistical reporting numbers 3923.21.0085 and 3923.21.0095

during July-December 2005 to (2) the total imports under the three HTS statistical reporting numbers for 2004 and

2005.

 11 Three firms (Hang Lung Plastic Manufactory (“Hang Lung”) and Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd.

(“Nantong Huasheng”) in China, and Bee Lian Plastic Industries (“Bee Lian”) in Malaysia) were found by

Commerce to have de minimis dumping margins and thus were excluded from the antidumping duty orders, and

imports of PRCBs from these firms have been reported as nonsubject imports from their respective countries. The

PRCB import breakout calculation described above was also applied to these nonsubject imports.

I-3
Table I-1--Continued

PRCBs: Summary data from the original investigations, 2001-03

(Quantity=1,000 bags; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per 1,000 bags)

Item

Calendar year

2001 2002 2003

Nonsubject sources:

China2

 *** *** ***

Malaysia3 *** *** ***

All other countries *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject 1.5 2.5 4.4

Total imports 12.0 16.0 23.0

U.S. consumption value:

Amount 971,140 935,596 995,491

Producers’ share1 87.7 83.1 77.6

Importers’ share--1

Subject sources:

China *** *** ***

Malaysia *** *** ***

Thailand *** *** ***

Subtotal, subject 11.0 14.6 18.9

Nonsubject sources:

China2

 *** *** ***

Malaysia3 *** *** ***

All other countries *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject 1.3 2.2 3.6

Total imports 12.3 16.9 22.4

Table continued on following page.

I-4
Table I-1--Continued

PRCBs: Summary data from the original investigations, 2001-03

(Quantity=1,000 bags; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per 1,000 bags)

Item

Calendar year

2001 2002 2003

U.S. shipments of imports from–

Subject sources:

China:

Quantity *** *** ***

Value *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $***

Malaysia:

Quantity *** *** ***

Value *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $***

Thailand:

Quantity *** *** ***

Value *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $***

Subtotal, subject:

Quantity 8,067,760 11,073,090 16,234,869

Value 106,508 137,008 187,718

Unit value $13.20 $12.37 $11.56

Nonsubject sources:

China:2

Quantity *** *** ***

Value *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $***

Malaysia:3

Quantity *** *** ***

Value *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $***

Table continued on following page.

I-5
Table I-1--Continued

PRCBs: Summary data from the original investigations, 2001-03

(Quantity=1,000 bags; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per 1,000 bags)

Item

Calendar year

2001 2002 2003

All other countries:

Quantity 493,588 620,494 2,033,057

Value 5,956 6,853 18,135

Unit value $12.07 $11.04 $8.92

Subtotal, nonsubject:

Quantity 1,145,531 2,073,817 3,850,971

Value 12,909 20,870 35,479

Unit value $11.27 $10.06 $9.21

All countries:

Quantity 9,213,290 13,146,907 20,085,840

Value 119,417 157,878 223,197

Unit value $12.96 $12.01 $11.11

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity 84,307,568 87,194,502 88,108,015

Production quantity 68,918,284 69,275,404 67,260,527

Capacity utilization1 81.7 79.4 76.3

U.S. shipments:

Quantity 67,842,603 68,873,756 67,420,261

Value 851,723 777,718 772,295

Unit value $12.55 $11.29 $11.45

Export shipments:

Quantity *** *** ***

Value *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $***

Ending inventory quantity 4,667,815 4,005,465 2,888,366

Inventories/total shipments1 *** *** ***

Table continued on following page.

I-6
Table I-1--Continued

PRCBs: Summary data from the original investigations, 2001-03

(Quantity=1,000 bags; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per 1,000 bags)

Item

Calendar year

2001 2002 2003

Production workers 4,578 4,271 3,904

Hours worked (1,000 hours) 9,447 9,004 8,327

Wages paid (1,000 dollars) 125,385 123,524 114,814

Hourly wages $13.27 $13.72 $13.79

Productivity (bags per hour) 7,295.5 7,693.6 8,077.8

Net sales:

Quantity 68,567,027 69,448,037 68,451,856

Value 862,624 784,727 785,636

Unit value $12.58 $11.30 $11.48

Cost of goods sold 724,372 669,068 702,598

Gross profit or (loss) 138,252 115,659 83,038

Operating income or (loss) 54,140 32,737 6,130

Unit cost of goods sold $10.56 $9.63 $10.26

Unit operating income or (loss) $0.79 $0.47 $0.09

Cost of goods sold/sales1 84.0 85.3 89.4

Operating income or (loss)/sales1 6.3 4.2 0.8

1

 In percent. 2

 Hang Lung and Nantong Huasheng.

3

 Bee Lian.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, and memorandum INV-BB-091,

July 8, 2004.

Table I-2

PRCBs: Summary data from the current reviews, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Figure I-1

PRCBs: U.S. imports from subject sources in China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 2004–09

* * * * * * *

I-7
RELATED TITLE VII INVESTIGATIONS

Commerce recently imposed antidumping duties on PRCBs from Indonesia and Taiwan and 

antidumping and countervailing duties on PRCBs from Vietnam. On March 31, 2009, a petition was filed

with Commerce and the Commission by Hilex and Superbag, alleging that an industry in the United States

is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value

(“LTFV”) imports of PRCBs from Vietnam and LTFV imports of PRCBs from Indonesia and Taiwan. On

April 21, 2010, the Commission determined that a U.S. industry is threatened with material injury by

reason of imports of PRCBs from Vietnam that Commerce determined are subsidized, and by reason of

imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam that Commerce determined are sold in the United States at

LTFV.12 The Commission transmitted its final determinations to Commerce on April 26, 2010, and

Commerce issued a countervailing duty order and antidumping duty orders on May 4, 2010.13 14 The

product scope used in the final investigations on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam is the same

as the scope used in these reviews involving PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.15

In addition to the aforementioned Title VII investigations, Superbag filed a complaint in 2004

alleging infringement of one of the firm’s patents under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 related to the

importation into the United States, sale for importation, and/or sale within the United States after

importation of certain “T-styled” plastic grocery and retail bags. An administrative law judge of the

Commission found that a violation had occurred and recommended that the Commission issue a general

exclusion order on these bags.16 Settlements and consent orders were entered into with some respondents,

and the Commission entered a general exclusion order against all other covered imports.17

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later

than five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of an

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation

“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case

may be) and of material injury.”

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuation or

recurrence of material injury--

 12 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, 75 FR 22842, April 30, 2010.

 13 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA1156-1158 (Final), USITC Pub. 4144, April 2010, p. I-1.

 14 Antidumping duty margins ranged from 69.64 to 85.17 percent for imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, 36.54 to

95.81 percent for imports from Taiwan, and 52.30 to 76.11 percent for imports from Vietnam. Antidumping Duty

Orders: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, 75 FR 23667, May 4, 2010;

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 23670,

May 4, 2010. Countervailing duty margins on PRCBs from Vietnam ranged from 0.44 percent (de minimis) for one

firm to 52.56 percent. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 23670,

May 4, 2010.

 15 Ibid.

 16 In the Matter of Certain Plastic Grocery and Retail Bags; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review

an Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Written Submissions on Remedy, the

Public Interest, and Bonding, 69 FR 1638, June 4, 2004.

 17 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA1156-1158 (Final), USITC Pub. 4144, April 2010, p. I-4.

I-8
(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of

an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The

Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the

subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price

effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry

before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . ..

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is

terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,

including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in

the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject

merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors

which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to--

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

I-9
(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context

of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected

industry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If

a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of

the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the

Subsidies Agreement.”

Information obtained during the course of the reviews that relates to the above factors is

presented throughout this report. A summary of data collected in the reviews is presented in appendix C. 

U.S. industry data in the body of this report are based on questionnaire responses of 12 firms that

accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of PRCBs during 2009.18 U.S. import data are based

on official import statistics of Commerce and on proprietary Customs data.19 Responses by U.S.

producers, importers, and purchasers of PRCBs and producers of PRCBs in China, Malaysia, and

Thailand to a series of questions concerning the significance of the existing antidumping duty orders and

the likely effects of revocation are presented in appendix D.

COMMERCE’S RESULTS OF EXPEDITED REVIEWS

On October 19, 2009, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs

from China, Malaysia, and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at

the weighted-average percentage margins presented in Tables I-3, I-4, and I-5.20 21

 18 Summary data for the 12 firms are presented in appendix table C-1. Data from a 13th U.S. producer, Omega

Plastics Corp., Lyndhurst, NJ (“Omega”), which accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of PRCBs in 2009,

were received during the final stages of the preparation of this report. Omega’s data are included in appendix table

C-2, and in the price data in Part V.

 19 Prior to July 2005, PRCBs were reported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0090, a basket

category. After July 2005, imports of PRCBs were reported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085,

and the remainder of the imports reported under the former basket category were reported under HTS statistical

reporting number 3923.21.0095. To estimate the imports of PRCBs during 2004-05, Commission staff, for each

subject country and all other sources, applied the ratio of imports under HTS statistical reporting number

3923.21.0085 to the combined imports under (1) HTS statistical reporting numbers 3923.21.0085 and 3923.21.0095

during July-December 2005 to (2) the total imports under the three HTS statistical reporting numbers for 2004 and

2005.

 20 Commerce’s notice is presented in app. A.

 21 As shown in the tables, three firms were found by Commerce to have de minimis dumping margins and thus

were excluded from the antidumping duty orders: Hang Lung Plastic Manufactory and Nantong Huasheng Plastic

Products Co., Ltd. (China), and Bee Lian Plastic Industries (Malaysia).

I-10
Table I-3

PRCBs: Commerce’s weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from China

Producer/exporter

Dumping margins

(percent)

Dongwan Nozawa Plastics Products Co., Ltd. and United Power Packaging, Ltd.1 23.22

Hang Lung Plastic Manufactory, Limited 0.242

Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd. 0.012

Rally Plastics Company, Ltd. 23.85

Shanghai Glopack Packing Co., Ltd., and Sea Lake Polyethylene Enterprise, Ltd.3 19.79

Xiamen Ming Pak Plastics Co., Ltd. 35.58

Zhongshan Dongfeng Hung Wai Plastic Bag Manufactory 41.28

Beijing Lianbin Plastics and Printing Co., Ltd. 25.69

Dongguan Maruman Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.4 25.69

Good-in Holdings, Ltd. 25.69

Guangdong Esquel Packaging Co., Ltd. 25.69

Nan Sing Plastics, Ltd. 25.69

Ningbo Fanrong Plastics Products Co., Ltd. 25.69

Ningbo Huansen Plasthetics Co., Ltd. 25.69

Rain Continent Shanghai Co., Ltd. 25.69

Shanghai Dazhi Enterprise Development Co., Ltd. 25.69

Shanghai Fangsheng Coloured Packaging Co., Ltd. 25.69

Shanghai Jingtai Packaging Material Co., Ltd. 25.69

Shanghai Light Industrial Products Imports and Export Corp. 25.69

Shanghai Minmetals Development, Ltd. 25.69

Shanghai New Ai Lian Import and Export Co., Ltd. 25.69

Shanghai Overseas International Trading Co., Ltd. 25.69

Shanghai Yafu Plastics Industries Co., Ltd. 25.69

Weihai Weiquan Plastic and Rubber Products Co., Ltd. 25.69

Xiamen Xingyatai Industry Co., Ltd. 25.69

Xinhui Henglong 25.69

All others 77.57

Table continued on following page.

I-11
Table I-3--Continued

PRCBs: Commerce’s weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from China

1

 Also known as Dongguan Huang Jiang United Wah Plastic Bag Factory.

2 De minimis. 3

 Also known as Sea Lake Plastics Import Material Processing Factory and Sea Lake Plastics Co., Ltd.

4

 Formerly known as Dongguan Zhongqiao Combine Plastic Bag Factory.

Source: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Malaysia: Final Results of

the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 53470, October 19, 2009.

Table I-4

PRCBs: Commerce’s weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from Malaysia

Producer/exporter Dumping margins (percent)

Bee Lian Plastic Industries Sdn. Bhd 0.911

Teong Chuan Plastic and Timber Sdn. Bhd 101.74

Brandpak Industries Sdn. Bhd 101.74

Gants Pac Industries 101.74

Sido Bangun Sdn. Bhd 101.74

Zhin Hin Chin Hun Plastic Manufacturer Sdn. Bhd 101.74

All Others 84.94

1 De minimis.

Source: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Malaysia: Final Results of

the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 53470, October 19, 2009.

Table I-5

PRCBs: Commerce’s weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from Thailand

Producer/exporter Dumping margins (percent)

Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd. 2.26

Universal Polybags Co., Ltd./Advance Polybags Inc./Alpine Plastics

Inc./API Enterprises Inc. 5.35

Champion Paper Polybags Ltd. 122.88

TRC Polypack 122.88

Zip-Pac Co., Ltd./KingPac Industrial Co., Ltd./Zippac/Dpac

Industrial/Kingbag/KP. 122.88

All Others 2.80

Source: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Malaysia: Final Results of

the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 53470, October 19, 2009.

I-12
COMMERCE’S ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

As presented in tables I-6, I-7, and I-8, Commerce has conducted four administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, one administrative review on PRCBs from Malaysia,

and four administrative reviews on PRCBs from Thailand. 

Table I-6

PRCBs: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for China

Period of

review

Date results

published Producer or exporter Margin (percent) 

01/26/2004-

07/31/2005

March 19, 2007

(72 FR 12762)

Crown 7.68

High Den 14.01

Nozawa 7.36

PRC-wide 77.57

May 9, 2007 (72

FR 26336)

(amended)

Crown 7.65

High Den 11.99

08/01/2005-

07/31/2006

March 17, 2008

(73 FR 14216)1

Chun Hing Plastic Packaging Mfy. Ltd. and

Chun Yip Plastic Bag Factory 17.30

Dongguan Nozawa Plastics Products Co.,

Ltd. and United Power Packaging, Ltd. 2.58

Rally Plastics Co., Ltd. 32.02

08/01/2006-

07/31/2007

February 11, 2009

(74 FR 6857)

Nozawa 3.19

Rally 25.10

PRC-wide 77.57

08/01/2007-

07/31/2008

December 4, 2009

(74 FR 63718) Rally 17.92

1

 Commerce found that antidumping duties had been absorbed by Nozawa on all U.S. sales made through its

affiliated importers.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

I-13
Table I-7

PRCBs: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Malaysia

Period of

review

Date results

published Producer or exporter Margin (percent) 

08/01/2005-

07/31/2006

August 9, 2007

(72 FR 44825) Euro Plastics 0.00

08/01/2007-

07/31/2008

November 16,

2009 (74 FR

58947)1 Euro Plastics 56.13

1

 Commerce found that antidumping duties had been absorbed by Euro Plastics on all U.S. sales made through

its affiliated importers. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 74 FR 32880, July 9, 2009.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Table I-8

PRCBs: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Thailand

Period of

review

Date results

published Producer or exporter Margin (percent) 

01/26/04-

07/31/05

January 17, 2007

(72 FR 1982)

UPC/API 11.75

TPBG 1.41

Apple Film 16.43

CP Packaging 6.10

King Pac 122.88

Naraipak 1.69

Sahachit 6.34

08/01/05-

07/31/06

November 16,

2007 (72 FR

64580)1

UPC/API 0.80

TPBG 0.80

CP Packaging 1.87

King Pac 122.88

Apple Film 0.95

Naraipak 0.95

Poly Plast 0.95

Sahachit 0.95

Thantawan Industry 0.95

U. Yong Ltd. 0.95

U. Yong Industry 0.95

Table continued on following page.

I-14
Table I-8--Continued

PRCBs: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Thailand

Period of

review

Date results

published Producer or exporter Margin (percent) 

08/01/2006-

07/31/2007

January 15, 2009

(74 FR 2511)

King Pac (aka King Pac) 122.88

Master Packaging 122.88

NPG 32.67

Poly Plast 8.94

08/01/2007-

07/31/2008

December 11,

2009 (74 FR

65751)

TPBG 21.99

Master Packaging 122.88

1

 Commerce found that antidumping duties had been absorbed by UPC/API on all U.S. sales made through its

affiliated importers.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the imported product subject to the antidumping orders under review as

follows:

The merchandise subject to these investigations is polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs),

which also may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The

subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings),

without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of

polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035

inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches

(101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). 

PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail

establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and

restaurants to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of these

investigations excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are

closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in

consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying

merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.22 23

 22 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Malaysia: Final Results

of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 53470, October 19, 2009. 

 23 Since the publication of its antidumping duty orders, Commerce has ruled that the following products are not

within the scope of one or more of the orders: (1) certain hospital patient belongings bags from all three countries

(73 FR 9293, February 20, 2008); (2) certain MABIS Healthcare hospital bags from all three countries 

(73 FR 29739, May 22, 2008); (3) certain hospital patient belongings bags and surgical kit bags from all three

countries (73 FR 49418, August 21, 2008); (4) a certain sealable Best Buy plastic bag from China (73 FR 72771,

(continued...)

I-15
Tariff Treatment

PRCBs are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under

subheading 3923.21.00 and reported for statistical purposes under statistical reporting number

3923.21.0085. Table I-9 presents current ad valorem tariff rates for PRCBs.

Table I-9

PRCBs: Tariff rates, 2010

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2

Column

23

Rates

3923.21

3923.21.00

3923.21.0085

Sacks and bags (including cones):

 Of polymers of ethylene..............................................

 Polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) with 

 handles (including drawstrings), with no length 

 or width shorter than 6 inches (152.4 mm) or 

 longer than 40 inches (1,016 mm)....................

 

3% Free (A*,

AU, BH,

CA, CL,

E, IL, J,

JO, MA,

MX, OM,

P, PE,

SG) (4

)

80%

 1 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate, applicable to China, Malaysia, and Thailand. 

 2

 General note 4(d) specifies that while Thailand is a GSP beneficiary, it has been excluded from GSP duty-free entry under

HTS subheading 3923.21.00.

 3

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

 4

 General note 3(c)(i) defines the special duty program symbols enumerated for this provision. 

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010).

THE PRODUCT24

Description and Applications

PRCBs are non-sealable plastic sacks or bags of polyethylene with carrying handles, and are

intended to be dispensed free of charge to consumers by retail establishments in order to carry purchased

merchandise. PRCBs, whether domestically produced or imported, consist principally of FDA-approved

high-density polyethylene (“HDPE”) resin films, low-density (“LDPE”) resin films, or combinations

thereof varying in size, shape, thickness, and strength characteristics depending on their intended use, and

 23 (...continued)

December 1, 2008); (5) certain gift bags from China (75 FR 14138, March 24, 2010); and (6) certain bags designed

for hospital use, which are not printed with store names or logos and packed in consumer packaging with printing

indicating specific end-uses other than packaging or carrying merchandise from retail establishments, from China

(75 FR 14138, March 24, 2010). Commerce has also made several scope rulings in which it found that certain bags

are within the scope of the orders on one or more of the three countries: 70 FR 55110, September 20, 2005; 70 FR

70785, November 23, 2005; 73 FR 49418, August 21, 2008; and 73 FR 72771, December 1, 2008.

 24 Information in this section, unless otherwise noted, is from Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China,

Malaysia, and Thailand, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final), USITC Pub. 3710, August 2004, pp. I-3-6,

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045

(Final), Staff Report, April 1, 2010, pp. I-10-13, and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Final), USITC Pub. 4144, April 2010, pp. I-8-11.

I-16
may contain single or double-sided printing in single or multiple colors. PRCBs produced in the United

States generally carry a printed manufacturer’s identification or logo on the bag surface along with a

recycling symbol encouraging recycling and disclosing the predominate form of plastic, #2 for HDPE and

#4 for LDPE, while imported PRCBs usually carry the recycling symbol but not necessarily the producer

logo or country-of-origin identification. All PRCBs, domestically produced and imported, are equipped

with carrying handles of various types (including drawstrings) ranging from die-cut handles formed in the

bag surface to applied handles of various types, and may be designed with side or bottom pleats (gussets),

square bottoms, or bottom and side seals depending upon the intended use. 

PRCBs are generally dispensed free of charge to customers (other than applicable taxes) by a

wide range of retail outlets, including grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, and

discount stores, together with restaurants. T-shirt bags (which derive their name from the fact that they

resemble sleeveless undershirts that have two straps that rest on the shoulders) are the highest-volume

type of PRCBs dispensed in a wide variety of retail outlets. Such PRCBs may consist of so-called lowend thin-walled HDPE bags found in grocery and many other stores, to larger and thicker t-shirt bags

found in department stores. T-shirt merchandise bags may also be made of softer, glossier, and more

puncture-resistant LDPE resins, especially linear low-density polyethylene (“LLDPE”). In contrast, socalled higher-end bags of either HDPE, LDPE, or LLDPE range from medium-scale die cut bags of

various configurations dispensed at restaurant and merchandise outlets to higher-scale die-cut, drawstring,

and soft loop handle shopping bags found in more fashionable chain and upscale department stores. 

Other upscale bags contain detailed high quality multicolored printing and graphics, complete with

attached soft loop or trifold handles, flat bottoms and the like, and are typically dispensed to customers in

boutiques and other specialty stores. According to the domestic interested parties, the full range of bags

is reportedly produced in both the United States and the subject countries. 

Manufacturing Process

The process for manufacturing PRCBs is generally the same everywhere in the world.25 It is

basically a four-step process consisting of (1) blending polyethylene resin pellets, color concentrates, and

other additives; (2) extrusion and film forming; (3) printing; and (4) bag conversion. In the United 

States, producers run high-volume plants on a 24/7 basis, when in operation, due to the capital intensive

and competitive nature of the business. The major costs are ***.

The following diagram, figure I-2, illustrates the fundamentals of the typical blown film extrusion

process employed by PRCB producers worldwide.

 25 The Malaysian interested parties contend that the production process, specifically the machinery used, is the

same domestically and in subject countries. Transcript of the Commission’s April 27, 2010 hearing (“hearing

transcript”), p. 134 (Sim).

I-17
Figure I-2

PRCBs: Typical production process

Source: “10 Steps to Plastic Bags,” J.T. McWilliams, President, Multi-Pak USA, 2006, found at

http://www.multipakUSA.com (accessed April 2009).

In the process, a polyethylene resin blend is fed to a screw extruder or a series of coextruders

where the plastic mix is formed into a homogeneous molten mixture. After exiting the extruder, the

plastic melt is forced through an annual (circular) die and air-blown into a large cylindrical film bubble of

the desired thickness and diameter. The plastic film bubble cools and solidifies as it continues to rise, and

upon reaching the desired thickness at the top of the cooling tower, the bubble is collapsed and formed

into a two-sided plastic film up to 6 feet or more in width. On the way down to ground level, the plastic

film sheet runs through rollers, which smooth it out, before being fed onto large spools where several

thousand pounds of film can be wound. The film is now ready to be sent through the printing and bag

conversion processes. Extrusion and bag conversion in the United States are generally separate,

continuous, automated processes employing different equipment and usually a selected set of trained

employees.26

In the bag conversion section, a continuous run of wide film sheet is first surface-treated to better

accept ink, and then fed into a flexographic ink printing press where the sheet is printed on one or both 

sides in up to eight colors in multiple parallel sets of the desired logos and identification, depending upon

how many individual bags are to be produced. The flexographic printing process employed in the United

States is an environmentally friendly water-based system which eliminates undesirable toxic volatile

organic compound (VOC) emissions into the atmosphere, whereas certain subject country producers of

imported bags employ the organic solvent-based rotogravure printing process, which they claim produces

superior print quality.27 The printed film roll next proceeds in a continuous fashion to a slitter sealer

 26 ***.

 27 According to questionnaire responses, all U.S. producers of PRCBs with the exception of *** use only the

flexographic printing process. *** reported using the rotogravure process in addition to the flexographic process. 

Regarding the type of ink used, all U.S. producers with the exception of *** reported using only water-based inks in 

(continued...)

I-18
which cuts and seals the wide film strips into a selected number of individual bag sections. If the film is

to have side or bottom pleats (gussets), the parallel sections of individual bag film pass though gusseting

equipment to form the pleats. Following this operation, a handle of the desired configuration is either die

cut into or attached to the bag film to complete the bag conversion process.28 High volume t-shirt or diecut bags are typically boxed in quantities of 1,000 to 2,000 bags by an operator at the end of the line. 

Most scrap is recycled, and following bag inspection the boxes are loaded onto pallets, warehoused, and

shipped, usually by truck in the United States.29 The international standard units of measurement for bag

film thickness are generally expressed in terms of microns (one-millionth of a meter) or mils (0.001

inches). One mil (0.001 inches) is equal to 25.4 microns.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In its original determination the Commission found the appropriate domestic like product to

consist of “the continuum of PRCB’s, consistent with Commerce’s scope.”30 The domestic interested

parties contend that there is one domestic like product encompassing all PRCBs coextensive with

Commerce’s scope.31 Respondents did not contest this, stating that they “take no position...{but} have

made arguments on the basis that there was only one like product.”32

In the original investigations, the Chinese respondents argued that the Commission should define

high-end PRCBs and other PRCBs as separate domestic like products. The petitioners, as they do in these

reviews, contended that there is one domestic like product, a continuum of all PRCBs, coextensive with

the scope of the investigations.33 In the recent investigations on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam, petitioners argued for a single domestic like product, while respondents argued in the

preliminary phase that there were two distinct domestic like products: high-end PRCBs and other

PRCBs, with high-end PRCBs defined differently than in the original investigations. During the final

phase of the investigations on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, respondents maintained that

there is a distinction between high-end PRCBs and PRCBs other than high-end, but did not argue for

separate domestic like products for the purposes of the remainder of those investigations.34 The

Commission defined a single like product, coextensive with the scope, comprising of a continuum of

PRCB products.35

 27 (...continued)

the production of PRCBs; *** producers use solvent-based inks. 

 28 ***. 

 29 ***. 

 30 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045

(Final), USITC Pub. 3710, August 2004, p. 12.

 31 Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 6.

 32 Hearing transcript, p. 131 (Sim).

 33 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045

(Final), USITC Pub. 3710, August 2004, p. I-10.

 34 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA1156-1158 (Final), USITC Pub. 4144, April 2010, p. I-12.

 35 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA1156-1158 (Final), USITC Pub. 4144, April 2010, p. 7.

I-19
U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

In the original investigations, the Commission sent U.S. producer questionnaires to 32 firms

believed to be potential U.S. producers of PRCBs. Responses were received from 23 companies.36 In

these reviews, out of 58 companies to which the Commission sent producer questionnaires, 12 provided

useable data, 3 provided unusable data, 7 certified that they had not produced PRCBs since

January 1, 2004, and the remaining 36 provided no response, but 35 of these are known to account for no 

more than a very minimal share of U.S. production, if they produce PRCBs at all.37 Of the producers that

provided useable data, Hilex and Superbag combined accounted for almost *** percent of reported U.S.

production in 2009, with the two companies accounting for approximately *** and *** percent of U.S.

production in that year, respectively. The remaining production was accounted for almost exclusively by

***, which when combined with Hilex and Superbag accounted for over 90 percent of U.S. production in

2009.

Presented in table I-10 is a list of current domestic producers of PRCBs and each company’s

position on the continuation of the antidumping duty orders, production location(s), related and/or

affiliated firms, and share of reported production of PRCBs in 2009.

Table I-10

PRCBs: U.S. producers, positions on the continuation of the antidumping duty orders, U.S.

production locations, related and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2009 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position on

petition

U.S. production

location(s) Related and/or affiliated firms

Share of

production

(percent)

Ampac *** Cincinnati, OH

***

***

*** ***

API ***

North Las Vegas,

NV

Oklahoma City, OK

Kenner, LA

Elkridge, MD

***

***

***

*** 

***

***

*** 

*** ***

Bemis *** Terre Haute, IN *** ***

Command *** Los Angeles, CA None ***

Table continued on following page.

 36 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045

(Final), USITC Pub. 3710, August 2004, p. III-1, fn. 1.

 37 The additional company, Omega Plastics Corporation (“Omega”), which accounted for approximately ***

percent of U.S. production of PRCBs in 2009, provided a questionnaire response late in these reviews, so its data are

not included in the body of this report, but are included in appendix table C-2.

I-20
Table I-10--Continued

PRCBs: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related and/or

affiliated firms, and shares of 2008 reported U.S. production

Durabag *** Tustin, CA None ***

Genpak *** Bloomington, MN *** ***

Hilex ***

Carrollton, TX

Farmers Branch, TX

Jacksonville, FL

Jerome, ID

Milesburg, PA 

North Vernon, IN

Richmond, VA

Overland, MO *** ***

Inteplast ***

Livingston, NJ

Lolita, TX

N. Dighton, MA

***

***

*** ***

Poly-Pak *** Melville, NY None ***

Roplast *** Oroville, CA *** ***

Superbag *** Houston, TX None ***

Unistar ***

Harahan, LA

Houston, TX

***

*** ***

Total 100.0

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total to 100.0 percent. Omega, a U.S. producer of PRCBs, which provided a

questionnaire response late in these reviews, reported its 2009 production of *** bags, or approximately *** percent of U.S.

production in that year. Pan Pacific Plastics Mfg., Inc., (“PPPMI”) a U.S. producer of PRCBs, did not provide a

questionnaire response but gave estimated production of *** bags in 2008. E-mail from ***, December 18, 2009. 

Pak-Sher Packaging (“Pak-Sher”) another U.S. producer of PRCBs, did not provide a questionnaire response but gave

estimated production of *** PRCBs in 2008. E-mail from ***, June 8, 2009.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

As indicated in table I-10, one U.S. producer (***) is related to a subject foreign producer of

PRCBs and one (***) is related to U.S. importers of the subject merchandise. In addition, as discussed in

greater detail under “U.S. Producers’ Imports and Purchases” in Part III of this report, eight U.S.

producers imported directly and/or purchased PRCBs from one or more of the subject countries during

the period for which data were collected. 

Since the original investigations, at least two U.S. producers, *** have ceased operations, and

four plants have been closed.38 *** reported that in 2004 it closed its PRCB manufacturing facility in

***. Hilex purchased Vanguard in October 2005.39 In February 2007, Hilex closed its Rancho

Cucamonga, CA plant, and in 2008 closed its manufacturing facilities in Mount Olive, NC and Victoria,

 38 ***. E-mail from ***, March 8, 2010.

 39 http://hilexpoly.com/about-us/our-history.html, retrieved March 22, 2009, and “Hilex buys Vanguard to boost

bag market,” Plastics News, October 31, 2005.

I-21
TX.40 In May 2008, Hilex voluntarily filed a prepackaged plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the

U.S. Bankruptcy Code, citing increased raw material costs, stricter vendor’s terms, competitive pricing

pressures, and softer consumer demand.41 Inteplast reported that in May 2007 it acquired a PRCB

manufacturing facility in North Dighton, MA from U.S. producer PCL Packaging, Inc.42 Unistar Plastics

LLC (“Unistar”) stated that ***.

U.S. Importers

In the original investigations, the Commission sent importer questionnaires to 184 firms believed

to be importers of PRCBs from all sources.43 Responses to the Commission’s importer questionnaires in

the final phase of the original investigations were received from 87 companies. In these reviews, importer

questionnaires were sent to 160 firms believed to be importers of subject PRCBs, as well as to all U.S.

producers of PRCBs.44 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 52 companies, representing

approximately 48 percent of total subject imports in 2009 from China, Malaysia, and Thailand under HTS

statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085.45 

For subject countries, the leading U.S. importers of PRCBs from China are ***, while the leading

importers from Malaysia are *** and the leading importers from Thailand are ***. Leading importers of

PRCBs from nonsubject countries (primarily Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam) include ***. 

Three U.S. importers, *** reported being related to an importer or exporter from one or more of

the subject countries.46 Importer *** also reported being related to a firm that produces PRCBs in

China.47

 40 “Hilex Poly Cutting 120 jobs, Closing Calif. Site,” Plastics News, February 13, 2007; “Bag maker to close Mt.

Olive plant,” The News & Observer, September 11, 2008; and “Hilex closing Texas bag plant,” Plastics News,

February 11, 2008.

 41 “Chapter 11 to let Hilex pay off debt,” Plastics News, May 12, 2008. PCL Packaging, Inc. was a ***

subsidiary of PCL Packaging Corp. of Ontario, Canada.

 42 “It’s Not Just Texas Anymore,” Inteplast News, August 2009.

 43 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045

(Final), USITC Pub. 3710, August 2004, p. IV-1.

 44 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the responses to the Commission’s Notice of

Institution, along with firms that, based on a review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(“Customs”), may have imported greater than one percent of total imports from subject countries under HTS

statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085 in any one calendar year since 2004.

 45 According to questionnaire responses, subject imports in 2009 totaled approximately 4.3 billion PRCBs. U.S.

Department of Commerce statistics show total subject imports during 2009 of 8.9 billion PRCBs.

 46 *** reported being related to ***; *** reported being related to ***, and *** reported being ***.

 47 *** reported being related to ***.

I-22
U.S. Purchasers

Purchaser questionnaires were sent to 112 purchasers of PRCBs identified by U.S. producers and

importers. Forty-eight purchasers responded to the purchaser questionnaire including: 19 food retailers,

17 other retailers, 11 distributors of packaging supplies, and 5 distributors of food or other products.48

Responding firms reported purchases valued at $2.0 billion for 2004-09, accounting for approximately

*** percent of the U.S. market on a value basis.49 

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-11 and figure I-3 present apparent U.S. consumption for the review period and table I-12

presents U.S. market shares for the same period.50

The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs increased by nearly *** percent in 2005

and by nearly *** percent in 2006, and then declined moderately in each of the next three years to a level

that was still nearly *** percent above that of 2004. During the period for which data were collected, the

U.S. producers’ share of apparent U.S. consumption experienced *** and *** percentage-point decreases

on a quantity and a value basis, respectively. On a quantity basis, the market share of subject imports

increased *** percentage-points between 2004 and 2006, then declined irregularly, ending the period at

their lowest level, while the market share of nonsubject imports increased irregularly by *** percentage

points.

Table I-11

PRCBs: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption,

2004-09

* * * * * * *

Figure I-3

PRCBs: Apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Table I-12

PRCBs: U.S. market shares, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

 48 Four purchasers indicated more than one category; for example, food retailer and other retailer.

 49 Some purchasers, including ***, did not provide data on their annual purchases, so these data are understated

and do not include retailers’ direct imports of PRCBs.

 50 Prior to July 2005, PRCBs were reported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0090, a basket

category. After July 2005, imports of PRCBs were reported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085,

and the remainder of the imports reported under the former basket category were reported under HTS statistical

reporting number 3923.21.0095. To estimate the imports of PRCBs during 2004-05, Commission staff, for each

subject country and all other sources, applied (1) the ratio of imports under HTS statistical reporting number

3923.21.0085 to the combined imports under HTS statistical reporting numbers 3923.21.0085 and 3923.21.0095

during July-December 2005 to (2) the total imports under the three HTS statistical reporting numbers for 2004 and

2005.

I-23
 
PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Sales and distribution of PRCBs occur in a variety of ways, although most purchasers buy from 

domestic producers, importers, or distributors. The market includes distributors of varying sizes that sell

imported and domestically produced PRCBs, and may also offer other packaging services (e.g., printing). 

Many domestic producers also import or purchase PRCBs to complement their product offerings. Some

large retailers such as *** and *** are among the largest importers of PRCBs and also purchase from

domestic producers. Some firms that produce and import PRCBs, such as ***, use a blended sales

program wherein both domestic and imported bags are sold together at a single, averaged price.1

It is common for sales to be negotiated between producers and retailers, with producers actually

shipping the product to distributors, which then ship a bundle of items, including PRCBs, to the end user

as needed.2

 The shares of shipments from producers and importers reported to go to distributors and end

users are presented in table II-1.

PURCHASER CHARACTERISTICS

As noted in part I of this report, forty-eight purchasers responded to the purchaser questionnaire

including: 19 food retailers, 17 other retailers, 11 distributors of packaging supplies, and 5 distributors of

food or other products.3

 Responding firms reported purchases valued at $2.0 billion for 2004-09,

accounting for *** percent of the U.S. market on a value basis.4

Eight purchasers reported reasons why they purchased from only one country source. Five of

these firms purchased U.S. PRCBs for reasons such as being satisfied with U.S. product, supply chain

security, tariffs, and the U.S. price being based on natural gas rather than oil. One purchaser reported

purchasing from Singapore for reliability and satisfactory product, and two purchased only from one,

unspecified, source based on consistent supply and competitive price.

Fifteen of 42 responding purchasers reported that they had purchased PRCBs from subject

countries before 2004. Four of the 15 purchasers reported that they discontinued purchases from subject

countries, 3 reported reduced purchases, 3 reported no change in purchase patterns, and 5 reported other

changes.5

 In addition, 33 purchasers reported changes in the relative shares of PRCBs bought from

different countries since 2004, as shown in the tabulation on the following page.

 1 Transcript of the March 16, 2010 Commission hearing in the final phase of the recent investigations on PRCBs

from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam (“Hearing transcript, ITV investigations”), p. 21 (Bazbaz). Petitioners’

prehearing brief, ITV investigations, p. 25.

 2

 Hearing transcript, p. 31 (Rizzo).

 3

 Four purchasers indicated more than one category; for example, food retailer and other retailer.

 4

 Some purchasers, including ***, did not provide data on their annual purchases, so these data are understated

and do not include retailers’ direct imports of PRCBs.

 5

 Other changes reported include suppliers determining location of production; customers causing changes;

finding a satisfactory U.S. producer; determining supplier based on price, quality, and vendor history; increasing

imports; and changed purchases based on price. 

II-1
Table II-1

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs, by sources and channels of

distribution, 2004-09

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs to:1

 Distributors 28.4 27.6 *** *** *** 43.3

 End users 71.6 72.4 *** *** *** 56.7

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs from:2

China:

 Distributors 59.0 64.6 75.2 54.3 59.2 37.2

 End users 41.0 35.4 24.8 45.7 40.8 62.8

Malaysia:3

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

Thailand:

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Domestic producers’ shipments include only U.S. commercial shipments. 2 Importers’ shipments to end users include direct imports by retailers such as ***. Data for China and Malaysia

were not reported separately for subject and nonsubject suppliers. 3 ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Source

Increased Decreased

Number of purchasers

United States 14 9

China 2 14

Malaysia 4 0

Thailand 3 3

Other countries 9 8

Note: The firms reporting relative increases from Malaysia were ***. 

II-2
U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

To serve the various categories of customers, PRCBs come in a variety of types, including t-shirt

bags, die-cut handle bags, wave handle bags, patch handle bags, drawstring style bags, and flat-bottom

loop handle bags, among others. The types of PRCBs purchased by responding purchasers are shown in

table II-2. Differences in dimensions and printing further differentiate PRCBs. Imported high-end bags

typically are printed using a solvent-based rotogravure process which reportedly yields a higher-quality

print job than the water-based flexographic printing typically found among U.S. producers of PRCBs.6

Table II-2

PRCBs: Number of purchasers reporting purchases of different types of PRCBs

Type of PRCB

Number reporting any

purchases

Number reporting product

was 100 percent of

purchases

High-end bags 10 1

PRCBs other than high-end 43 34

T-shirt bags 39 27

Die cut handle bags 12 4

Patch handle 5 0

Drawstring bags 4 0

Flat-bottom bags 5 0

String loop handle bags 1 0

Other PRCBs 10 2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

PRCBs may have printing that serves as a form of advertising for the firm dispensing them (a.k.a.

“bagvertising”). Twenty-five of 43 responding purchasers reported that they expect the PRCBs they

provide to customers to be reused in ways that might serve as “bagvertising.”7

 When asked how 

important this is in determining the type of PRCBs used, 10 firms indicated that it was “very important,” 

12 indicated “somewhat important,” and 3 indicated “not important.” Firms that indicated that the

bagvertising value was “very important” included clothing retailers that use high-end bags, as well as

firms that use PRCBs other than high-end such as ***.

GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS

Nine U.S. producers reported selling PRCBs nationwide, and four reported serving regional

markets (table II-3).8

 Twelve of 33 importers reported serving the national market, and 21 reported

serving regional markets.

 6 Conference transcript, ITV investigations, pp. 119 and 162 (Gitlin). At the conference, references to high-end

bags were made with regard to bags that are 2.25 mils or greater in thickness.

 7

 Responses of four purchasers that did not check either the “yes” or the “no” box to the first part of the question

asking about “bagvertising” were assumed to be “yes,” since they then indicated in their answers to the second part

of the question that “bagvertising” was somewhat important in determining the type of PRCBs they use.

 8

 ***.

II-3
Table II-3

PRCBs: Geographic market areas in the United States served by domestic producers and

importers of subject product

Region Producers Importers

National 9 12

Northeast 2 11

Midwest 4 11

Southeast 3 6

Central Southwest 4 7

Rocky Mountains 4 3

Pacific 3 9

Other 5 9

Note.–Twelve producers and 33 importers responded to this question. Firms reporting serving all regions or all regions

except “other” were reported to sell nationally and were not counted in the listed regions except under “other.” 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

Domestic Production

Twelve U.S. producers of PRCBs responded substantively to the Commission’s questionnaire. 

The largest producer is ***, which accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of PRCBs in 2009. Ten

of 12 U.S. producers reported that they imported PRCBs during 2004-09. 

Based on available information, U.S. producers have the ability to respond to changes in demand

with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced PRCBs to the U.S. market. The

main contributing factor to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply is the availability of unused

capacity; however, responsiveness is constrained by small levels of interchangeable inventories and small

levels of export shipments.

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ reported capacity utilization decreased unevenly, from a high of *** percent in

2004 to a low of *** percent in 2009 (see table III-3). Accordingly, U.S. producers have some excess

capacity with which they could increase production of PRCBs.

Alternative markets

U.S. producers’ export shipments as a percent of total shipments ranged from a low of *** 

percent in 2004 to a high of *** percent in 2007 and 2008 (see table III-4). This level of exports indicates

that domestic producers are somewhat constrained in their ability to shift shipments between the United

States and other markets in response to price changes.

II-4
Inventory levels

In general, U.S. producers do not keep more inventory on hand than is being prepared for

shipment. PRCBs are most often printed with company-specific names or logos, rather than being

generic “thank you”-type bags.9

 As such, inventories held by U.S. producers tend to be relatively low and

can rarely be switched from one customer to another. U.S. producers’ inventories, as a share of total

shipments, ranged from a low of *** percent in 2005 to a high of *** percent in both 2006 and 2007 (see

table III-5). These data indicate that U.S. producers are constrained in their ability to use inventories to

increase shipments to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Five of 13 responding producers reported that they produce other products using the same

equipment, machinery, and/or production and related workers that they use to produce PRCBs. 

Alternative products include envelopes, bakery bags, industrial bags, custom LDPE bags, non-PRCB

merchandise bags, security bags, specialty film, and wickets. Hilex has not switched production between

PRCBs and other polyethylene film products, and would need to invest in new converting equipment to

do so.10

Foreign Supply

Seven countries supplied 90.5 percent of the quantity of imported PRCBs in 2009: China,

Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Canada, in descending order. 

China

Industry Capacity– The two responding Chinese foreign producers reported that their capacity in

China increased from *** billion bags in 2004 to *** billion bags in 2009 (see table IV-7). Their

reported production increased from *** billion bags in 2004 to *** billion bags in 2009, while reported

capacity utilization increased from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009.

Alternative Markets–The responding Chinese producers’ reported shipments of PRCBs to the

United States, as a share of their total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in

2006, then declined to *** percent in 2009. The majority of their shipments during 2004-09 were 

reportedly exports to ***. In addition, they reported some shipments to *** and other markets in 2008

and 2009. One of the two responding Chinese producers reported that after the antidumping duties took

effect, it switched its exports mainly to ***.

Inventory Levels--U.S. importers’ reported inventories of PRCBs from China, as a ratio to U.S.

shipments of PRCBs from China, ranged from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2009. Inventories

maintained by reporting Chinese producers and exporters were *** percent of their total shipments in

2008 and *** percent in 2009.11

 9 Conference transcript, ITV investigations, p. 105 (Daniels). 

 10 Hearing transcript, p. 71 (Daniels).

 11 Inventory information was not reported for 2004-07.

II-5
Production alternatives– One of the responding Chinese producers reported that it is not able to

switch production between PRCBs and other products, while the other reported that “there is almost no

cost or time involved in switching equipment and labor.”

Malaysia

The Commission received 16 foreign producer questionnaire responses from Malaysian

producers. None of these producers exported to the United States during 2004-09. As discussed in more

detail in Part IV of this report, nonsubject producer/exporter Bee Lian accounted for *** percent of

exports of Malaysian PRCBs to the United States in 2009. 

Industry Capacity– The 16 responding Malaysian foreign producers reported that their capacity

in Malaysia increased steadily between 2004 and 2009, from 7.8 billion bags to 13.8 billion bags (see

table IV-8). Their reported production also increased steadily from 2004 to 2009, from 7.2 billion bags to

11.7 billion bags. Capacity utilization ranged from 84.8 percent in 2009 to 93.3 percent in 2007.

Alternative Markets–The responding Malaysian producers reported *** shipments of PRCBs to

the United States. Most of their exports were to the EU, although these producers also reported shipments

to Asia and other markets.

Inventory Levels–U.S. importers’ inventories of Malaysian PRCBs, as a ratio to U.S. shipments

of PRCBs from Malaysia, ranged from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2004. Inventories

maintained by Malaysian producers and exporters ranged from 4.2 percent of total shipments in 2007 to

8.2 percent in 2006, and were 5.7 percent in 2009. 

Production alternatives–All but two responding Malaysian producers reported that they are able

to switch production between PRCBs and other products (such as garbage, bakery, and produce bags, and

bags for industrial applications) in response to a relative change in the price of PRCBs. Some firms

reported that the cost and time involved would be minimal while other firms reported that switching could

be done, but at a high cost.

Thailand

Industry Capacity–The five responding foreign producers reported that their capacity decreased

irregularly from *** billion bags in 2004 to *** billion bags in 2009 (see table IV-9). Their production

also declined irregularly during 2004-09 (from *** billion bags to *** billion bags), but their capacity

utilization varied, ranging from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2005, and was *** percent in 2009.

Alternative Markets–Responding Thai producers’ shipments of PRCBs to the United States, as a

share of their total shipments, fluctuated, ranging from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008. The

most important alternative market was the EU.

Inventory Levels---U.S. importers’ inventories of PRCBs from Thailand, as a ratio to U.S.

shipments of PRCBs from Thailand, ranged from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, and were

*** percent in 2009. Inventories of PRCBs maintained by foreign producers and exporters in Thailand

ranged from *** percent of total shipments in 2005 to *** percent in 2008.

Production alternatives–All of the responding Thai producers reported that they cannot switch

production between PRCBs and other products. 

II-6
General Supply Conditions

When asked if there had been any changes in the product range or marketing of PRCBs, 12 of 13

responding producers and the 33 of 38 responding importers reported no significant changes. However,

producer *** noted that there has been a movement away from patch handle bags towards wave top bags

and an increased use of online auctions. Importers reported changes including greater recycling, addition

of additives to aid decomposition, changes in types of bags imported, thinner gauge plastic used, and

fewer imports of Chinese product because of the antidumping duty order. Only 6 of 33 responding

purchasers reported changes in factors affecting supply and availability of U.S.-produced PRCBs in the

U.S. market: four of the six firms reported price changes, including oil price increases, one reported less

U.S. manufacturing, and one reported that its supplier switched to U.S. bags. 

Foreign producers were asked if any changes occurred in any other supply factors besides raw

materials. All of the responding Malaysian producers replied “yes.” According to these firms, costs have

increased for electricity, labor, ink, freight, and compliance with environmental regulations. One of the

responding Chinese producers reported that its labor and raw material costs increased while the other

reported no changes in supply factors. Only one of the five responding Thai producers reported changes

in supply factors other than raw materials.12

Demand

Demand Characteristics

Demand for PRCBs is derived primarily from retail and food service demand, as many retail and

food service firms provide PRCBs to their customers to carry home food and other merchandise. 

Between 2004 and 2009, apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs increased by *** percent in terms of

quantity, but has declined in each year since 2006, when apparent consumption was at a period high. 

U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ responses to how PRCB demand in U.S. and

worldwide markets has changed since 2004 and how they expected demand to change in the future are

shown in table II-4. Firms’ responses regarding demand trends since 2004 were mixed. Reasons cited for

increased U.S. demand included the increased number of shopping trips, thinner bags requiring doubling,

cost relative to paper and other bags, flexibility of plastic sizes, increased purchasers’ retail sales, and the

increased use of PRCBs instead of paper bags by liquor stores. Reasons cited for decreased U.S. demand

included increased use of reusable bags, local bans, environmental lobbying, and the declining economy. 

Reasons cited for increased demand outside the United States included economic growth, reduced cost of

plastic bags, and more international producers. Reasons cited for reduced demand outside the United

States included price, the recession, and the increased use of reusable bags and anti-PRCB legislation

because of environmental concerns. 

Most firms reported that they expect either a decrease or no change in future demand. The most

frequently cited reasons for declining future demand were the increased use of reusable bags and bans or

taxes on PRCBs related to environmental concerns. A few firms expect demand to increase due to factors

such as retail and population growth, price competition, more manageable lead times, and more flexible

sizes.

All responding Malaysian producers reported that demand for PRCBs in their home market, in

the U.S. market, and in third country markets declined since 2004, and that they anticipated this trend to

continue. Of the two responding Chinese producers, one reported an increase and one reported no

change in demand in China, and both reported an increase in demand in third-country markets since 2004. 

One Chinese producer anticipated increases in demand in its home and other markets in the future, while

 12 ***.

II-7
the other expected demand to fluctuate. Responding Thai producers were mixed in their assessments of

demand trends since 2004; with regard to future demand in the various markets, most firms reported

“decrease” or “no change,” although one of five responding producers expected demand in Thailand to

increase with the growth of the economy.

A research institute projected annual U.S. demand growth for high-density polyethylene (HDPE)

bags of about *** percent during 2008-2013, and also for HDPE film and sheet in Western Europe.13 The

Malaysian interested parties’ posthearing brief cites a projection that demand in the EU market should

remain stable over the next few years, whereas demand in Asia (particularly China, India, and “IndoChina”) is expected to increase by 30 percent and demand in emerging markets (Africa, Middle 

East, Russia, and South America) and non-U.S. markets in general is expected to increase by 15 percent.14

Table II-4

PRCBs: Number of U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers reporting changes in demand since

2004 inside and outside the United States and number expecting changes in demand

Item

Producers Importers Purchasers

I NDF I NDF I NDF

Demand changes inside the U.S. since 2004 6 1 4 2 2 13 9 9 12 9 11 5

Demand changes outside of the U.S. since 2004 0 6 3 1 1 12 6 0 7 2 5 0

Expected changes in demand inside the U.S. 3 4 5 0 4 12 12 3 6 15 8 6

Expected changes in demand outside the U.S. 1 4 6 0 1 11 6 2 2 8 7 1

Note.--I= increase, N= no change, D= decrease, F= fluctuate

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Business Cycles

Seven of 12 responding producers, 9 of 39 responding importers, and 10 of 36 responding

purchasers reported that PRCBs were subject to business cycles. Firms reported that business cycles were

related to seasonal retail demand (i.e., holiday shopping), retail demand based on the general level of the

economy, and input costs.

Substitute Products

Substitutes for PRCBs were reported by 3 producers, 21 importers, and 31 purchasers. 

Substitutes listed for PRCBs include paper bags, reusable bags, non-woven bags, and cardboard totes. 

When asked if changes in the prices of substitute products affected the price for PRCBs, all responding

producers, 16 of 19 responding importers, and all responding purchasers answered “no.”15 Two of 11

producers, 9 of 35 importers, and 11 of 47 responding purchasers reported changes in substitutes since

2004, particularly the increased use of reusable bags. Seven purchasers anticipate future changes in

 13 ***. 

 14 Malaysian interested parties’ posthearing brief, p. 12, and exh. I.

 15 Two of the three importers that reported that paper bags had affected the price of PRCBs reported that PRCB

usage had declined, and one reported that laminated paper bags were more expensive so customers preferred PRCBs. 

II-8
substitutability, particularly the increased use of reusable bags and more local plastic bag bans and taxes. 

Purchasers were asked whether the increased use of reusable bags, paper bags, the passage of laws

regulating plastic bag use, expected laws regulating PRCB use, or other changes had affected demand for

PRCBs, and their responses are summarized in table II-5. Purchasers were asked if paper bags could be

used as substitutes for different types of PRCBs, and their responses are summarized in table II-6.

Presently, there are few bans or taxes on plastic bag use in effect in the United States. San

Francisco banned thin, non-compostable plastic bags in 2007 in supermarkets and pharmacies, leading to

5 million fewer plastic bags being used per month, as of March 2008.16 Westport, CT and the Outer 

Banks of North Carolina have also banned plastic bags,17 and Los Angeles, CA will ban plastic bags

effective July 2010 if consumption goals are not met. Plastic bag ban or fee laws were proposed in 32

states or localities throughout the United States, particularly in California, although most proposed laws

have not been enacted and some enacted laws have been repealed.18 Also, a national plastic bag bill was

introduced in the House of Representatives in 2009 but it was not enacted into law.19 Internationally,

plastic bag taxes, fees, or bans have been implemented in numerous regions, ranging from Australia to

Zanzibar.20 

Imposing fees or bans on plastic bags can reduce use of plastic bags. For example, on January 1,

2010, Washington, DC enacted a 5-cent-per-bag tax on plastic and paper bags at certain types of

businesses including grocery stores, drug stores, and restaurants without seating areas. Since that time, 

73 percent of D.C. residents reportedly have used a reusable bag when shopping, and of those 73 percent,

46 percent reported using reusable bags more than they had prior to January 1, 2010.21 *** stated that

“***.”22 In addition to government regulations, major retailers are providing incentives to reduce plastic 

 16 Conference transcript, ITV investigations, p. 65 (Halimi), and “San Francisco Plastic Bag Ban Interests Other

Cities,” retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89135360, accessed March 22, 2010.

 17 “Westport First in State to Ban Plastic Bags,” New York Times, September 26, 2008, retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/nyregion/connecticut/28bagsct.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss, accessed March

22, 2010 and “N.C. Retailers Hurry to Prepare for Bag Ban,” Virginian -Pilot, August 23, 2009, retrieved from

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/08/nc-retailers-hurry-prepare-bag-ban, accessed March 22, 2010.

 18 “Plastic Bag Fee Passes Calif. Committee,” ABCNews, April 13, 2009, retrieved from

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=6759302, accessed March 22, 2010, and “D.C., Dublin

and Downtown Santa Barbara: The Bag Tax’s U.S. Premier, Progress Abroad and Possibilities in Our Own

Backyard,” Santa Barbara News Network, January 5, 2010, retrieved from http://www.thesbnn.com/?p=2707,

accessed March 22, 2010.

 19 Congressman Moran noted in a press release that the bill was not supported by any private group or

organization and by few congressional members and that it was unlikely to be enacted. A 2010 House resolution by

Congressman Moran recommended that states and localities take steps to reduce plastic and paper bag consumption

by 40 percent over the next 5 years. “Moran Introduces National Plastic Bag Bill on Earth Day,” April 22, 2009,

retrieved from http://www.house.gov/list/press/va08_moran/Plastic.shtml, accessed March 22, 2010; and “Moran

Introduces Earth Day-Related Resolution,” April 22, 2010, retrieved from 

http://moran.house.gov/list/press/va08_moran/ReusableBags.shtml, accessed May 18, 2010.

 20 Ibid., and “FACTBOX-Plastic Not Fantastic? -- Bag Bans Around the World,” Reuters, May 27, 2008,

retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSPEK170445, last accessed March 22, 2010. Petitioners also

described taxes in Ireland, and bans in parts of China and North Africa. Hearing transcript, ITV investigations, p.

101 (Daniels). A detailed list of global bag actions by country/city can be found at

http://www.chicobag.com/t-track_movement.asp. 

 21 “D.C.’s left leanings confirmed in poll,” Washington Post, p. C-1, February 7, 2010.

 22 Email from ***, March 22, 2010.

II-9
Table II-5

PRCBs: Number of purchasers reporting whether certain factors affected demand for PRCBs

Item No Yes

Percent decrease in

demand1

Increased use of reusable bags 17 30 4.3

Increased use of paper bags 11 35 2.0

Passage of laws regulating use and disposal of PRCBs 13 33 2.2

Expected passage of laws regulating use and disposal of

PRCBs 17 28 19.5

Expect other changes2 11 35 8.7

 1 Percentages are simple averages from those firms that reported “yes” and also reported percentages. 2 Other changes expected by the purchasers included increases in the number of stores, increases in the price of

inputs, increased use of reusable bags, economic conditions, domestic manufacturers becoming more competitive,

municipalities taxing or outlawing PRCBs, consumer green concerns, and limits on imports causing price increases

resulting in switches to alternatives.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-6

PRCBs: Number of purchasers reporting that paper bags were or were not substitutes for

different types of PRCBs

Yes No

T-shirt bags 26 20

Die cut handle bags 12 27

Patch handle 12 28

Drawstring bags 8 31

Flat-bottom bags 16 24

String loop handle bags 10 29

Other PRCBs 11 26

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

bag use. For example, Target announced that it would provide a 5-cent-per-bag rebate to customers using

a reusable bag, and CVS announced a store credit for customers using reusable bags.23 

In the EU, there are a number of taxes, bans, or voluntary initiatives by retailers to reduce plastic

bag usage. Ireland was the first country to impose a bag tax (15 euro cents per bag), and in the first year,

bag usage was reduced by over 90 percent.24 However, bag consumption slowly increased, prompting

increases in the bag tax. Belgium and Denmark also have instituted bag taxes. In 2005, the French

Government committed to phasing in a ban on non-degradable plastic bags by 2010. In Germany and

 23 “Target and CVS launch incentives to discourage plastic bags,” Plastic News, October 19, 2009.

 24 Schnittger, Frank, Doubling the Plastic Bag Tax, September 25, 2009.

II-10
Norway, there are no mandated taxes, although most grocery stores charge consumers up to 25 (euro)

cents per bag.25 Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland currently have no official

government taxes or bans, although Switzerland proposed a ban on plastic bags in 2009. The United

Kingdom’s government encourages bag recycling, and certain retailers offer incentives for reusable bag

use. 

China’s ban on plastic bags reduced their use in supermarkets by 66 percent; “Statistics from the

National Development and Reform Commission showed that the 106 outlets of Walmart China had

reduced plastic bag usage by 80 percent in the past year.”26

Cost Share

The costs of PRCBs are very small compared to most retail purchases, and retailers generally

provide PRCBs free of charge to the final consumer.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported products depends upon such factors as

relative prices, quality, and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and

delivery dates, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on producer, importer, and purchaser 

questionnaire responses, staff believes that there is likely to be a high degree of substitution between

PRCBs produced in the United States and those produced in China, Malaysia, Thailand, and other 

countries.

Knowledge of Country Sources

When asked to indicate the countries of origin for PRCBs for which they have actual

marketing/pricing knowledge, 36 purchasers identified the United States, 18 identified China, 6 identified 

Malaysia, 5 identified Thailand, and 14 identified other countries.27 Purchasers’ responses to

how often they or their customers make purchasing decisions for PRCBs based on the producer or

country of origin are shown in table II-7.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Major Factors in Purchasing

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding

from whom to buy PRCBs (table II-8). Price was reported to be one of the top three factors by 47 of 48

responding purchasers, and the most important factor for 19 firms. Forty-one firms identified quality as 

one of the top three factors in their purchasing decision, with 23 listing it as the most important factor. 

Availability was listed as a top-three factor by 16 purchasers. 

 25 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 8.

 26 “One Year After Plastic Bag Ban, How is China Doing?” China Daily, May 26, 2009, retrieved from

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-05/26/content_7944466.htm, accessed March 22, 2010.

 27 Other sources include Canada, Cambodia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Israel, Macao, Mexico, the Philippines,

Singapore, Taiwan, and Vietnam. 

II-11
Table II-7

PRCBs: Purchaser responses to questions regarding the origin of their purchases

Purchaser/customer decision Always Usually Sometimes Never

Firm makes decision based on producer 11 6 15 14

Customer makes decision based on producer 2 6 5 22

Firm makes decision based on country of origin 7 6 9 24

Customer makes decision based on country of origin 2 5 2 26

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

When purchasers were asked how frequently they purchased the lowest-priced PRCBs, 4

purchasers replied “always,” 23 replied “usually,” 17 replied “sometimes,” and 2 replied “never.” 

Thirty-five purchasers listed reasons why they purchased higher-priced PRCBs even though lower-priced

PRCBs were available; reasons listed include quality, availability, lead times, reliability of supply,

maintaining multiple suppliers, minimum quantity requirements, relationship with supplier, credit, cost of

changing suppliers, contracts, supplier keeping inventories, and length of time to fill orders. Several

firms reported purchasing higher-priced PRCBs from U.S. producers because of shorter lead times.

Table II-8

PRCBs: Ranking factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

First Second Third Total

Quality (including meeting or exceeding

specifications) 23 14 4 41

Price 19 19 9 47

Availability 4 5 7 16

Client approved supplier/traditional supplier 2 0 1 3

Delivery, lead times 0 2 5 7

Service 1 2 2 5

Reliability 0 1 5 6

Terms 0 1 3 4

Consistency 0 0 2 2

Capacity 0 0 2 2

Other1 1 146

 1 Other includes financial stability for the first factor; ability to meet demand for the second factor; capability,

shipment deadlines and flow of product, minimums for customers runs, and product line for the third factor.

Note.–Some purchasers listed more than three factors. Factors deemed important enough to rank, but not in the

top three, were technical support, delivery, and product consistency. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Importance of Specified Purchase Factors

Purchasers’ responses rating the importance of 18 factors in their purchasing decisions are

summarized in table II-9. Factors listed as “very important” by at least half of the 42 responding firms

were price (41 firms); product consistency (39); availability (38); reliability of supply (35); delivery time

(34); print quality (32); quality meets industry standards (32); delivery terms (25); customization (22);

II-12
discounts (21); and U.S. transportation costs (21). Conversely, 33 purchasers rated the availability of

high-end PRCBs as “not important,” though this may be due to the smaller relative share of high-end

PRCBs in the market.

Table II-9

PRCBs: Importance of factors as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor1

Very important

Somewhat

important Not important

Number of firms responding 

Availability 38 4 0

Availability of high-end PRCBs 4 4 33

Customization of bags 22 15 5

Delivery terms 25 15 2

Delivery time 34 9 0

Discounts offered 21 15 6

Extension of credit 15 12 15

Minimum quantity requirements 10 16 17

Packaging 7 26 9

Price 41 1 0

Print quality 32 8 2

Product consistency 39 2 1

Product range 6 19 17

Quality meets industry standards 32 9 1

Quality exceeds industry standards 19 19 4

Reliability of supply 35 6 1

Technical support/service 9 25 8

U.S. transportation costs 21 15 6

 1 Two purchasers reported other factors; one reported that customer service was very important, and one

reported that reference checks were somewhat important.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Determining Quality

Purchasers were asked to identify the factors that determine the quality of PRCBs. Purchasers

reported numerous specific factors including bag strength (i.e., bag and handle do not tear, break, split, or

puncture); appearance; passes lab tests; print quality (i.e., consistency, clarity, and durability); bag size

and gauge; consistency and lack of defects; and meeting contracted standards. Purchasers’ responses to

how often different country sources meet minimum quality specifications are summarized in table II-10.

II-13
Table II-10

PRCBs: Frequency of sources meeting minimum quality specifications, as reported by U.S.

purchasers1

Country Always Usually Sometimes Never

United States 20 21 5 0

Subject countries:

 China 8 15 3 0

 Malaysia 5 7 1 0

 Thailand 3 9 1 0

 1 Purchasers were asked how often domestic and imported PRCBs from subject countries meet minimum

quality specifications for their uses or their customers’ uses. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Certification/Qualification Issues

Twenty-five of 47 responding purchasers reported that they required supplier certification or

prequalification for all of their purchases and 21 did not require prequalification.28 Qualification often

involves testing of samples for quality and adherence to specifications and may also include on-site

evaluations of PRCB factories. Suppliers may also be evaluated for reliability of supply, financial

stability, and customer service. Purchaser responses indicated that the average time required for

certification or qualification was 60 days. Nine of 43 responding purchasers reported that one or more

firms had failed to qualify. Specifically, seven purchasers listed U.S. producers as failing to qualify as

follows: ***. A number of purchasers reported that product from other countries failed to qualify for

reasons including poor quality, service, quality control, and “competitive concerns.”29

Supply Sources

Forty responding purchasers reported that, on average, they contact 3 to 4 suppliers for their

PRCB needs. Twenty-five of 46 responding purchasers reported changing suppliers since 2004. Only

three responding purchasers reported that they became aware of new suppliers since 2004. 

Lead Times

Eight of 12 responding producers reported selling most of their PRCBs on a produced-to-order

basis. Based on a simple average, 62.2 percent of sales were produced-to-order, with lead times

averaging 28 days. Producers’ lead times from inventory ranged from 2 to 14 days and averaged 7 days.

Most responding importers (17 of 30) also reported selling most of their PRCBs on a producedto-order basis. Eleven importers reported selling mainly out of U.S. inventory, one reported selling

mainly out of overseas inventories, and one reported sales equally divided between U.S. inventory and

 28 In addition, one firm reported that supplier certification is required for 10 percent of its purchases. 

 29 Countries listed were Canada, China, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and

Vietnam. 

II-14
produced-to-order. Reported lead times for importers’ sales from inventory averaged 5.8 days.30 For

produced-to-order sales, importers’ lead times averaged 77 days; the reported lead time for product being

shipped from overseas inventories was 120 days.

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ responses regarding the interchangeability between

PRCBs produced in the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries are presented in table

II-11. The majority of responding producers, importers, and purchasers reported that U.S.-produced,

subject, and nonsubject PRCBs are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable. However, some firms cited

differences limiting interchangeability. Ten importers cited differences such as that high-end bags which

require hand labor are available from China, Indonesia, and other countries but are not available from the

United States; printing from Taiwan and artwork and thickness of imported bags are superior to U.S.

bags; and U.S. producers require very large minimum orders. One purchaser reported that high-end

PRCBs are foreign-produced and another firm reported that equipment limits sizes that a plant can

produce. One producer reported that the amount of hand labor involved in production limited

interchangeability.

 

Table II-11 

PRCBs: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of

products produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China 9 0 1 1 16 7 9 2 15 7 6 2

U.S. vs. Malaysia 10 0 1 1 9 5 2 1 9 5 1 2

U.S. vs. Thailand 10 0 1 1 9 7 3 0 9 5 2 2

U.S. vs. other countries 9 1 1 1 11 4 9 1 13 6 5 1

China vs. Malaysia 9 0 1 0 10 5 1 0 12 3 0 0

China vs. Thailand 9 0 1 0 10 5 2 1 12 3 0 0

China vs. other countries 8 1 1 0 10 6 4 1 14 3 1 0

Malaysia vs. Thailand 9 1 1 0 10 5 1 0 12 2 0 0

Malaysia vs. other countries 7 2 1 0 9 4 1 1 11 1 0 0

Thailand vs. other countries 7 2 1 0 9 4 2 1 11 2 0 0

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if PRCBs produced in the United States and in other

countries are used interchangeably and to what degree.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 30 Importers reporting “just in time” or similar answers were assumed to sell in one day.

II-15
In addition, producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price

were significant in sales of PRCBs from the United States, subject, and nonsubject countries; their

responses are summarized in table II-12. The majority of producers and importers reported that

differences other than price are “never” or only “sometimes” significant in their sales of PRCBs. Thirteen

importers and one producer listed differences between domestic PRCBs and imports including quality and

specifically, print quality; lead times; cost of financing imported product; size differences; larger

minimum orders for domestic PRCBs; other countries offer more choices of finishes such as handles,

gussets, and grommets; and different abilities to produce labor-intensive products. 

Table II-12

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales

of product produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AF S N A F S N

U.S. vs. China 2 1 2 7 6 5 11 8

U.S. vs. Malaysia 2 1 2 7 2 2 5 6

U.S. vs. Thailand 2 1 2 7 2 4 6 6

U.S. vs. other countries 1 137358 8

China vs. Malaysia 1 0 1 7 3 2 4 6

China vs. Thailand 1 0 1 7 3 3 5 6

China vs. other countries 0 027157 6

Malaysia vs. Thailand 1 0 2 7 3 2 4 6

Malaysia vs. other countries 0 027223 6

Thailand vs. other countries 0 027224 6

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if differences other than price between PRCBs produced in

the United States and those produced in other countries were a significant factor in sales of PRCBs.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factor Comparisons

Responses of 34 purchasers comparing PRCBs produced in the United States, subject countries,

and nonsubject countries with respect to 18 different attributes are shown in table II-13. The majority of

firms comparing products from the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries reported

that the products were comparable (for one or more of the countries) for all factors except availability of

high-end PRCBs, delivery time, extension of credit, price, reliability of supply, and technical support and

service. A plurality of the purchasers reported that U.S. product was superior compared to product from

other countries for delivery time.

II-16
Table II-13

PRCBs: Comparisons of U.S. product, product from subject countries, and product from other

countries, as reported by U.S. purchasers1

Factor

U.S. vs. 

China

U.S. vs. 

Malaysia

U.S. vs. 

Thailand

U.S. vs. 

nonsubject

China vs. 

nonsubject

SC I SC I SC I SC I SC I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 8 17 2 1 9 1 2 10 1 1 14 0 0 4 0

Availability of high-end PRCBs 4 10 5152251144040

Customization of bags 5 21 1 2 9 0 2 11 0 1 9 5 0 4 0

Delivery terms 9 17 1 1 9 0 2 10 0 5 10 0 0 4 0

Delivery time 13 10 4 5 4 2 7 4 2 10 5 0 0 4 0

Discounts offered 1 19 5 0 9 1 1 10 1 0 15 0 0 4 0

Extension of credit 6 17 1 2 5 2 3 7 1 2 11 2 0 4 0

Minimum quantity requirements 5 18 4 2 8 1 2 9 2 0 10 5 0 4 0

Packaging 4 19 3 1 10 0 1 11 1 2 10 3 0 4 0

Price2 6 12 9 3 3 4 3 5 4 3 7 5 0 2 2

Print quality 2 22 2 2 7 2 2 9 2 1 12 2 0 4 0

Product consistency 5 19 3 2 8 1 2 9 2 1 12 2 0 4 0

Product range 0 20 3 0 8 1 0 10 1 1 12 2 0 4 0

Quality meets industry standards 4 20 1 2 8 0 2 9 1 1 14 0 0 4 0

Quality exceeds industry

standards 4 20 2 2 7 0 2 8 1 2 12 0 0 4 0

Reliability of supply 7 17 2 2 7 1 4 6 2 5 9 1 0 4 0

Technical support/service 9 16 1 4 5 1 3 8 1 4 10 0 0 4 0

U.S. transportation costs2 8 15 1 2 6 1 3 7 1 2 12 0 0 3 1

 1 One firm compared all other pairs of subject and nonsubject PRCBs and rated all pairs comparable for all factors. 2 A rating of superior means that the price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S.

superior,” it meant that the price of U.S. product is generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s product

is inferior. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

U.S. Supply Elasticity31

The domestic supply elasticity for PRCBs measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied to

changes in the U.S. market price of PRCBs. 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 and from production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the availability of

alternative markets for U.S.-produced PRCBs. 

 31 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

II-17
In the short term, the domestic industry likely has a moderate degree of responsiveness to changes

in prices. Supply responsiveness is enhanced by some available capacity, but is limited by the quantity

and type of inventory on hand and ***. Domestic supply elasticity is likely in the range of 2 to 4.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for PRCBs measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded

to a change in the U.S. market price of PRCBs, and is likely to be low, in the range of -0.3 to -0.6. This 

estimate is based on the low cost share of PRCBs relative to the cost of most retail purchases and the

limited substitutability of other products for PRCBs.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.32 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(both perceived and actual), specifications, availability, and conditions of sale. Most of the producers,

importers, and purchasers reported that PRCBs produced domestically are comparable to PRCBs

imported from subject and nonsubject countries with respect to most factors. Based on the above data,

substitution elasticity between domestic and imported PRCBs is likely to be high, in the range of 4 to 6.

 32 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like product to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject product (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-18
PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

Background

Information in this section is based on the questionnaire responses of 12 domestic producers that

accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production in 2009.1

Changes Experienced in Operations

Domestic producers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any plant

openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidation, closures, or prolonged shutdowns because

of strikes or equipment failure; curtailment of production because of shortages of materials or other

reasons including revision of labor agreements; or any other change in the character of their operations or

organization relating to the production of PRCBs since 2004. Eight producers indicated that they had

experienced some change in the character of their operations since 2004.2

 The domestic producers’

responses to this question are detailed in table III-1.

Table III-1

PRCBs: Changes in the character of U.S. operations

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations

Table III-2 presents U.S. producers’ anticipated changes to their U.S. operations.

Table III-2

PRCBs: Anticipated changes in U.S. operations

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

While capacity increased irregularly, production and capacity utilization declined irregularly

during 2004-09. In addition to the *** reported by ***,3

 much of the increase in reported capacity from

2004 to 2005 can be attributed to ***.4

 Likewise, much of the decrease in capacity and production from

 1 U.S. producers Continental Poly Bag, E-Z Plastics, and Prince Plastics provided responses to the U.S.

producers’ questionnaire, but did not provide useable data, and so their data are not included in this report. In

addition, Omega, which accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. production of PRCBs in 2009, provided a

questionnaire response late in these reviews, so its data are not included in the body of this report, but are included in

appendix table C-2, and in the price data in Part V.

 2

 In addition, *** reported that “***.” *** reported that “***.”

 3

 E-mail from ***, March 24, 2010.

 4

 *** reported that ***. E-mail from ***, May 5, 2010, and ***, May 11, 2010.

III-1
2006 to 2008 can be attributed to plant closures by Hilex (three facilities closed).5

 Additionally, *** was

forced to move production equipment overseas for much of this period due to Hurricane Katrina.6

 ***

did offset some of this 2004-09 decrease in capacity, when the company purchased additional equipment

after the imposition of duties on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand. Additionally, *** added

*** new extruders in 2006, which led to an increase in capacity of approximately *** bags annually. The

2009 increase in capacity can be partially attributed to *** purchases of new equipment and modification

of the cycle time on existing equipment, and to *** which reported increased capacity through efficiency

gains.7

 U.S. producers’ aggregate capacity was well below apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs in each

year of the 2004-09 period.

Five U.S. producers, ***, reported production of other products using the same equipment and/or

workers used to produce PRCBs. U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for

PRCBs are presented in table III-3 and figure III-1.

Table III-3

PRCBs: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Figure III-1

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Constraints on Capacity

The Commission asked domestic producers to report constraints on their capacity to produce

PRCBs. Eleven of the twelve responding producers reported the extrusion or bag-making equipment as a

constraint. Other constraints reported by U.S. producers were printing capacity (two producers), staffing

(two producers), and raw materials availability, building space, and seasonality (one producer).

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, COMPANY TRANSFERS,

AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of PRCBs are presented in table III-4. From 2004 to 2009,

total shipments decreased irregularly on both a quantity and a value basis. Average unit values also were

lower in 2009 than in 2004. There was no reported internal consumption or transfers to related firms. 

Table III-4

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

 5 Additionally, *** is known to have closed a production facility near the end of this period. ***. E-mail from

***, March 8, 2010.

 6

 In addition, *** reported a *** decline in capacity when it ***.

 7

 *** response to the U.S. producers’ questionnaire, and *** letter in response to Commission staff’s questions,

March 31, 2010.

III-2
U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

As shown in table III-5, which presents end-of-period inventories for PRCBs, inventories

decreased irregularly during the period for which data were collected.8

 The increase in inventories

between 2005 and 2006 can be largely attributed to ***. Similarly, the decline during 2008-09 can be

attributed to ***, although it was partially offset by an increase in inventories by ***.9

Table III-5

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Eight of the 12 responding U.S. producers imported directly and/or purchased PRCBs from one

or more of the subject foreign producers during the period for which data were collected. U.S. producers’

imports and purchases of PRCBs are presented in table III-6. In 2009, U.S. producers that imported

directly or purchased imports of PRCBs represented *** percent of the quantity of subject U.S. imports

from China, *** of the quantity of subject U.S. imports from Malaysia, and *** percent of the quantity of

subject U.S. imports from Thailand.

Table III-6

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for PRCBs are presented in table III-7. Much of

the increase in production and related workers (“PRWs”) from 2004 and 2005 can be attributed to ***.10

In addition, the data reflect the plant closures mentioned earlier in this section, specifically the

approximately *** positions eliminated as a result of the three closures by Hilex. During the period for 

which data were collected, API, Command, Inteplast, and Superbag increased the number of PRWs

employed at their facilities, and these increases offset somewhat the effect of the aforementioned plant

closures on the U.S. industry as a whole. From 2004 to 2009, hourly wages, total wages paid,

productivity, and unit labor costs generally increased, while the number of production related workers and

total hours worked generally decreased.

Table III-7

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

 8 One U.S. producer (***) reported that its end-of-period inventories did not reconcile, but that it provided the

most accurate data available and that the errors account for less than 0.1 percent of its shipments in any period. Email from ***, January 27, 2010.

 9

 ***. *** letter in response to Commission staff's questions, March 31, 2010.

 10 E-mail from ***, May 5, 2010.

III-3
FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Twelve U.S. firms provided usable financial data on their operations producing PRCBs.11 These

reported data are believed to represent the vast majority of U.S. PRCB production in the period for which

data were gathered.

OPERATIONS ON PRCBs

 Income-and-loss data for the reporting U.S. producers are presented in table III-8 and are briefly

summarized here. 

• Net sales quantity and value declined irregularly between 2004 and 2009. Although sales

quantity increased between 2008 and 2009, sales value fell *** because of a change in the unit

value of sales.

• Between 2004 and 2008, the cost of goods sold (“COGS”) increased irregularly but decreased in

2009 to a level below that of 2004. From 2004 to 2008 the increase in total COGS was greater

than the increase in sales by about $***. COGS fell more than sales from 2008 to 2009 by about

$***. The ratio of COGS to net sales also rose from 2004 to 2008 but decreased in 2009. The

change in COGS, which was driven by raw material costs (which offset a decline in other factory

costs), led to a decline in gross profit from 2004 to 2008 and a higher level of gross profit in

2009.12

• Total selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses also rose irregularly from 2004 to

2008,13 but decreased in 2009. The reporting firms collectively recorded operating profits in

2004 through 2007, but an operating loss in 2008; they reported an operating profit in 2009 at

about the same level as in 2005.

• Net income before taxes was positive in 2004, 2005, and 2009. Cash flow was positive in each of

the years for which data were gathered because depreciation charges were greater than the net

losses.

 11 The firms are: Ampac; API; Bemis; Command; Durabag; Genpak; Hilex; Inteplast; Poly-Pak; Roplast;

Superbag; and Unistar. Except for ***, each of the reporting firms has a fiscal year that ends on or about December

31; this includes ***. Differences between data reported in the trade and financial sections of the Commission’s

producers’ questionnaire primarily are attributable to year-end timing differences of ***. The data here also differ

from those of the recent final phase investigations on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam in that ***. An

*** questionnaire response was received late from ***; the data are not included in this section of the report. 

Commission staff verified the questionnaire response of ***. EDIS document 420526.

 12 The industry reportedly has made great efforts to increase efficiency in production, which would reduce labor

and other factory costs. Posthearing brief of domestic interested parties, app., pp. 3 and 11-12. 

 13 Adding to the reporting firms’ recorded operating loss in 2008, ***.

III-4
Table III-8

PRCBs: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2004-09 

* * * * * * *

Raw material costs, which are primarily composed of polyethylene resin and color concentrates,

rose in absolute value and as a percentage of net sales through 2008 and then fell sharply in 2009. Raw

material costs also increased as a share of total COGS, from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2008,

but were only *** percent in 2009. Raw material costs ranged from $*** per 1,000 bags in 2004 to $***

per 1,000 bags in 2009, depending upon the firm. Nearly all reporting firms’ ratios of raw material costs

to total net sales are roughly similar; the average of $*** per 1,000 bags in 2009 reflects the large-scale

production of lightweight bags by several U.S. firms.14 The relationship between raw material costs and

sales value is shown in the following tabulation: 

* * * * * * *

Table III-9 presents the results of operations on a company-by-company basis.

Table III-9

PRCBs: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years 2004-09

* * * * * * *

In the final phase investigations on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, staff presented

operating data on domestic producers grouped into segments by sales in 2008 (table VI-3 of the staff

report in those investigations). The company-by-company data were sorted into three groups by sales,

over $100 million (comprised of ***), between $25 million and $99.9 million (comprised of ***), and

less than $25 million (the remaining firms). In that table, data were presented for the three fiscal years

(2006-08), January-September 2008, and January-September 2009. The discussion below adds the results

of 2009 to the prior presentation and discussion of trends between 2006 and 2008. 

Within the first group, ***;15 sales of ***. Overall for Group 1, sales value increased *** while

the operating *** from 2006 to 2008; sales were lower but the three firms together recorded an operating

profit in 2009. Within Group 2, *** during 2006-08; the value of the group’s sales was lower in 2009

than in 2008, but operating profits were higher. Group 3’s operating profitability is led by the results of

***. Overall, sales of the third group declined and this group’s operating income in 2006 became an

operating loss in 2008. Sales were lower in 2009, but this group collectively recorded a *** operating

profit in that year.

 14 Prices of resin reportedly steadily increased throughout 2009 and have turned sharply upward in 2010. 

Posthearing brief of domestic interested parties, app., p. 10 and page V-1 of this report.

 15 Hilex reported ***. Also, Hilex filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on May 6,

2008. “Plastic bag manufacturer Hilex Poly files bankruptcy petition, seeks approval of prepack,” posted 8:23 am on

May 9, 2008 by Thomas Horan, Morris James LLC, found at http://bankruptcy.morrisjames.com/2008/05/articles,

retrieved on May 7, 2009. According to a press release issued by Hilex, the voluntary filing was to significantly

reduce its overall debt and strengthen its balance sheet while continuing to operate. Hilex press release dated May 6,

2008, found at http://hilexpoly.com, retrieved on May 7, 2009. Hilex’s petition for financial reorganization and

emergence from Chapter 11 was approved on June 26, 2008. Company press release, “Hilex emerges from Chapter

11,” dated July 9, 2008, found at http://hilexpoly.com, retrieved on May 7, 2009.

III-5
VARIANCE ANALYSIS

A variance analysis for U.S. producers is presented in table III-10, and is derived from the

information presented in table III-8. The variance analysis provides an assessment of changes in

profitability as related to changes in pricing, cost, and volume. In table III-10, between 2004 and 2009

the unfavorable operating income variance of $*** was attributable primarily to an unfavorable variance

on price (unit prices decreased) that was greater than a favorable net cost/expense variance (unit costs

decreased); there was a small unfavorable net volume variance.16 The mix of favorable and unfavorable

variances changed during the period: the price variance was favorable between 2004 and 2005, between

2005 and 2006, as well as between 2007 and 2008 (unit prices increased) while the net cost/expense

variance was unfavorable (unit costs increased) between those periods. Between 2006 and 2007 as well

as between 2008 and 2009, the unfavorable price variance was lower than that of the favorable net

cost/expense variance.17

Table III-10

PRCBs: Variance analysis on results of operations of domestic producers, fiscal years 2004-09

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES,

AND INVESTMENT IN PRODUCTIVE FACILITIES

The responding firms’ data on capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”)

expenses are shown in table III-11. 

 16 A variance analysis is calculated in three parts, sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A expense

variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost or expense (cost/expense)

variance (in the case of the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance), and a volume variance. The sales or

cost/expense variance is calculated as the change in unit price or per-unit cost/expense times the new volume, while

the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times the old unit price or per-unit cost/expense. 

Summarized at the bottom of the table, the price variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance is the sum of those

items from COGS and SG&A variances, respectively, and the volume variance is the sum of the volume components

of the net sales, COGS, and SG&A expense variances. The overall volume component of the variance analysis is

generally small.

 17 Domestic interested parties stated that the domestic industry remains vulnerable to injury even though the

reporting firms collectively reported an operating profit in 2009. They indicated that factors assisting that

improvement include production efficiencies, which reduced operating costs, as well as reduced competition from

imports. They also stated that factors impeding that improvement include flat to declining demand and higher resin

costs (higher raw material costs). Posthearing brief of domestic interested parties, app., pp. 3, 6-12.

III-6
Table III-11

PRCBs: Value of capital expenditures and R&D expenses of U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years

2004-09

Item

Fiscal year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value (1,000 dollars)

Capital expenditures:

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

***1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

***2 *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 45,893 41,649 38,906 17,480 14,054 9,825

R&D expenses:

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

***2 *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 1,709 1,576 1,688 1,729 1,229 927

1

 ***.

2

 ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The Commission’s questionnaire requested firms to describe the nature or focus of their capital

expenditures and R&D expenses. The responses are tabulated as follows:

* * * * * * *

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of PRCBs to compute return on investment (“ROI”) for 2006 to 2008. The data for operating

income are from table III-8. Operating income was divided by total assets, resulting in the asset turnover

ratio. ROI fell irregularly from *** percent in 2004 to a negative *** percent in 2008 and was a positive

*** percent in 2009. These data and calculations are shown in table III-12.

III-7
Table III-12

PRCBs: The value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2004–09

* * * * * * *

The original cost of fixed assets fell from 2004 to 2006 although the *** increase in the value of

other noncurrent assets. Fixed assets’ original cost increased between 2006 and 2007 in response to both

capital expenditures and acquisitions, but fell from 2007 and 2008 in response to closures and asset

writeoffs ***. Other noncurrent assets declined from 2007 to 2008 because of ***.

III-8
PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

U.S. IMPORTS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 160 firms believed to be importers of subject PRCBs, as

well as to all U.S. producers of PRCBs.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from

52 companies, representing approximately 48 percent of total subject imports in 2009 from China,

Malaysia, and Thailand under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085.2

For subject countries, the leading U.S. importers of PRCBs from China are ***, while the leading

importers from Malaysia are *** and the leading importers from Thailand are ***.3

 Leading importers of

PRCBs from nonsubject countries (primarily Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam) include ***.

Table IV-1 presents data for U.S. imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, Thailand, nonsubject

sources from China and Malaysia, and all other sources.4 5

 From 2004 to 2009, total imports increased

irregularly on both a quantity and value basis. Over the same period, subject imports decreased 

irregularly on both a quantity and a value basis. Subject imports, in terms of quantity, increased

substantially between 2004 and 2006, decreased by over half between 2006 and 2007, largely due to a

decline in imports from Thailand, increased in 2008, and declined again in 2009 to a level below that in

2004.6 7

 The quantity of imports from all other nonsubject sources, largely from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam, the three nonsubject countries that recently underwent antidumping investigations and a

countervailing duty investigation (on Vietnam), more than quadrupled between 2004 and 2009. 

 1 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified during the preliminary phase investigations, along

with firms that, based on a review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have

imported greater than one percent of total imports from subject countries under HTS statistical reporting number

3923.21.0085 in any one calendar year since July 2005, or greater than one percent of total imports under HTS

statistical reporting number 3923.21.0090 between 2004 and June 2005.

 2

 According to questionnaire responses, subject imports in 2009 totaled approximately 4.3 billion PRCBs. U.S.

Department of Commerce statistics show total subject imports during 2009 of 8.9 billion PRCBs.

 3

 ***.

 4

 Hang Lung Plastic Manufactory (China), Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products (China), and Bee Lian Plastic

Industries (Malaysia) received de minimis dumping margins, and imports of PRCBs from those firms are therefore

presented as nonsubject imports. Antidumping Duty Orders: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, 69 FR 48201

(China), 69 FR 48203 (Malaysia), 69 FR 48209 (Thailand), August 9, 2004.

 5

 *** indicated that in 2006 the company imported PRCBs from *** under both HTS 3923.21.0085 and HTS

3923.21.0095. This correction has been reflected in the data presented in this report.

 6

 The domestic interested parties contend that ***. Staff researched this issue by examining proprietary Customs

import data to determine whether ***. Therefore, it is likely that official import quantities for Thailand in 2006 are

indeed overstated, and thus those data should be considered with caution.

 7

 The majority of the increase in imports of subject PRCBs from Malaysia in 2008 was accounted for by ***.

IV-1
Table IV-1

PRCBs: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Subject sources:

China *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Thailand 5,789,506 11,034,532 17,037,139 5,899,864 7,794,664 3,655,709

Subtotal, subject 12,618,338 17,574,754 23,526,589 10,574,169 13,655,013 8,910,671

Nonsubject sources:1

China2 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia3 *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 4,109,628 4,670,360 12,858,117 19,421,619 17,530,327 14,008,206

Subtotal, nonsubject 51,372,577 9,478,088 18,410,756 24,961,782 22,709,208 21,631,674

Total 17,755,595 27,052,842 41,937,345 35,535,951 36,364,221 30,542,345

Value (1,000 dollars)

4

Subject sources:

China *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Thailand 40,829 79,837 100,939 76,002 100,492 39,059

Subtotal, subject 95,437 146,402 159,707 142,671 170,429 90,616

Nonsubject sources:1

China2 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia3 *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 36,342 44,641 130,132 238,470 249,165 142,143

Subtotal, nonsubject 43,237 68,898 190,188 323,881 333,969 214,511

Total 138,674 215,300 349,895 466,552 504,398 305,127

Table continued on following page.

IV-2
Table IV-1--Continued

PRCBs: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Unit value (per 1,000 bags)

4

Subject sources:

China $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Thailand 7.05 7.24 5.92 12.88 12.89 10.68

Subtotal, subject 7.56 8.33 6.79 13.49 12.48 10.17

Nonsubject sources:1

China2 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia3 *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 8.84 9.56 10.12 12.28 14.21 10.15

Subtotal, nonsubject 8.42 7.27 10.33 12.98 14.71 9.92

Average 7.81 7.96 8.34 13.13 13.87 9.99

Share of quantity (percent)

Subject sources:

China *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Thailand 32.6 40.8 40.6 16.6 21.4 12.0

Subtotal, subject 71.1 65.0 56.1 29.8 37.6 29.2

Nonsubject sources:1

China2 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia3 *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 23.1 17.3 30.7 54.7 48.2 45.9

Subtotal, nonsubject 28.9 35.0 43.9 70.2 62.4 70.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on following page.

IV-3
Table IV-1--Continued

PRCBs: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Share of value (percent)

Subject sources:

China *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Thailand 29.4 37.1 28.8 16.3 19.9 12.8

Subtotal, subject 68.8 68.0 45.6 30.6 33.8 29.7

Nonsubject sources:1

China2 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia3 *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 26.2 20.7 37.2 51.1 49.4 46.6

Subtotal, nonsubject 31.2 32.0 54.4 69.4 66.2 70.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 In the 2004 antidumping duty investigations on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, three firms were

found by Commerce to have de minimis dumping margins and thus were excluded from the antidumping duty

orders: Hang Lung Plastic Manufactory and Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (China), and Bee Lian

Plastic Industries (Malaysia). 2

 Imports from Chinese producer Hang Lung were *** to the United States. These represent less than ***

percent of total exports from Hang Lung to the United States ***. 3

 Imports from Malaysian producer Bee Lian were reported from *** to the United States. These represent less

than *** percent of total exports from Bee Lian to the United States ***. 4

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from proprietary Customs data and official Commerce statistics.

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic

like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four

factors: (1) the degree of fungibility, including specific customer requirements and other quality-related

questions; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets; (3) common channels of

distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Channels of distribution and fungibility are

discussed in Part II of this report. The remaining factors are addressed below.

Geographical Markets

With regard to geographical market overlap, U.S. imports of PRCBs from China entered multiple

U.S. ports of entry, dispersed across the nation. The overwhelming majority of imports entered via the

ports of Los Angeles, CA, New York, NY, and Chicago, IL. U.S. imports of PRCBs from Malaysia also

entered multiple U.S. ports of entry, dispersed across the nation. The overwhelming majority entered via

IV-4
the ports of Los Angeles, CA and New York, NY. Lastly, U.S. imports of PRCBs from Thailand also

entered multiple U.S. ports of entry, dispersed across the nation, and the overwhelming majority entered

via the ports of Los Angeles, CA, New York, NY, and Seattle, WA. 

Simultaneous Presence in the Market

Commerce statistics and pricing data submitted to the Commission show that imports from China,

Malaysia, and Thailand entered the United States in every month of 2009, the last 12 months for which

data were collected.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Reported inventories held by U.S. importers of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand are

shown in table IV-2.8

 The increase in inventories of imports from China over the period for which data

were collected is accounted for in large part by importers ***, which increased their imports from China

during the same period. Importers *** accounted for most of the increase in inventories of imports from

Malaysia. Two importers (*** and ***) accounted for the majority of inventories of imports from

Thailand. Importer *** increased its inventories in 2005, but its inventories then declined for the

remainder of the period, and were partially offset by increased inventories by importer ***, which began

importing from Thailand in 2006.

Table IV-2

PRCBs: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories for all imports, by source, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and/or Thailand for various periods after December 31,

2009. The decrease in orders after March 2010 is accounted for in part by importers ***, ***, and ***

reporting little, if any, imports beyond that month.

Table IV-3

PRCBs: U.S. importers’ current orders, by source, imported or arranged for importation after

December 31, 2009

* * * * * * *

 8 U.S. importers’ inventories of PRCBs from China and Malaysia were not broken out between subject and

nonsubject imports, so only total inventories are presented. Five companies *** that reported inventories had both

subject and nonsubject imports of PRCBs from China. One company *** that reported inventories had both subject

and nonsubject imports of PRCBs from Malaysia. One company *** that reported inventories ***.

IV-5
THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Overview

There is limited publically available information regarding production or exports of PRCBs from

China during the period for which data were collected. China is estimated to use 2 billion plastic bags a

day, or 730 billion a year.9

 The domestic interested parties assert that capacity expansions for PRCBs and

related projects have been completed, are under construction, or are planned by various firms in various

Chinese provinces during the period 2006-09.10

Effective June 1, 2008, a new regulation requiring retailers in China to charge consumers for

plastic shopping bags, or face fines, was enacted. Retailers in China can now be fined up to 10,000 yuan

($1,400) for providing free plastic bags. Under the law, retailers are allowed to set their own prices for

the bags, providing that the amount that consumers pay for the plastic bags is greater than the retailers’

cost.11 Applicable standards promulgated by the Standardization Administration of China (“SAC”)

specify that the thickness of plastic shopping bags must be at least 0.025 millimeters (1 mil) and that the

bags must carry several markings, including for re-use and safety and the name of the manufacturer, serial

number, tensile strength, and type (i.e., regular shopping bags, biodegradable shopping bags, or corn

starch-based plastic bags).12 This new regulation has had an impact on the PRCB industry in China,

including closures of some factories and decreased consumption of PRCBs. For example, Suiping

Huaqiang Plastic, reported by official Xinhua News Agency to be China’s largest plastic bag 

manufacturer, located in Henan province, closed in mid-January 2009.13 The factory had an annual

capacity of 250,000 metric tons of bags and employed 20,000 people.14 15

By June 2009, the bag regulatory impact was reported to be greatest in the supermarket and

formal retail sector. The China Chain Store and Franchise Association (“CCFA”) in Beijing, for example,

in a survey it conducted in Chinese stores in May 2009, found that foreign-owned stores like America’s

Walmart or France’s Carrefour had cut bag use by about 80 percent, while locally owned supermarkets

had reduced bag use by about 60 percent. CCFA estimated that the bag ban suggested a 40-billion bag

drop from supermarkets, but this would not have had a staggering impact on the overall bag market,

although that analysis did not include the impact of other stores or customers cutting back. Industry

officials indicated that it is difficult to gather precise figures on the law’s impact on overall bag

consumption. The CCFA reported that the bag restrictions had not hurt supermarket sales, and that

customers have become accustomed to bringing along their bags or reusing plastic bags. Daniel Li Yue,

the plastics issues coordinator for the Beijing-based Association of International Chemical Manufacturers

 9 “China trade group reports on drop in plastic bag use,” Plastics News, June 2, 2009.

 10 The domestic interested parties’ response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution, “Documentation of

Capacity Expansion in China,” exh. 2, July 31, 2009.

 11 The new regulation also imposes fines of up to 20,000 yuan if retailers fail to purchase plastic grocery bags

from legally incorporated producers, wholesalers, or importers, or if they fail to obtain related certificates and record

relevant data. 

 12 The domestic interested parties noted that producers in China that are designated for export only, can

manufacture bags of any gauge. Hearing transcript, p. 52 (Daniels).

 13 The domestic interested party contends that the company has recommenced production under the name Suiping

Huiqiang Plastic Co., Ltd, with an annual capacity of 180,000 metic tons. Domestic interested parties’ prehearing

brief, Comments on Prehearing Report, pp. 2-3.

 14 China Bans Retailers from Offering Free Plastic Bags, PackagingLaw.com, Keller and Heckman LLP,

http://www.packaginglaw.com/2090_.shtml, retrieved March 21, 2010. 

 15 China's Biggest Plastic-Bag Maker Closes Down, Xinhua Reports, Bloomberg,

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=ayzGeRNUdBcc, retrieved March 22, 2010.

IV-6
(“AICM”), said that the law has hurt some companies in the plastic bag industry, particularly the small

and mid-size companies that supplied the ultra-thin bags under 0.025 millimeters (1 mil). The AICM

group believes that the Chinese Government should take a comprehensive approach and boost the

collection of plastic bags so that they can be recycled, rather than simply restricting their use, as the

problem is thought not to be the product itself, but rather how people use it. Hong Kong, a self-governing

territory within China, was reportedly planning to implement its own bag restrictions, with major grocers

and drugstores planning to charge HK$0.50 per bag effective July 1, 2009.16 17

PRCB Operations

Two producer/exporter firms in China, Hang Lung Plastic Manufactory, Ltd. (“Hang Lung”) and

Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (“Nantong Huasheng”), were ruled by Commerce as de

minimis margin producers or exporters and were excluded from the antidumping duty order. In 2009,

these two firms accounted for approximately *** percent and *** percent of all Chinese PRCBs exported

to the United States, by quantity and value, respectively.18 19

The Commission requested data from 182 firms in China believed to be possible producers of

PRCBs. Of these firms, two firms, ***, which are subject to the antidumping duty order, provided

questionnaire responses containing useable data, and the remainder of the firms did not provide

responses.20 21 Neither of the responding firms provided useful estimates of the percentage of production

of PRCBs in China in 2009 for which they accounted. *** estimated that it accounted for *** percent of

total exports of PRCBs from China to the United States. Reported exports of PRCBs to the United States

by these firms in 2009 were equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of PRCBs from

China in that year based on official Commerce statistics. Table IV-4 presents data for reported

production and shipments of PRCBs in China.

 16 Toloken, Steven, China Trade Group Reports on Drop in Plastic Bag Use, PlasticsNews.com/China, Beijing,

June 2, 2009.

 17 Block, Ben, China Reports 66-Percent Drop in Plastic Bag Use, Worldwatch Institute, June 19, 2009,

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6167, retrieved March 21, 2010. 

 18 Based on official Commerce statistics.

 19 According to the company’s website, Hang Lung’s 40,000 square meters plastic bag manufacturing plant,

equipped with the most advanced machinery sourced from various locations across the globe, has a capacity rated at

25,000 metric tons per year. The factory is reported to have 80 different sizes of plastic film extrusion machines

equipped to produce a vast array of sizes and shapes of various plastic bags. The plant is equipped with 24 sets of

flexographic and rotogravure printing machines which could print up to 16 different colors, together with 70

different sizes of bag conversion equipment. Typical bag types produced include drawstring and draw tape soft

loop bags, fold-over die-cut, standard die-cut, patch handle die-cut with flat-tube and rope handles, t-shirt, and rigid

bridge types. http://www.hanglungonline.com, retrieved March 18, 2010.

Nantong Huasheng is reported to have three manufacturing sites with over 100 extrusion units, and an

annual bag production capacity of over 40,000 metric tons (88.2 million pounds). Nantong Huasheng’s product

portfolio includes a variety of t-shirt bags, can liners, side-sealed bags, die cut bags, draw-tape bags, soft loop bags,

gloves, aprons, and retail products for home and pets applications. Nantong Huasheng reported that the firm’s

customers are 100-percent offshore, including the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc. 

Furthermore, Nantong Huasheng reported that it has been qualified as a supplier of shopping bags by many large

chain stores such as Walmart, Target, Dollar Tree, Subway, and Dollar General. In addition, Nantong Huasheng

notes that it is gearing its product portfolio to meet the rising new green technology environmental demands of

customers, and has developed a 100-percent biodegradable modified resin composite specifically for film blowing. 

http://www.huasheng-nt.com/eng/about.php, retrieved March 18, 2010. 

 20 ***.

 21 *** provided data for 2008 and 2009 only.

IV-7
In addition to these firms, United Power Packaging, Ltd. (“United Power”), ***,22 possessed a

reported 170,000 square feet production facility with an average annual production capacity of 6,600

metric tons (14.6 million pounds), employs 500 employees, and utilizes more than 30 extrusion machines. 

Product types produced include bags with flexloop handles, trifold handles, loop handles, frosted-tube

handles, rope handles, European-style handles, and two different types of cardboard inserts. United

Power’s shipments are concentrated in North America, with the remainder in Europe, Canada, and Japan. 

In addition, the firm also has local clients in Hong Kong.23 24 

Table IV-4

PRCBs: China’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN MALAYSIA

Overview

One producer/exporter in Malaysia, Bee Lian Plastic Industries, Sdn. Bhd. (“Bee Lian”) was

ruled by Commerce as a de minimis margin producer or exporter and was excluded from the antidumping

duty order. In 2009, Bee Lian accounted for approximately *** percent and *** percent of all Malaysian

PRCBs exported to the United States, by quantity and value, respectively. The Malaysian interested

parties estimated that two other firms, Euro Plastics Malaysia and Zhin Hin Plastic Manufacturer,

accounted for the majority of the remaining exports from Malaysia to the United States.25 26 These two

firms’ combined exports to the United States were estimated to be no more than *** metric tons, or ***

pounds, since 2004.27 Bee Lian has a capacity of 36,000 metric tons (79.4 million pounds), and has plans

to increase its capacity for all bags, including PRCBs by an additional 40,000 metric tons (88.2 million

pounds).28 Bags produced by Bee Lian include t-shirts bags, merchandise bags, cascade bags, and straight

cut bags. The Malaysian interested parties stated that all of its Task Force members are family-owned;

most are Malaysian-owned, and four (Euro SME, Sido Bangun, Simply Packaging, and Ten Optimum)

are foreign-owned.29

PRCB Operations

The Commission requested data from 27 firms in Malaysia believed to be possible producers of

PRCBs. Of these firms, 16 firms, all of which are subject to the antidumping duties, provided

questionnaire responses containing useable data and 11 did not provide responses. The responding firms 

 22 Based on official Commerce statistics.

 23 http://www.united-power.com.hk/new/aboutus.html, retrieved March 19, 2010.

 24 http://www.tradeeasy.com/supplier/78325/united-power-packaging.html, retrieved March 19, 2010.

 25 ***. Email from ***, March 9, 2010. Zhin Hin Plastic Manufacturer did not provide a response to the

Commission’s foreign producer’s questionnaire or respond to the Commission staff’s request for information.

 26 According to proprietary customs data, *** accounted for the majority of subject PRCB imports from Malaysia

in 2008 and 2009. 

 27 The Malaysian interested parties’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution, p. 4.

 28 http://www.beelianplastic.com/home.htm, retrieved March 22, 2009.

 29 Hearing transcript, p. 117 (Sim) and the Malaysian interested parties’ posthearing brief, p. 15.

IV-8
estimated that in 2009 they accounted for *** percent of production of PRCBs in Malaysia and ***

percent of exports of PRCBs from Malaysia to the United States. Reported exports of PRCBs to the

United States by these firms in 2009 were equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of

PRCBs from Malaysia in that year based on official Commerce statistics. 

Four firms reported that they had plant openings or expansions since January 1, 2004.30 ***

reported that *** a production capacity of *** metric tons (*** pounds) per month, and in 2007 expanded

its capacity to *** metric tons (*** pounds) per month. *** reported a plant opening in 2005 and

production expansion.31 *** reported expansions in capacity in 2007 and 2009 to “***.”

Malaysian producer Sido Bangun is a sister company to Indonesian producer PT. Sido Bangun,

which recently became subject to an antidumping duty margin of 85.17 percent on its PRCB exports to

the United States. PT. Sido Bangun reported a PRCB capacity of *** bags in 2008 (the last full year for

which data were requested from it), production of *** bags, exports to the United States of *** bags, and

exports to all other markets of *** bags. Sido Bangun (Malaysia) reported a PRCB capacity of *** bags

in 2009, and production of *** bags; ***. It is not known to what extent, if any, exports to the United

States may shift from PT. Sido Bangun in Indonesia to Sido Bangun in Malaysia.

During the 2004-09 period, reported capacity, production, and total shipments made by

Malaysian producers increased.32 33 There were no reported exports to the United States during this

period, while exports to all other sources increased, largely driven by increased exports to the EU. Three

producers, ***, stated that they started producing PRCBs during the period for which data were collected,

representing an additional *** bags or more than *** percent of the increase in capacity. Table IV-5

presents data for reported capacity, production, and shipments of PRCBs in Malaysia.34

 30 *** reported a plant opening and an expansion in production capacity but did not provide further details

regarding these.

 31 However, *** reported that the expansion was “***.” 

 32 *** reported production higher than its capacity, so staff used production as an estimate for capacity. The

estimated capacity for *** is less than *** percent of total Malaysian capacity in any single year.

 33 One change in the production of PRCBs reported by twelve firms was the increased market demand for

recycled or biodegradable bags. 

 34 *** the increase in capacity and production between 2008 and 2009.

IV-9
Table IV-5

PRCBs: Malaysia’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Capacity 7,835,130 8,299,530 9,099,213 10,504,232 11,263,546 13,781,042

Production 7,245,953 7,451,308 8,292,580 9,800,696 10,081,647 11,684,014

End-of-period inventories 363,721 504,783 668,906 419,397 525,802 658,261

Shipments:

Internal consumption 000000

Home market 904,491 944,136 927,292 963,035 950,878 1,010,787

Exports to--

The United States 000000

European Union 4,322,211 4,125,995 4,752,382 6,390,043 6,285,541 8,211,652

Asia 1,521,431 1,663,920 1,763,820 1,762,522 1,828,497 1,617,380

All other markets 572,314 569,998 678,644 946,052 903,950 778,611

Total exports 6,415,956 6,359,913 7,194,846 9,098,617 9,017,988 10,607,643

Total shipments 7,320,447 7,304,049 8,122,138 10,061,652 9,968,866 11,618,430

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 92.5 89.8 91.1 93.3 89.5 84.8

Inventories to production 5.0 6.8 8.1 4.3 5.2 5.6

Inventories to total shipments 5.0 6.9 8.2 4.2 5.3 5.7

Share of total quantity of

shipments:

Internal consumption 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Home market 12.4 12.9 11.4 9.6 9.5 8.7

Exports to--

The United States 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

European Union 59.0 56.5 58.5 63.5 63.1 70.7

Asia 20.8 22.8 21.7 17.5 18.3 13.9

All other markets 7.8 7.8 8.4 9.4 9.1 6.7

Total exports 87.6 87.1 88.6 90.4 90.5 91.3

Note.–***.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Beginning-of-period inventories plus production less

total shipments did not reconcile to end-of-period inventories for five firms.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

IV-10
THE INDUSTRY IN THAILAND

PRCB Operations

The Commission requested data from 33 firms in Thailand believed to be possible producers of

PRCBs. Of these firms, five firms provided questionnaire responses containing useable data and the 

remainder did not provide responses. Three of the responding firms estimated that in 2009 they

accounted for *** percent of production of PRCBs in Thailand,35 and four firms estimated that in 2009

they accounted for *** percent of exports of PRCBs from Thailand to the United States.36 Reported

exports of PRCBs to the United States by these firms in 2009 were equivalent to *** percent of the

quantity of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Thailand in that year based on official Commerce statistics. 

Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co (“TPBI”), along with responding Thai producer ***, is believed

to account for *** PRCB exports from Thailand to the United States during the period for which data

were collected. TPBI has a fully in-line production operation, with over 200 printing machines and 230

bag-making machines. TPBI manufactures a wide range of PRCBs for leading retailers, including

Walmart, Radio Shack, Value City, and Target.37

Table IV-6 presents data for the reporting producers and exporters of PRCBs in Thailand. 

Reported capacity and production in Thailand decreased between 2004 and 2009, principally after 2006. 

This decrease was largely accounted for by Thai producer ***, which reported ***.38 The quantity of

exports to the United States fluctuated *** during 2004-09, but ended the period at virtually the same

level as in 2004. Total exports decreased irregularly during 2004-09.

Table IV-6

PRCBs: Thailand’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

The only known trade remedy case related to plastic bags conducted outside of the United States

was the antidumping duty investigations conducted by the European Union in 2005-06. These

investigations involved the importation of bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and antidumping

duty orders were put into place in September 2006 on plastic bags from China and Thailand.39 These

orders remain in place. 

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

There is little publicly available information regarding international production or exports of

PRCBs during the period for which data were collected. Countries other than China, Malaysia, and

Thailand known to be large producers of PRCBs include Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Other

 35 *** provided responses.

 36 *** provided responses. *** represented the *** majority of this estimate with *** percent of exports to the

United States.

 37 http://www.tpbi.co.th, retrieved March 21, 2010, and http://www.packaginggateway.com/contractors/materials/tpbi/, retrieved March 30, 2010.

 38 *** also reported *** capacity utilization, ranging from *** percent to *** percent, than did the other

responding firms, which ranged from *** percent to *** percent.

 39 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1425/2006.

IV-11
countries believed to be producing PRCBs on a smaller scale include Canada, Korea, Japan, and Turkey.40

The domestic interested party contends that the imposition of the antidumping orders on PRCBs

from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, “clearly led to a shift in sourcing as imports from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam have increased significantly in recent years.”41 Information on the industries

producing PRCBs in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam is available in the Commission’s staff report, as

revised, in the recent final antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on PRCBs from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam.

The Global PRCBs Market

Approximately 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed annually worldwide.42 As

discussed in greater detail under “Supply and Demand Considerations” in Part II of this report, in recent

years increasing numbers of jurisdictions around the world, including in the United States, have taken

action to reduce the reliance on PRCBs, including through the use of bans and taxes and/or the use of

alternative types of bags such as the non-woven polypropylene bag. Among these jurisdictions are

several countries in the European Union, including Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Norway, and the

Republic of Ireland, which in 2002 was the first country to impose a bag tax. The domestic interested

parties, citing these actions as well as responses to the Commission’s questionnaires, contend that global

demand, including in Europe, will decline in the next few years.43 The Malaysian interested parties

estimate that PRCB demand in the European Union should remain stable, while PRCB demand in Asia

will increase by 30 percent and demand in non-U.S. emerging markets (Africa, the Middle East, Russia,

and South America) and non-U.S. markets overall will increase by 15 percent.44 In August 2009, analysts

at *** forecast average annual growth of high-density polyethylene (“HDPE”) bags demand of about ***

percent in the United States during the 5-year period 2008-2013, and about *** percent for HDPE film in

Western Europe.45 

 40 Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final): Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags (“PRCBs”) from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam--Revision to the Staff Report, memorandum INV-HH-037, April 14, 2010, p. VII-8.

 41 The domestic interested parties’ response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution, p. 19.

 42 Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exh. 8.

 43 Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, pp. 29-30.

 44 Malaysian interested parties’ posthearing brief, p. 12.

 45 ***. 

IV-12
PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Materials

The main raw material used in the production of PRCBs is polyethylene resin. The prices of

three types of polyethylene resin (high-density polyethylene, low-density polyethylene, and linear lowdensity polyethylene - HDPE, LDPE, and LLDPE, respectively) increased irregularly through August

2008, decreased rapidly through January 2009, and then increased through February 2010 (figure V-1).

Raw materials accounted for *** percent of the total cost of goods sold during 2009, but were as high as

*** percent during 2008 when resin prices were at their peak (see Part III entitled Financial Experience

of U.S. Producers). Multiple U.S. producers noted in questionnaire responses that resin prices are

trending upward in 2010. Many Malaysian foreign producers reported in questionnaire responses that

their polyethylene resin is produced from petrol feedstock which is more expensive than resin from gas

feedstock used by U.S. producers. One of the responding Thai foreign producers reported that it follows

world market prices for raw materials in setting its PRCB prices. One of the responding Chinese

producers reported that it will change its PRCB sales prices if raw material prices change ***.

Figure V-1

Polyethylene resin: Average monthly U.S. price, January 2004-February 2010

Source: Compiled from data published in Plastics News.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2004200520062007200820092010

Cents 

per 

pound

HDPE/LDPE LLDPE

V-1
U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. producers generally reported that U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 1 to 10

percent of the total delivered cost of PRCBs, and averaged 3.9 percent, based on a simple average.1

Twenty of twenty-six responding importers reported inland transportation costs between 1 and 10 percent

(averaging 4.7 percent), and the other 6 importers reported costs between 17 and 30 percent (averaging

22.5 percent); the overall average was 8.8 percent.

All responding U.S. producers and 26 of 30 responding importers reported arranging delivery to

their customers. U.S. producers reported that 12.5 percent of their PRCBs were shipped less than 100

miles; 56.4 percent between 101 and 1,000 miles; and 31.1 percent more than 1,000 miles, based on a

simple average. Importers reported shipping 46.7 percent of their PRCBs less than 100 miles, 29.6

percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and 23.7 percent more than 1,000 miles.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

U.S. producers reported using a variety of methods of determining prices, which can depend on

the size of the customer. Overall, 10 of 13 responding producers use transaction-by-transaction

negotiations, 8 have contracts for multiple shipments, 3 use price lists, 4 sell via the internet, and 7

reported other methods of determining prices.2

 Additionally, two producers stated that for certain

contracts, prices adjust with changes in resin prices. Twenty-one of 34 responding importers set prices on

a transaction-by-transaction basis, 8 use contracts for multiple shipments, 7 use price lists, 3 sell via the

internet, and 5 reported other methods of price setting.3

 According to petitioners, 75 percent of U.S.

consumption of PRCBs is supplied through internet bidding events.4

 One common type of bidding event

is the internet reverse auction administered by a third-party administrator that receives a commission

based on the difference between the starting bid and final bid. In these reverse auctions, pre-qualified

suppliers submit a pre-bid and the lowest price then will often become the starting price for the auction. 

Bidders are anonymous during the auctions, which may last from 15 minutes to several hours. 

According to petitioners, some purchasers have moved away from these internet reverse auctions to other

types of internet bidding to avoid the administrative costs.5

Eight of 13 responding U.S. producers reported that they sell PRCBs via long-term contracts

(over 12 months in length), 11 sell via short-term contracts (12 months or less in length), and 12 sell on

the spot market. Based on a simple average, 19.7 percent of U.S. producers’ sales were based on longterm contracts, 33.6 percent were short-term contracts, and 46.7 percent were spot sales. In contrast,

importers reported selling primarily on a spot basis; based on a simple average, 3.6 percent of importers’

sales were long-term contracts, 23.4 percent were short-term contracts, and 73.0 percent were spot sales.

The eight producers that sell via long-term contracts reported that contracts are up to two years in

length. Five producers noted that prices could be renegotiated or changed during the contract. One

producer noted that prices are fixed, four noted that quantities are fixed, and three noted that both price

 1 ***.

 2

 Multiple producers reported that they use more than one method of determining prices.

 3

 As with the producers, multiple importers reported that they use more than one method of determining prices.

 4

 Hearing transcript, p. 31 (Rizzo), and domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 14.

 5

 Information regarding internet auctions is from the domestic interested parties’ hearing testimony. Hearing

transcript, pp. 84-88 (Bazbaz, Daniels, and Rizzo).

V-2
and quantities are fixed. Four producers indicated that their long-term contracts usually have a meet-orrelease clause. Eleven producers reported that their short-term contracts vary in length from 3 months to

a year, do not typically have price renegotiations (eight producers) but may have meet-or-release clauses

(eight producers), and fix both prices and quantities (six producers). 

Sales Terms and Discounts

All 12 responding U.S. producers reported sales terms of net 30 days; 8 of these firms offer

discounts of 1 to 2 percent for payment within 10 days. Most importers also reported sales terms of net

30 days, with four importers offering a discount for early payment. Nine producers generally quote prices

on a delivered basis, and four generally quote prices on an f.o.b. basis. Among responding importers, 16

generally quote f.o.b. prices and 13 generally quote delivered prices. With respect to price discounts

other than early payment discounts, 9 of 13 producers reported offering some type of volume discount,

although these discounts may apply to as few as one customer. More than half of responding importers

(19 of 34) do not offer discounts while 14 offer quantity discounts. 

Bidding

Purchasers were asked whether they purchased PRCBs using a bidding process, including reverse

internet auctions or other internet bid solicitations, and if so, to provide details of their four largest

bidding events since January 2004. Fifteen of 48 responding purchasers indicated that they had engaged

in such activity; 14 firms provided details (table V-1).6

 These purchasers provided information regarding

34 bidding events; the winning bids accounted for 5.4 percent of the value of apparent consumption of

PRCBs in 2004-09. The country/countries of the lowest bidder was the country/countries of the winning

bidder in 23 of the 28 reported bidding events for which purchasers reported both data points.7

 Fifteen of

the winning bids were won at least partially by imports from China, Malaysia, and/or Thailand, and 12 of

the winning bids were won at least partially by U.S. producers.8

 Factors other than price considered by

the purchasers were bags characteristics (bag quality, feel, thickness, print quality, appearance, and tensile

strength); logistics (availability, delivery time, and supply chain flexibility); supplier-specific factors

(customer service level, financial health of the supplier, past experience, production capacity, references,

and reliability); and financial considerations (ability to index prices monthly and freight charges). 

Table V-1

PRCBs: Submitted data regarding bidding events reported by purchasers

* * * * * * *

PRICE DATA

The Commission asked U.S. producers and importers to provide quarterly data for the total

quantity and f.o.b. value of commercial shipments of certain PRCBs shipped to unrelated U.S. customers

during 2004-09. Importers that imported directly for their own use were asked to provide quarterly data

for the total quantity and delivered value (to their first domestic warehouse or storage facility) of certain

PRCBs. The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:

 6 Purchaser *** reported that it had engaged in bidding, but did not provide any further data. 

 7

 These 23 events include two instances in which purchasers listed multiple countries as the “source of the lowest

bid” and the same countries as the “source of the winning bid.”

 8

 ***. 

V-3
Product 1.--“T-shirt sack”-style bag with (a) dimensions 8-9" width x 4-6" side x 15-17" length,

(b) 11-13 microns film thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed with one or two

colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Typically, these

PRCBs weigh between 4.7 and 7.9 pounds per 1,000 bags.

Product 2.--“T-shirt sack”-style bag with (a) dimensions 10-11" width x 6.5-7" side x 17-20"

length, (b) 12-15 microns film thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed with one or

two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Typically,

these PRCBs weigh between 8.1 and 13.2 pounds per 1,000 bags.

Product 3.--“T-shirt sack”-style bag with (a) dimensions 11.5-12" width x 6.5-7" side x 20-22"

length, (b) 12-15 microns film thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed with one or

two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Typically,

these PRCBs weigh between 10.2 and 15.3 pounds per 1,000 bags.

Product 4.--“T-shirt sack”-style bag with (a) dimensions 15-16" width x 7-9" side x 27-30"

length, (b) 15-18 microns film thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed with one or

two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Typically,

these PRCBs weigh between 21.8 and 33.4 pounds per 1,000 bags.

Product 5.--Die-cut-handle-style merchandise bags with (a) dimensions 15-17" width x 3-5" side

x 20-25" length, (b) 20-24 microns film thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed

with at least two colors on at least one side (5-50 percent ink coverage for entire

bag).

Product 6.--Die-cut-handle-style merchandise bags with (a) dimensions 15-18" width x 17-19"

length, (b) 31-39 microns film thickness, (c) no side gussets, and (d) with or without

a bottom gusset of up to 6" (3" plus 3"), and (e) printed with at least two colors on

at least one side (5-50 percent ink coverage for entire bag).

Product 7.--Merchandise or carry-out bag with (a) rope drawstring attached, (b) dimensions

15-18" width x 16-20" length (with or without bottom gusset), (c) 30-60 microns film

thickness, and (d) print with 1-6 colors (5-100 percent ink coverage for entire bag). 

Product 8.--Heat-sealed, square-bottomed merchandise or carry-out bag with or without a

bottom cardboard insert, having (a) dimensions 11-18" width x 4-8" side x 12-20"

length (with or without side gusset, (b) 50-150 microns film thickness, (d) separately

applied flat flexible plastic handle, and (e) print with 1-6 colors on up to 5 sides (5-

100 percent ink coverage for entire bag). 

Usable sales pricing data were reported by thirteen U.S. producers, 11 importers of PRCBs from

subject Chinese producers, and 9 importers of PRCBs from Thailand; no sales price data were reported

V-4
for imports from Malaysia.9

 Not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Sales price

data are shown in tables V-2 to V-9 and figures V-2 to V-9, and purchase price data reported by direct

importers (firms importing PRCBs for own use) are shown in appendix E. Reported sales price data

accounted for 62.4 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs, 10.6 percent of U.S. subject

imports of PRCBs from China, and 31.5 percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Thailand in 2004-09 on

a value basis.10 Product 3, the largest by value of the 8 products, accounted for 83 percent of the value

reported for products 1-8 by U.S. producers and also by importers of product from Thailand, and 32

percent of the value reported by importers of subject product from China.

 9 The following U.S. producers reported usable price data: ***. ***.

The following importers reported usable price data for sales of PRCBs imported from subject suppliers in

China: ***. The following importers reported usable price data for sales of PRCBs imported from Thailand: ***.

***. 

 10 Purchase price data for direct imports reported by *** accounted for an additional 0.7 percent of subject

imports from China, 49.1 percent of subject imports from Malaysia, and 6.5 percent of imports from Thailand, on a

value basis.

V-5
Table V-2

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1,1

 and

margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, 2004-09

Period

United States China (subject) Thailand

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. $1.03 996,153 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.91 1,258,702 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 0.86 1,490,009 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 1.02 996,407 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.97 1,365,631 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 0.92 1,566,664 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.13 2,194,909 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 1.12 1,608,212 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 1.02 1,974,064 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 1.00 1,932,698 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 0.93 1,082,562 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 1.15 2,108,346 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 1.37 1,795,934 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.40 1,738,007 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 1.54 962,768 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 1.49 1,362,815 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 1.50 1,675,215 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.50 1,210,368 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 1.33 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 1.34 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 1.28 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.22 1,621,535 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 "T-shirt sack"-style bag with (a) dimensions 8-9" width x 4-6" side x 15-17" length, (b) 11-13 microns film

thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed with one or two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for

entire bag). Typically, these PRCBs weigh between 4.7 and 7.9 pounds per 1,000 bags.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-6
Table V-3

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, and

margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

V-7
Table V-4

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3,1

 and

margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, 2004-09

Period

United States China (subject) Thailand

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. $0.67 108,796,995 $0.62 1,451,545 6.4 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.67 122,428,779 0.68 1,335,644 (2.6) *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 0.69 123,807,374 0.70 1,615,768 (1.8) *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 0.77 135,121,765 0.76 683,446 1.1 *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 0.89 110,861,839 0.76 405,845 14.2 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.85 129,250,134 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 0.81 138,253,986 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 0.97 149,357,166 0.90 671,728 7.7 *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 0.96 122,036,770 1.03 802,912 (7.1) *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.89 139,627,966 0.98 978,142 (10.0) *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 0.89 148,495,366 1.11 699,990 (25.3) *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 0.89 132,567,619 1.09 593,141 (22.7) *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 0.80 131,095,739 1.02 697,358 (28.5) *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.81 138,932,508 1.07 437,794 (32.4) *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 0.87 154,986,520 1.21 277,689 (39.1) *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 0.93 144,476,940 1.16 281,762 (25.2) *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 0.96 133,191,582 1.22 322,232 (26.3) *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.99 146,664,273 1.19 211,745 (20.4) *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 1.05 133,531,975 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.01 136,848,699 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 0.74 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.74 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 0.78 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 0.81 180,516,697 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 "T-shirt sack"-style bag with (a) dimensions 11.5-12" width x 6.5-7" side x 20-22" length, (b) 12-15 microns film

thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed with one or two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for

entire bag). Typically, these PRCBs weigh between 10.2 and 15.3 pounds per 1,000 bags.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-8
Table V-5

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4,1

 and

margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, 2004-09

Period

United States China (subject) Thailand

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. $0.76 3,598,487 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.75 3,563,214 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 0.78 3,761,496 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 0.82 7,153,128 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 0.88 4,330,922 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.88 3,654,212 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 0.86 4,156,029 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.03 6,950,875 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 0.99 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.95 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 0.94 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 0.89 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 0.87 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.88 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 0.93 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 0.95 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 1.05 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 1.07 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 1.13 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.11 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 0.84 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 0.77 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 0.78 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 0.84 10,240,040 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 "T-shirt sack"-style bag with (a) dimensions 15-16" width x 7-9" side x 27-30" length, (b) 15-18 microns film

thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed with one or two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for

entire bag). Typically, these PRCBs weigh between 21.8 and 33.4 pounds per 1,000 bags.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-9
Table V-6

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5, and

margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 6, and

margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Table V-8

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 7, and

margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Table V-9

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 8, and

margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 1 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 2 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Figure V-4

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 3 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Figure V-5

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 4 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

V-10
Figure V-6

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 5 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Figure V-7

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 6 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Figure V-8

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 7 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Figure V-9

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 8 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Pricing comparisons between different sources of PRCBs are complicated by the fact that each of

the eight pricing product definitions encompasses a range of sizes, and hence weights, of bags. This can

cause the weight of the unit of measure (1,000 bags) to vary considerably. However, due to the nature of

PRCBs and purchaser-specific preferences, a single-size pricing product would not yield an accurate

portrayal of the market. Different manufacturers’ formulations of inputs can yield differing strengths

and/or elasticity for the size/thickness of a PRCB. Thus, differing sizes and thicknesses of bags can

compete for the same account. Furthermore, if a purchaser wants a certain bag with a specific capacity, it

may be willing to accept variations in the length, width, and depth of the PRCBs to achieve that capacity. 

Accordingly, some variation in size is necessary to account for these flexibilities. To account for some of

these differences, price data presented herein are on a weight (per-pound) basis rather than on a numberof-bags basis. Even taking this into account, different plastic formulations and PRCB silhouettes may

result in different strengths, elasticities, and other characteristics of the bag per given weight of plastic, so

some variation in pricing may result based on these factors. 

Price Trends

A summary of price trends is presented in table V-10. U.S. producer prices for seven of the eight

pricing products were 8.0 to 49.7 percent higher in the fourth quarter of 2009 compared to the first quarter

of 2004.

Table V-10

PRCBs: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-8 from the United States, China

and Thailand

* * * * * * *

V-11
Price Comparisons

Imports of PRCBs from China and Thailand undersold the U.S. product in 196 of 303 quarterly

comparisons, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.2 to 61.3 percent and averaging 22.6 percent. 

Conversely, imports of PRCBs from China and Thailand oversold the U.S. product in 107 quarterly

comparisons, with margins of overselling ranging from 0.2 to 90.0 percent and averaging 22.3 percent. A

summary of margins of underselling and overselling is presented in tables V-11 and V-12. Underselling

and overselling margins from the original investigations are summarized in table V-13. 

Table V-11

PRCBs: Instances and ranges of margins of under/overselling

Country

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent) Average

Number of

instances

Range

(percent) Average

China (subject) 115 0.4 to 54.6 26.4 64 0.3 to 81.8 21.3

Thailand 81 0.2 to 61.3 17.2 43 0.2 to 90.0 23.8

Total 196 0.2 to 61.3 22.6 107 0.2 to 90.0 22.3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked whether domestic PRCB prices had changed relative to prices of imports 

from the countries under review since 2004. Twenty of 35 responding firms indicated that prices of

domestic and imported PRCBs changed by the same amount, 11 indicated a change in relative prices, and

4 firms indicated that prices had not changed at all. Of the 11 firms indicating a change in relative prices,

9 indicated that prices of the domestic product are now relatively higher than those of imports from

China, Malaysia, and Thailand. 

U.S. producers, foreign producers, and importers were asked to compare market prices of PRCBs

in the U.S. and non-U.S. markets. Foreign producers generally reported that prices were similar in the

U.S. market, their home markets, and other markets.11 Most U.S. producers and importers did not have

information about prices in other markets.12

 11 One Chinese producer reported that the market price in Asia is usually better than in the United States and

Europe.

 12 One importer stated that U.S. prices were similar to those in Mexico, and another stated that U.S. prices are

historically 15 to 20 percent lower than those in Canada.

V-12
Table V-12

PRCBs: Number of quarters of underselling and overselling and highest and lowest margins of

underselling and (overselling), by product number

Product

Number of

quarters of

underselling

Number of

quarters of

(overselling)

Margins of underselling Margins of overselling

Average 

(percent) 

Range (percent)

Average 

(percent)

Range (percent)

Min Max Min Max

1 30 10 22.6 0.2 54.6 12.1 3.5 34.9

2 5 29 6.3 2.4 15.9 25.3 0.2 81.2

3 25 23 10.4 0.3 22.0 24.6 1.8 66.9

4 18 21 10.8 0.4 25.9 34.5 1.8 90.0

5 17 21 12.0 0.9 30.0 9.5 0.3 28.1

6 34 2 25.3 6.8 39.2 18.3 3.7 32.8

7 24 1 29.4 7.7 45.8 1.6 1.6 1.6

8 43 0 34.9 5.1 61.3 -- -- -- 

Total 196 107 22.6 0.2 61.3 22.3 0.2 90.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table V-13

PRCBs: Instances and ranges of margins of under/overselling from the original investigations

Country

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances Range (percent)

Number of

instances Range (percent)

China 55 0.2 to 54.9 29 0.1 to 61.5

Malaysia 38 0.3 to 60.3 30 0.4 to 51.0

Thailand 17 0.0 to 39.7 32 3.9 to 198.2

Total 110 0.0 to 60.3 91 0.1 to 198.2

Note--Price data for the original investigations were for the period January 2001 to December 2003. Comparisons

are based on unit values in dollars per pound.

Source: Staff report from the original investigations (January 30, 2004).

V-13
 
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

31750 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 09–5–198, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

Competitive oil and gas lease 

WYW156543 for land in Converse 

County, Wyoming. The petition was 

filed on time and was accompanied by 

all the rentals due since the date the 

lease terminated under the law. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. 

Weaver, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals 

Adjudication, at (307) 775–6176. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee 

has agreed to the amended lease terms 

for rentals and royalties at rates of 

$10.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per 

year, and 162⁄3 percent, respectively. 

The lessee has paid the required $500 

administrative fee and $163 to 

reimburse the Department for the cost of 

this Federal Register notice. The lessee 

has met all the requirements for 

reinstatement of the lease as set out in 

Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral 

Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 

188), and the Bureau of Land 

Management is proposing to reinstate 

lease WYW156543 effective November 

1, 2008, under the original terms and 

conditions of the lease and the 

increased rental and royalty rates cited 

above. BLM has not issued a valid lease 

affecting the lands. 

Julie L. Weaver, 

Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication. 

[FR Doc. E9–15658 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1043–1045 

(Review)] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

China, Malaysia, and Thailand 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on polyethylene retail carrier bags from 

China, Malaysia, and Thailand. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags from 

China, Malaysia, and Thailand would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury. Pursuant 

to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested 

parties are requested to respond to this 

notice by submitting the information 

specified below to the Commission; 1 to 

be assured of consideration, the 

deadline for responses is July 31, 2009. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

September 15, 2009. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews 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, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), 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 reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On August 9, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce issued 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

polyethylene retail carrier bags from 

China, Malaysia, and Thailand (69 FR 

48201–48204). The Commission is 

conducting reviews to determine 

whether revocation of the orders would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct full reviews or 

expedited reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are China, Malaysia, and 

Thailand. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations, the Commission found 

one Domestic Like Product consisting of 

the continuum of polyethylene retail 

carrier bags, consistent with 

Commerce’s sope. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations, 

the Commission found a single 

Domestic Industry consisting of all U.S. 

producers of polyethylene retail carrier 

bags. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty orders under review 

became effective. In these reviews, the 

Order Date is August 9, 2004. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews 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 reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigations. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official recently has advised that a fiveyear review is no longer considered the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31751 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 

207, the post employment statute for 

Federal employees, and Commission 

rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are no 

longer required to seek Commission 

approval to appear in a review under 

Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if 

the corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is July 31, 2009. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is September 15, 2009. 

All written submissions must conform 

with the provisions of sections 201.8 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules and 

any submissions that contain BPI must 

also conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 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). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information to be provided in 

response to this Notice of Institution: If 

you are a domestic producer, union/ 

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. As used below, the 

term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and e-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008, except as noted 

(report quantity data in number of bags 

and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. 

plant). If you are a union/worker group 

or trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

31752 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 09–5–201, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2008 (report 

quantity data in number of bags and 

value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008 (report quantity data 

in number of bags and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

duties). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country(ies), 

and such merchandise from other 

countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary. 

Issued: June 29, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–15636 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1046 (Review)] 

Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from 

China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on 

tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from China 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury. 

Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, 

interested parties are requested to 

respond to this notice by submitting the 

information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is July 31, 2009. Comments 

on the adequacy of responses may be 

filed with the Commission by 

September 15, 2009. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

53470 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Notices 

1On August 9, 2004, the Department published 

the following antidumping duty orders: 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags From the People’s Republic of China, 

69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty 

Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Malaysia, 69 FR 48203 (August 9, 2004); 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags From Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 

9, 2004). 

Ugine & ALZ Belgium N.V. (U&A 

Belgium). Therefore, we do not intend 

to issue liquidation instructions to U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

for entries made during the period May 

1, 2007, through April 30, 2008, until 

such time the preliminary injunction 

issued on January 16, 2009, is lifted. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following antidumping duty 

deposit rates will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of SSPC from Belgium entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of these final results, as provided 

for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For 

AMS Belgium, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate established in the final 

results of this review; (2) if the exporter 

is not a finn covered in this review, but 

was covered in a previous review or the 

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

investigation, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

established for the most recent period; 

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 

in this review, a prior review, or the 

LTFV investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the subject merchandise; and (4) if 

neither the exporter nor the 

manufacturer is a firm covered by this 

review, a prior review, or the LTFV 

investigation, the cash deposit rate will 

be 9.86 percent ad valorem, the ‘‘allothers’’ rate established in the LTFV 

investigation. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 

from Belgium, 64 FR 15476 (March 31, 

1999). These deposit rates, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Notification Regarding APOs 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). 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 sanctionable violation. 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: October 6, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Issues 

Comment 1: Whether the Department 

Incorrectly Converted Inventory Carrying 

Costs (DINVCARU). 

Comment 2: Whether to Exclude Certain 

Sales Transactions from the U.S. Sales 

Listing. 

Comment 3: Whether to Use Facts 

Otherwise Available for U.S. Other 

Transportation Costs (USOTHR1U). 

Comment 4: Whether to Use Facts 

Otherwise Available for Failing to Report a 

Certain Selling Expense. 

Comment 5: Whether to Use AMS 

Belgium’s Reported U.S. Warranty Expense. 

Comment 6: Whether to Offset Negative 

Margins. 

[FR Doc. E9–24699 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–886, A–557–813, A–549–821] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

the People’s Republic of China, 

Thailand, and Malaysia: Final Results 

of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC), Thailand, and Malaysia pursuant 

to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). See 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review, 74 FR 31412 (July 1, 2009). The 

Department has conducted expedited 

(120-day) sunset reviews for these 

orders. As a result of these sunset 

reviews, the Department finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

as indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Review’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 19, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dustin Ross or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0747 or (202) 482– 

1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2009, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 

orders 1 on PRCBs from the PRC, 

Malaysia, and Thailand pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 74 FR 

31412 (July 1, 2009) (Notice of 

Initiation). 

The Department received notices of 

intent to participate in these sunset 

reviews from the Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bag Committee and its 

individual members, Hilex Poly Co., 

LLC, Superbag Corporation, Unistar 

Plastics LLC, Command Packaging, 

Roplast Industries Inc., and Genpack 

LLC (collectively, the Committee) 

within the 15-day period specified in 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interestedparty status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as producers of a domestic like 

product in the United States. 

The Department received complete 

substantive responses to the Notice of 

Initiation from the domestic interested 

parties within the 30-day period 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 

The Department received no substantive 

responses from any respondent 

interested parties. On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and 

adequate substantive responses filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and no responses filed on behalf of 

respondent interested parties and in 

accordance with 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department is conducting expedited 

(120-day) sunset reviews of the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Notices 53471 

antidumping duty orders on PRCBs 

from the PRC, Malaysia, and Thailand. 

Scope of the Orders 

The product covered in the sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on PRCBs from the PRC, Malaysia, and 

Thailand is PRCBs which may be 

referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise 

bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. 

The subject merchandise is defined as 

non-sealable sacks and bags with 

handles (including drawstrings), 

without zippers or integral extruded 

closures, with or without gussets, with 

or without printing, of polyethylene 

film having a thickness no greater than 

0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 

0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no 

length or width shorter than 6 inches 

(15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches 

(101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be 

shorter than 6 inches but not longer 

than 40 inches (101.6 cm). 

PRCBs are typically provided without 

any consumer packaging and free of 

charge by retail establishments, e.g., 

grocery, drug, convenience, department, 

specialty retail, discount stores, and 

restaurants, to their customers to 

package and carry their purchased 

products. The scopes of the orders 

exclude (1) polyethylene bags that are 

not printed with logos or store names 

and that are closeable with drawstrings 

made of polyethylene film and (2) 

polyethylene bags that are packed in 

consumer packaging with printing that 

refers to specific end-uses other than 

packaging and carrying merchandise 

from retail establishments, e.g., garbage 

bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. 

As a result of changes to the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), imports of the 

subject merchandise are currently 

classifiable under statistical category 

3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. 

Furthermore, although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

descriptions of the scopes of the orders 

are dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from the People’s Republic of 

China, Malaysia, and Thailand’’ from 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary John 

M. Andersen to Acting Assistant 

Secretary Ronald K. Lorentzen dated 

concurrently with this notice (Decision 

Memo), which is hereby adopted by this 

notice. The issues discussed in the 

Decision Memo include the likelihood 

of continuation or recurrence of 

dumping and the magnitude of the 

margins likely to prevail if the orders 

were revoked. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in these reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the 

main Department of Commerce 

building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on PRCBs from the PRC, 

Malaysia, and Thailand would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following weightedaverage percentage margins: 

Country Company 

Weighted-average 

margin 

(percent) 

PRC ........................................................ Dongguan Nozawa Plastics Products Co., Ltd. and United Power Packaging, 

Ltd. (formerly Dongguan Huang Jiang United Wah Plastic Bag Factory).

23.22 

Rally Plastics Company, Ltd ................................................................................... 23.85 

Shanghai Glopack Packing Company, Ltd., and Sea Lake Polyethylene Enterprise, Ltd.19.79 

Xiamen Ming Pak Plastics Company, Ltd .............................................................. 35.58 

Zhongshan Dongfeng Hung Wai Plastic Bag Manufactory .................................... 41.28 

Beijing Lianbin Plastics and Printing Company, Ltd .............................................. 25.69 

Dongguan Maruman Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. (formerly Dongguan Zhongqiao 

Combine Plastic Bag Factory).

25.69 

Good-in Holdings, Ltd ............................................................................................. 25.69 

Guangdong Esquel Packaging Co., Ltd ................................................................. 25.69 

Nan Sing Plastics, Ltd ............................................................................................ 25.69 

Ningbo Fanrong Plastics Products Co., Ltd ........................................................... 25.69 

Ningbo Huansen Plasthetics Co., Ltd .................................................................... 25.69 

Rain Continent Shanghai Company, Ltd ................................................................ 25.69 

Shanghai Dazhi Enterprise Development Company, Ltd ....................................... 25.69 

Shanghai Fangsheng Coloured Packaging Company, Ltd .................................... 25.69 

Shanghai Jingtai Packaging Material Company, Ltd ............................................. 25.69 

Shanghai Light Industrial Products Import and Export Corporation ...................... 25.69 

Shanghai Minmetals Development, Ltd .................................................................. 25.69 

Shanghai New Ai Lian Import and Export Company, Ltd ...................................... 25.69 

Shanghai Overseas International Trading Company, Ltd ...................................... 25.69 

Shanghai Yafu Plastics Industries Company, Ltd .................................................. 25.69 

Weihai Weiquan Plastic and Rubber Products Company, Ltd .............................. 25.69 

Xiamen Xingyatai Industry Company, Ltd .............................................................. 25.69 

Xinhui Henglong ..................................................................................................... 25.69 

PRC-wide Rate ....................................................................................................... 77.57 

Malaysia ................................................. Teong Chuan Plastic and Timber Sdn. Bhd .......................................................... 101.74 

Brandpak Industries Sdn. Bhd ................................................................................ 101.74 

Gants Pac Industries .............................................................................................. 101.74 

Sido Bangun Sdn. Bhd ........................................................................................... 101.74 

Zhin HinlChin un Plastic Manufacturer Sdn. Bhd ................................................... 101.74 

All Others ................................................................................................................ 84.94

Thailand .................................................. Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd ..................................................................... 2.26 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
53472 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Notices 

Country Company 

Weighted-average 

margin 

(percent) 

Universal Polybags Co. Ltd./Advance Polybags Inc./Alpine Plastics Inc./API Enterprises Inc.5.35 

TRC Polypack ......................................................................................................... 122.88 

Champion Paper Polybags Ltd ............................................................................... 122.88 

Zip-Pac Co., Ltd./King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd./King Pak/Zippac/Dpac Industrial/ 

Kingbag/KP.

122.88 

All Others ................................................................................................................ 2.80 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written 

notification of the destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

The Department is issuing and 

publishing the final results and notice 

in accordance with sections 751(c), 

752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: October 6, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–24540 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XS39 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council will convene a 

public meeting of the Texas Habitat 

Protection Advisory Panel (AP). 

DATES: The meeting will convene at 9 

a.m. on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 

and conclude no later than 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at 

the Hampton Inn & Suites HoustonClear Lake-NASA, 506 West Bay Area 

Blvd., Webster, TX 77598. 

Council address: Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 2203 

North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, 

FL 33607. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Rester, Habitat Support Specialist, Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commission; 

telephone: (228) 875–5912. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At this 

meeting, the AP will discuss a proposed 

seawall, ‘‘The Ike Dike’’, to protect 

Galveston Bay from hurricane storm 

surge, an update on oyster restoration in 

Galveston Bay, the Texas Clipper 

artificial reef project, status of the 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary Management Plan Review, 

the South Padre Island Second Access 

Project, and juvenile red snapper habitat 

use in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The Texas group is part of a three unit 

Habitat Protection Advisory Panel (AP) 

of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council. The principal role 

of the advisory panels is to assist the 

Council in attempting to maintain 

optimum conditions within the habitat 

and ecosystems supporting the marine 

resources of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Advisory panels serve as a first alert 

system to call to the Council’s attention 

proposed projects being developed and 

other activities which may adversely 

impact the Gulf marine fisheries and 

their supporting ecosystems. The panels 

may also provide advice to the Council 

on its policies and procedures for 

addressing environmental affairs. 

Although other issues not on the 

agenda may come before the panel for 

discussion, in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

those issues may not be the subject of 

formal panel action during this meeting. 

Panel action will be restricted to those 

issues specifically identified in the 

agenda listed as available by this notice. 

A copy of the agenda can be obtained 

by calling (813) 348–1630. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina 

O’Hern at the Council (see ADDRESSES) 

at least 5 working days prior to the 

meeting. 

Dated: October 14, 2009. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–25025 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN: 0648–XS15 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Eight Regional Fishery 

Management Councils will convene a 

meeting of representatives of their 

respective Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSCs) at the Wyndam Sugar 

Bay Resort, St. Thomas, United States 

Virgin Islands, November 10–13, 2009. 

DATES: The meetings will be held 

November 10–13, 2009, with travel 

dates November 9 and 14. 

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at 

the Wyndam Sugar Bay Resort, 6500 

Estate Smith Bay, St Thomas, U.S. 

Virgin Islands. 

Council address: North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 

4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 

99501–2252. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Witherell at the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 

telephone: (907) 271–2809 or Diana 

Martino at the Caribbean Fishery 

Management Council, telephone: (787) 

766–5926. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (MSA) requires 

that each Council maintain and utilize 

its SSCs to assist in the development, 

collection, evaluation, and peer review 

of information relevant to the 

development and amendment of fishery 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 54069 

1Commissioners Irving A. Williamson and Dean 

A. Pinkert found that no other circumstances 

warranted conducting a full review and voted for 

an expedited review. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on sorbitol from France would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule 

for the review will be established and 

announced at a later date. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review 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, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), 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 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 5, 2009, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to a 

full review in the subject five-year 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 31762, July 2, 2009) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission also found that other 

circumstances warranted conducting a 

full review.1 A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 14, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25249 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1043–1045 

(Review)] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

China, Malaysia, and Thailand 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on polyethylene retail 

carrier bags from China, Malaysia, and 

Thailand. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on polyethylene retail carrier 

bags from China, Malaysia, and 

Thailand would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the reviews will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of these reviews 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, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), 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 reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 5, 2009, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to 

full reviews in the subject five-year 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 31750, July 2, 2009) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response with respect to Malaysia 

was adequate and decided to conduct a 

full review with respect to the 

antidumping duty order concerning 

polyethylene retail carrier bags from 

Malaysia. The Commission found that 

the respondent interested party group 

responses with respect to China and 

Thailand were inadequate. However, the 

Commission determined to conduct full 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on polyethylene retail 

carrier bags from China and Thailand to 

promote administrative efficiency in 

light of its decision to conduct a full 

review with respect to the antidumping 

duty order concerning polyethylene 

retail carrier bags from Malaysia. A 

record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: October 14, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25248 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–149 (Third 

Review)] 

Barium Chloride From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on barium chloride from 

China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
61172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 224 / Monday, November 23, 2009 / Notices 

StatoilHydro USA E&P, Inc. 

StatoilHydro Gulf Properties Inc. 

Dated: October 30, 2009. 

S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, 

Director, Minerals Management Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–28088 Filed 11–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1043–1045 

(Review)] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

China, Malaysia, and Thailand 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on polyethylene retail 

carrier bags from China, Malaysia, and 

Thailand. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on polyethylene retail carrier 

bags from China, Malaysia, and 

Thailand would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

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, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: November 17, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nathanael Comly (202–205–3174), 

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 reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On October 5, 2009, 

the Commission determined that 

responses to its notice of institution of 

the subject five-year reviews were such 

that full reviews pursuant to section 

751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (74 

FR 54069, October 21, 2009). A record 

of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the reviews 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 these reviews 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, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

file an additional notice of appearance. 

The Secretary will maintain a public 

service list containing the names and 

addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

reviews. 

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 these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews 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 reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on April 7, 2010, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the 

reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on April 

27, 2010, 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 April 20, 2010. 

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 April 22, 

2010, 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), 207.24, 

and 207.66 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. 

Written submissions.—Each party to 

the reviews may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is April 16, 

2010. 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 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is May 6, 2010; 

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 

reviews may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the reviews on or before May 6, 2010. 

On May 28, 2010, 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 June 2, 2010, 

but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with section 

207.68 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 224 / Monday, November 23, 2009 / Notices 61173 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane, Irving A. 

Williamson, and Dean A. Pinkert determine that 

there is a reasonable indication that the domestic 

industry is materially injured by reason of subject 

imports. 

3Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, and Commissioner Deanna 

Tanner Okun determine that there is a reasonable 

indication that the domestic industry is threatened 

with material injury by reason of subject imports. 

4Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane determines that 

there is a reasonable indication that an industry 

producing TKPP is materially injured by reason of 

subject imports. 

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 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (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 reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: November 18, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–28040 Filed 11–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–473 and 731– 

TA–1173 (Preliminary)] 

Certain Sodium and Potassium 

Phosphate Salts From China 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 

1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a 

reasonable indication that an industry 

producing monopotassium phosphate 

(‘‘MKP’’), provided for in subheading 

2835.24.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule in the United States, is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury by reason of imports 

from China, that are alleged to be 

subsidized by the Government of China 

and sold in the United States at less 

than fair value (LTFV).2 3 In addition, 

the Commission determines that there is 

a reasonable indication that industries 

producing dipotassium phosphate 

(‘‘DKP’’) and tetrapotassium 

pyrophosphate (‘‘TKPP’’), provided for 

in subheadings 2835.24.00 and 

2835.39.10 respectively, of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States, are threatened with 

material injury by reason of imports 

from China, that are alleged to be 

subsidized by the Government of China 

and sold in the United States at less 

than fair value (LTFV).4 Finally, the 

Commission determines that there is no 

reasonable indication that an industry 

producing sodium tripolyphosphate 

(‘‘STPP’’), provided for in subheading 

2835.31.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury by reason of imports 

from China, that are alleged to be 

subsidized by the Government of China 

and sold in the United States at less 

than fair value (LTFV). 

Commencement of Final Phase 

Investigations 

Pursuant to section 207.18 of the 

Commission’s rules, the Commission 

also gives notice of the commencement 

of the final phase of its investigations. 

The Commission will issue a final phase 

notice of scheduling, which will be 

published in the Federal Register as 

provided in section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules, upon notice from 

the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) of affirmative preliminary 

determinations in the investigations 

under sections 703(b) or 733(b) of the 

Act, or, if the preliminary 

determinations are negative, upon 

notice of affirmative final 

determinations in those investigations 

under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the 

Act. Parties that filed entries of 

appearance in the preliminary phase of 

the investigations need not enter a 

separate appearance for the final phase 

of the investigations. Industrial users, 

and, if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level, 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the investigations. 

Background 

On September 24, 2009, a petition 

was filed with the Commission and 

Commerce by ICL Performance Products 

LP, St. Louis, MO and Prayon, Inc., 

Augusta, GA alleging that an industry in 

the United States is materially injured 

or threatened with material injury by 

reason of LTFV and subsidized imports 

of certain sodium and potassium 

phosphate salts from China. 

Accordingly, effective September 24, 

2009, the Commission instituted 

countervailing duty investigation No. 

701–TA–473 and antidumping duty 

investigation No. 731–TA–1173 

(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 October 1, 2009 (74 FR 

50817). The conference was held in 

Washington, DC, on October 15, 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 

November 9, 2009. The views of the 

Commission are contained in USITC 

Publication 4110 (November 2009), 

entitled Certain Sodium and Potassium 

Phosphate Salts From China 

(Preliminary). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 17, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–28020 Filed 11–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Review) 

On October 5, 2009, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the

subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,

19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B). 

The Commission determined that the response to its notice of institution filed by the Polyethylene

Retail Carrier Bag (“PRCB”) Committee and its individual members, consisting of six domestic

producers of PRCBs, was individually adequate. Because members of the PRCB Committee accounted

for a majority of domestic PRCB production in 2008, the Commission further determined that the

domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission determined that the response to its notice of institution filed by the Task Force

of PRCB Manufacturers of the Malaysian Plastic Manufacturers Association and its individual members,

consisting of 23 Malaysian producers and exporters of PRCBs, was individually adequate. Because these

Malaysian producers and exporters accounted for a majority of Malaysian PRCB production and exports

in 2008, the Commission further determined that the Malaysian interested party group response was

adequate. Accordingly, the Commission determined to proceed to a full review in PRCBs from Malaysia.

 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party in the reviews

concerning subject imports from China and Thailand and, therefore, determined that the respondent

interested party group responses for both countries were inadequate. However, the Commission

determined to conduct full reviews concerning subject imports from China and Thailand to promote

administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct a full review of PRCBs from Malaysia.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the

Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).
APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-1

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and

Thailand

Inv. Nos.: 731-TA-1043-1045 (Review)

Date and Time: April 27, 2010 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing Room, 500 E Street

(room 101), SW, Washington, DC.

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Joseph W. Dorn, 

King & Spalding LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Edmund W. Sim, 

Appleton Luff Pte Ltd.)

In Support of Continuation of 

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

King & Spalding LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

The Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee

and its individual members

Hilex Poly Co., LLC

Superbag Corporation

Unistar Plastics, LLC

Command Packaging

Roplast Industries, Inc.

Genpak LLC

Isaac Bazbaz, Director, Superbag Corporation

Mark Daniels, Vice President of Marketing &

Environmental Affairs, Hilex Poly Co., LLC

B-3
In Support of Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Anthony Rizzo, Vice President of Sales, Hilex

Poly Co., LLC

Michael G. Szustakowski, Consultant, King

& Spalding LLP

Joseph W. Dorn ) – OF COUNSEL

In Opposition to Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

Appleton Luff Pte Ltd.

Washington, DC

on behalf of

The Task Force of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag

Manufacturers of the Malaysian Plastic

Manufacturers Association and its members

(“Task Force”)

Edmund W. Sim )

Patrick F.J. Macrory ) – OF COUNSEL

Kelly A. Slater )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Joseph W. Dorn,

King & Spalding LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Edmund W. Sim,

Appleton Luff Pte Ltd.)

B-4
APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1

Table C-1

All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-09

(Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subject sources - Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Nonsubject sources - Importers' share:

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal, nonsubject . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total U.S. imports . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subject sources - Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Nonsubject sources - Importers' share:

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal, nonsubject . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total U.S. imports . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 China, subject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Malaysia, subject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Thailand, subject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,789,506 11,034,532 17,037,139 5,899,864 7,794,664 3,655,709 -36.9 90.6 54.4 -65.4 32.1 -53.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,829 79,837 100,939 76,002 100,492 39,059 -4.3 95.5 26.4 -24.7 32.2 -61.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.05 $7.24 $5.92 $12.88 $12.89 $10.68 51.5 2.6 -18.1 117.4 0.1 -17.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

C-3
Table C-1 --Continued

All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-09

(Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

 Subtotal, subject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,618,338 17,574,755 23,526,589 10,574,169 13,655,013 8,910,671 -29.4 39.3 33.9 -55.1 29.1 -34.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,437 146,402 159,707 142,671 170,429 90,616 -5.1 53.4 9.1 -10.7 19.5 -46.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.56 $8.33 $6.79 $13.49 $12.48 $10.17 34.5 10.1 -18.5 98.8 -7.5 -18.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 China, nonsubject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Malaysia, nonsubject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,109,628 4,670,359 12,858,117 19,421,619 17,530,327 14,008,206 240.9 13.6 175.3 51.0 -9.7 -20.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,342 44,641 130,132 238,470 249,165 142,143 291.1 22.8 191.5 83.3 4.5 -43.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.84 $9.56 $10.12 $12.28 $14.21 $10.15 14.7 8.1 5.9 21.3 15.8 -28.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal, nonsubject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,137,256 9,478,087 18,410,756 24,961,782 22,709,208 21,631,674 321.1 84.5 94.2 35.6 -9.0 -4.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,237 68,898 190,188 323,881 333,969 214,511 396.1 59.4 176.0 70.3 3.1 -35.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.42 $7.27 $10.33 $12.98 $14.71 $9.92 17.8 -13.6 42.1 25.6 13.3 -32.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,755,595 27,052,842 41,937,345 35,535,951 36,364,221 30,542,345 72.0 52.4 55.0 -15.3 2.3 -16.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,674 215,300 349,895 466,552 504,398 305,127 120.0 55.3 62.5 33.3 8.1 -39.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.81 $7.96 $8.34 $13.13 $13.87 $9.99 27.9 1.9 4.8 57.4 5.6 -28.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 1,105,764 1,843,128 2,141,470 3,587,728 4,173,052 4,291,448 288.1 66.7 16.2 67.5 16.3 2.8

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (bags per hour) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Inventory data for China and Malaysia are not available broken out between subject and nonsubject PRCBs.

 (3) Data for All Other Sources for 2006 adjusted to include PRCBs imported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0095.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Note.--Importers' inventories are based on questionnaire data and were not reported as "subject" and "nonsubject" so only total inventories are presented.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, from proprietary Customs data, and from official Commerce statistics.

C-4
Table C-2

All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (including U.S. producer Omega), 2004-09

(Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87,364,556 97,995,265 108,723,360 105,303,892 101,483,633 99,527,835 13.9 12.2 10.9 -3.1 -3.6 -1.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 79.7 72.4 61.4 66.3 64.2 69.3 -10.4 -7.3 -11.0 4.8 -2.1 5.1

 Subject sources - Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 6.3 6.0 4.4 4.9 4.8 -1.0 0.5 -0.3 -1.5 0.5 -0.1

 Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 -1.5 -1.6 -0.4 0.0 0.9 -0.3

 Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 11.3 15.7 5.6 7.7 3.7 -3.0 4.6 4.4 -10.1 2.1 -4.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 17.9 21.6 10.0 13.5 9.0 -5.5 3.5 3.7 -11.6 3.4 -4.5

 Nonsubject sources - Importers' share:

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 1.6 2.0 1.9 3.6 3.4 0.4 1.1 0.4 -0.1 1.7

 Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 4.4 3.5 3.3 3.2 4.0 3.0 3.4 -0.9 -0.2 -0.1 0.8

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 4.8 11.8 18.4 17.3 14.1 9.4 0.1 7.1 6.6 -1.2 -3.2

 Subtotal, nonsubject . . . . . . 5.9 9.7 16.9 23.7 22.4 21.7 15.9 3.8 7.3 6.8 -1.3 -0.6

 Total U.S. imports . . . . . . . 20.3 27.6 38.6 33.7 35.8 30.7 10.4 7.3 11.0 -4.8 2.1 -5.1

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,011,044 1,207,983 1,311,293 1,389,493 1,487,404 1,110,756 9.9 19.5 8.6 6.0 7.0 -25.3

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 86.3 82.2 73.3 66.4 66.1 72.5 -13.8 -4.1 -8.9 -6.9 -0.3 6.4

 Subject sources - Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 5.4 4.5 4.8 3.8 4.1 -0.8 0.5 -0.9 0.3 -1.0 0.3

 Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.0 -0.4 -0.1 0.0 0.9 -0.4

 Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 6.6 7.7 5.5 6.8 3.5 -0.5 2.6 1.1 -2.2 1.3 -3.2

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 12.1 12.2 10.3 11.5 8.2 -1.3 2.7 0.1 -1.9 1.2 -3.3

 Nonsubject sources - Importers' share:

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.6 2.3 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.5 0.3 1.6 0.7 -0.3 0.2

 Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 1.4 2.3 3.2 3.0 3.6 3.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 -0.1 0.6

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 3.7 9.9 17.2 16.8 12.8 9.2 0.1 6.2 7.2 -0.4 -4.0

 Subtotal, nonsubject . . . . . . 4.3 5.7 14.5 23.3 22.5 19.3 15.0 1.4 8.8 8.8 -0.9 -3.1

 Total U.S. imports . . . . . . . 13.7 17.8 26.7 33.6 33.9 27.5 13.8 4.1 8.9 6.9 0.3 -6.4

U.S. imports from:

 China, subject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Malaysia, subject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Thailand, subject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,789,506 11,034,532 17,037,139 5,899,864 7,794,664 3,655,709 -36.9 90.6 54.4 -65.4 32.1 -53.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,829 79,837 100,939 76,002 100,492 39,059 -4.3 95.5 26.4 -24.7 32.2 -61.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.05 $7.24 $5.92 $12.88 $12.89 $10.68 51.5 2.6 -18.1 117.4 0.1 -17.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

C-5
Table C-2 --Continued

All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (including U.S. producer Omega), 2004-09

(Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

 Subtotal, subject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,618,338 17,574,755 23,526,589 10,574,169 13,655,013 8,910,671 -29.4 39.3 33.9 -55.1 29.1 -34.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,437 146,402 159,707 142,671 170,429 90,616 -5.1 53.4 9.1 -10.7 19.5 -46.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.56 $8.33 $6.79 $13.49 $12.48 $10.17 34.5 10.1 -18.5 98.8 -7.5 -18.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 China, nonsubject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Malaysia, nonsubject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,109,628 4,670,359 12,858,117 19,421,619 17,530,327 14,008,206 240.9 13.6 175.3 51.0 -9.7 -20.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,342 44,641 130,132 238,470 249,165 142,143 291.1 22.8 191.5 83.3 4.5 -43.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.84 $9.56 $10.12 $12.28 $14.21 $10.15 14.7 8.1 5.9 21.3 15.8 -28.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal, nonsubject:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,137,256 9,478,087 18,410,756 24,961,782 22,709,208 21,631,674 321.1 84.5 94.2 35.6 -9.0 -4.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,237 68,898 190,188 323,881 333,969 214,511 396.1 59.4 176.0 70.3 3.1 -35.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.42 $7.27 $10.33 $12.98 $14.71 $9.92 17.8 -13.6 42.1 25.6 13.3 -32.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,755,595 27,052,842 41,937,345 35,535,951 36,364,221 30,542,345 72.0 52.4 55.0 -15.3 2.3 -16.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,674 215,300 349,895 466,552 504,398 305,127 120.0 55.3 62.5 33.3 8.1 -39.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.81 $7.96 $8.34 $13.13 $13.87 $9.99 27.9 1.9 4.8 57.4 5.6 -28.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 1,105,764 1,843,128 2,141,470 3,587,728 4,173,052 4,291,448 288.1 66.7 16.2 67.5 16.3 2.8

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . 77,535,428 85,101,376 83,182,701 83,232,332 79,737,217 89,549,284 15.5 9.8 -2.3 0.1 -4.2 12.3

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 72,255,007 72,693,116 70,212,269 72,320,872 66,276,349 70,188,622 -2.9 0.6 -3.4 3.0 -8.4 5.9

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 93.2 85.4 84.4 86.9 83.1 78.4 -14.8 -7.8 -1.0 2.5 -3.8 -4.7

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,608,961 70,942,423 66,786,015 69,767,941 65,119,412 68,985,490 -0.9 1.9 -5.9 4.5 -6.7 5.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872,370 992,683 961,398 922,941 983,006 805,630 -7.7 13.8 -3.2 -4.0 6.5 -18.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12.53 $13.99 $14.40 $13.23 $15.10 $11.68 -6.8 11.7 2.9 -8.1 14.1 -22.6

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,544,127 1,628,483 2,207,673 2,351,519 2,209,901 1,714,509 11.0 5.5 35.6 6.5 -6.0 -22.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,030 30,901 37,645 38,575 30,330 21,128 -4.1 40.3 21.8 2.5 -21.4 -30.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.27 $18.98 $17.05 $16.40 $13.72 $12.32 -13.6 33.0 -10.1 -3.8 -16.3 -10.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 2,461,914 2,582,387 3,800,923 4,002,589 2,976,270 2,464,790 0.1 4.9 47.2 5.3 -25.6 -17.2

 Inventories/total shipments (1) 3.5 3.6 5.5 5.5 4.4 3.5 0.0 0.1 2.0 0.0 -1.1 -0.9

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 3,249 3,394 3,495 3,160 2,971 2,883 -11.2 4.5 3.0 -9.6 -6.0 -2.9

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 7,005 6,990 7,582 7,233 6,757 6,471 -7.6 -0.2 8.5 -4.6 -6.6 -4.2

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 101,967 102,564 110,212 115,133 111,750 111,743 9.6 0.6 7.5 4.5 -2.9 0.0

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.56 $14.67 $14.54 $15.92 $16.54 $17.27 18.6 0.8 -0.9 9.5 3.9 4.4

 Productivity (bags per hour) . . 10,315 10,400 9,260 9,998 9,808 10,847 5.2 0.8 -11.0 8.0 -1.9 10.6

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.41 $1.41 $1.57 $1.59 $1.69 $1.59 12.8 0.0 11.3 1.4 5.9 -5.6

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,388,272 72,697,684 68,722,520 72,907,011 67,293,513 70,775,673 0.6 3.3 -5.5 6.1 -7.7 5.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892,052 1,021,877 995,328 968,903 1,012,514 830,559 -6.9 14.6 -2.6 -2.7 4.5 -18.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12.67 $14.06 $14.48 $13.29 $15.05 $11.74 -7.4 10.9 3.0 -8.2 13.2 -22.0

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 781,060 904,894 896,515 871,870 940,613 715,944 -8.3 15.9 -0.9 -2.7 7.9 -23.9

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . 110,992 116,983 98,813 97,033 71,901 114,615 3.3 5.4 -15.5 -1.8 -25.9 59.4

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 63,724 82,434 94,227 90,390 103,440 78,128 22.6 29.4 14.3 -4.1 14.4 -24.5

 Operating income or (loss) . . . 47,268 34,549 4,586 6,643 -31,539 36,487 -22.8 -26.9 -86.7 44.9 (3) (3)

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11.10 $12.45 $13.05 $11.96 $13.98 $10.12 -8.8 12.2 4.8 -8.3 16.9 -27.6

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . $0.91 $1.13 $1.37 $1.24 $1.54 $1.10 21.9 25.3 20.9 -9.6 24.0 -28.2

 Unit operating income or (loss) $0.67 $0.48 $0.07 $0.09 -$0.47 $0.52 -23.2 -29.2 -86.0 36.5 (3) (3)

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.6 88.6 90.1 90.0 92.9 86.2 -1.4 1.0 1.5 -0.1 2.9 -6.7

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 3.4 0.5 0.7 -3.1 4.4 -0.9 -1.9 -2.9 0.2 -3.8 7.5

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Inventory data for China and Malaysia are not available broken out between subject and nonsubject PRCBs.

 (3) Data for All Other Sources for 2006 adjusted to include PRCBs imported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0095.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Note.--Importers' inventories are based on questionnaire data and were not reported as "subject" and "nonsubject" so only total inventories are presented.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, from proprietary Customs data, and from official Commerce statistics.

C-6
APPENDIX D

COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, PURCHASERS, 

AND FOREIGN PRODUCERS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE 

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF

REVOCATION

D-1

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Effect Of The Orders

(Question II-16)

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping duty orders covering imports of China, Malaysia, and Thailand in terms of their

effect on their firms’ production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases,

employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development

expenditures, and asset values. Their responses are as follows:

***

“Before the antidumping order, we are very certain about our import cost and duty. It will help us better

plan our import shipment and inventory. After the antidumping order, the import duty is an uncertain cost

factor, especially some antidumping rate will trace back to previous shipment. It creates an uncertain

factor for the importer, we will plan import shipment and inventory more conservative.”

***

“The effect has been increasing production, increased purchase of U.S. made raw materials, packaging,

and labor force and shipments and increased customers.”

***

“From 2001 to 2003, we saw a sharp increase in imports from these three countries at very low prices. As

a result, our sales and PRCB production fell. From 2001 to 2003, our net sales value dropped by *** and

our operating income fell from ***. Given these adverse trends. we made a corporate decision to ***. 

Since 2004, we have been able to stabilize our production volume and have returned to modest

profitability and positive cash flow on our PRCB operations through 2008. The benefits of the orders

against China, Malaysia, and Thailand have diminished as imports from Taiwan, Indonesia, and Vietnam

have increased in the last few years.”

***

“The antidumping duties stopped the rapid increase in imports from those 3 countries. The duties caused

numerous customers to consider our products in place of imports. We believe that at least 1/3 of our

business anticipated in 2010 was made possible by the antidumping duties. If duties were removed,

customers would consider switching back from our products to cheaper imports.”

***

“If the antidumping order was not in place we would have not expanded our U.S. operations.”

D-3
***

“The imposition of duties was critical to the continuation of *** in the PRCB business. Imports from

these three countries more than doubled during 2001-2003. They used low prices to grab market share. 

They forced *** and other U.S. producers to either lower our prices or suffer lost sales. As a result, ***

suffered *** declines in operating income from 2001 to 2003. ***. The filing of the petition helped us in

contract negotiations with major customers and allowed us to obtain higher volumes and prices (e.g. with

***) than we would otherwise have achieved. After the duties were put in place, imports from these

countries were significantly constrained. Customers were nervous about relying on imports that could be

assessed high antidumping duties. The duties stopped the surge, allowed *** and other U.S. producers to

regain lost market share, and allowed market prices to stabilize at higher levels. Given the protection or

the antidumping orders, *** had enough confidence in the PRCB business that it ***. Unfortunately, the

benefits of the antidumping orders began to diminish when unfairly priced imports from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam began to replace the receding imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand. The

orders are still very critical, however, as is explained {in *** response to question II-17}.”

***

“From 2001 to 2003, imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand used unfairly low prices to take market

share from *** and other U.S. PRCB producers. As we stated in our response to the U.S. producers

questionnaire in the original investigation, we suffered declining sales, production, and profits as a result

of the dumped imports. From 2001 to 2003, the value of our net sales of PRCBs fell ***, and our

operating income dropped ***. The orders have provided much-needed restraints on the volume of

imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand and also have helped maintain higher U.S. market prices. 

During 2004 and 2005, we benefitted from more stable and favorable market conditions as our customers

were reluctant to source products that were subject to antidumping duties. Unfortunately, ***.”

***

“Imports from these three countries doubled from 2001 to 2003 and were priced well below our products. 

As a result, *** suffered *** which increased by over *** from 2001 to 2003. With the duties, imports

significantly decreased to *** benefit. The tightened supply and the reduction in dumped imports caused

by the duties permitted *** to increase prices. The drop in unfair imports permitted *** to proceed with a

capacity expansion ***. In addition to increasing capacity, *** increased production and employment. 

We believe that the orders permitted our present sales volume to be 20-30 percent higher than if the

orders were not in place. We note that some imports from these countries were eventually replaced by

imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam.”

D-4
***

“According to the lTC’s findings in the original investigation, from 2001 to 2003, imports from China,

Malaysia, and Thailand increased 95 percent, generally undersold domestic producers’ prices, and

increased their share of the U.S. market from 10.5 percent in 2001 to 18.6 percent in 2003. As a result,

*** lost sales, suffered lower prices, and saw its operating income drop by over *** percent in the time

where demand for PRCBs was growing. The imposition of the preliminary duties and the orders had an

immediate impact in the market. Customers who had been eager to purchase the cheap imports were

unwilling to risk the payment of high duties. The rapid increase in imports from those three countries

stopped and then imports began to decline. As a result, *** operating income, which had declined from

2001 to 2003, increased in 2004 and again in 2005 and 2006. This gave us the confidence to invest to

expand capacity and to purchase more efficient equipment. With the assistance of ***. As indicated in

that document, we achieved *** profits in 2005 and expected even higher profits in 2006 and succeeding

years. Those forecasts were all predicated on antidumping duties remaining in place against imports from

China, Malaysia, and Thailand. Following imposition of the order, *** steadily expanded capacity, from

about *** bags in 2004 to over *** bags in 2008. Our U.S. shipments value increased from $*** in

2003 to $*** by 2006, and remained at $*** in 2008. We have preserved a total of *** jobs supporting a

like number of families in our community. We do not believe that *** could have remained in business

without the antidumping orders. Thus, our entire existing operations and workforce are attributable to the

existence of the orders.”

***

“We have seen steady and consistent erosion of revenue and earnings in our retail plastic bag division

since the duties were imposed in 2004. The rate of decline is less than we were experiencing in years

preceding the duties. In fact, the rate of decline slowed significantly in 2004 and 2005 when the duties

were imposed. However, 2006 and 2007 were very difficult due primarily to the fact that imports began

to come into the U.S. at below market prices primarily from Indonesia.”

In addition, 2 U.S. producers did not respond or reported “None,” “not applicable,” “don’t know,” or

similar responses.

D-5
Anticipated Changes In Operations In The Event That The Orders Are Revoked

(Question II-17)

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe anticipated changes in the character

of their operations or organization relating to the production capacity, production, U.S. shipments,

inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures,

research and development expenditures, or asset values relating to the production of PRCBs in the

future if the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand were to be

revoked. Their responses are as follows:

***

“We would cease any consideration of investment in additional capacity.”

***

“We believe it would take about a year or two for the market to collapse once again as we experienced in

2002-2003 with the imports from China, and as we experienced in 2006-2007 with the imports from

Indonesia.”

***

“Revocation of the orders would reduce market prices and *** domestic production and employment. In

addition, *** had *** from 2001 to 2003 as unfair imports were rapidly increasing. With the duties, we

turned a profit in 2004. The unfair imports were being sold in the United States at prices that were lower

than our production costs. These low prices caused declining profitability and prevented us from

achieving our expected return on investment. The depressed prices in the market also prevented us from

increasing prices to reflect costs. As a result, we could not pursue further investment and our growth was

severely limited. If the orders were revoked, we would face a make or buy decision. From 2001 to 2003,

we ***. Overall, ***. In short, increased demand in the U.S. market was increasingly being met with

imports rather than domestic production. Even though we currently have ample space in existing

facilities to expand our production capacity, it is likely we would reduce capacity and production in the

U.S. because it would be so much cheaper to buy bags from China rather than produce them in the

United States. Only with the duties that limit dumping can we justify continued production levels in the

United States or consider investment in the new capacity and production.”

***

“We would expect a renewed surge in imports from these three countries at very low prices. We would

have to lower our prices to keep customers and we would have to downsize our operations in reaction to

lost sales. This would probably result in our exiting from the PRCB business. Thus, the continuation of

the order is critical to our PRCB operations.”

***

“All production from Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia will move back to China and export in large quantities

to U.S. and harm {the} market significantly and may force U.S. producers to close.”

D-6
***

“During the period of the original investigation, imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand

doubled from 2001 to 2003, increased their share of the U.S. market from 10.5 percent in 2001 to 18.6

percent in 2003, and forced us to lower prices and to refrain from price increases to maintain our

customers. As a result, even though demand increased 14 percent from 2001 to 2003, our operating

income fell by over *** percent from 2001 to 2003, and ***. If the antidumping orders were to be

revoked, we would expect imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand to rapidly increase, to take market

share from *** and other U.S. producers to force us to reduce our capacity utilization, lower our prices or

prevent us from raising prices to cover increasing costs of resin, and to cause us to lose profits and layoff

workers. This would happen at a time when (1) we are already suffering *** financial difficulty due to

increased imports from Indonesia, Taiwan and Vietnam, (2) resin costs are increasing, and (3) demand

trends are flat at best. As a result of the loss of *** business, we were forced to curtail production and lay

off workers starting in the 3rd quarter of 2008. Some of that business returned after we filed the petition

against imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam. However, the loss of the existing antidumping

orders would result in the rapid shift in imports to China, Malaysia, and Thailand. Loss of the order on

even one of the three covered countries would be extremely detrimental to our operations. We would

again lose sales and be forced to cut production and lay off workers. We would not move forward with

planned investments. Our existing capacity is state-of-the-art and very cost effective, but we cannot

compete with the dumped imports that would be certain to re-enter the U.S. in large volumes if the orders

were revoked.”

***

“If the antidumping order were to be revoked, we will be based on product value and cost to review and

evaluate possibility of importing from China, Malaysia, and Thailand ***. But we can not be sure if we

will import from these countries or not? It will depend on the future market situation such as resin price,

labor cost between these countries and other countries...”

***

“We would make no additional investment in the U.S. and would look to replace domestic production

with overseas production.”

***

“In our response to the U.S. producers questionnaire in the original investigation, we stated that “imports

from China, Malaysia, and Thailand are priced so low that if dumping of these products continues

unabated, we simply will not be able to stay in this business.” If the antidumping orders are revoked, we

anticipate a renewed surge of imports from these three countries at prices lower than our cost of

production. A renewed surge of such imports would again threaten the continued existence of our PRCB

business. Given the declining demand for PRCBs in other countries dues to bans, taxes, and increasing

use of reusable bags, and given the antidumping duties imposed in Europe against imports from China

and Thailand, the U.S. market is even more important to these exporters today than it was during

2001-2003. They have tremendous bag making capacity that can easily be directed at the U.S. market. 

Thus, if the orders are revoked, we anticipate that we would lose sales, market share, production,

employment, and profits. We would have no incentive to invest in our U.S. production facilities. 

Instead, we would likely have to consider *** to remain competitive. Our desire, however, is to remain a

U.S. producer of PRCBs and to maintain desperately needed jobs in ***. We ask the Commission to

continue these orders for another five years.”

D-7
***

“If the orders are revoked, we anticipate that imports from these countries will return to the U.S. market,

taking substantial market share from us and other U.S. producers. In fact, as evidenced in ***, we have

been contacted by a Chinese company stating that it wants to supply us T-shirt bags if the duties are

revoked. We know that these countries still have enormous bag making capacity. They are eager to sell

into this market, especially since demand is declining in other countries, which have been more

aggressive than the United States in imposing bans and taxes on plastic bags. In addition, imports from

China and Thailand face antidumping duties that were imposed in the European Union in September

2006. If the duties are revoked, imports from these countries will quickly gain market share by

underselling our products, as they did in 2001-2003, because price is the only means they can take market

share. We would lose sales and market share and would suffer lower margins and profits. We would

have no economic motivation to invest in U.S. production assets. Instead, we would need to consider

contracting capacity and perhaps replacing domestic production with cheaper imports. Revocation of the

orders now would be especially harmful because we have been facing injurious competition from

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, demand is not projected to grow in the near future, and resin prices

(which were relatively low in 2009) are increasing substantially in 2010. A surge of imports from China,

Malaysia, and Thailand would hit us at a time when we are already in a precarious situation.”

In addition, 2 U.S. producers did not respond or reported “None,” “not applicable,” “don’t know,” or

similar responses.

D-8
U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Effect Of The Orders

(Question II-14)

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping duty orders covering imports of China, Malaysia, and Thailand in terms of their

effect on their firms’ imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. Their responses are as

follows:

***

“Impact is unclear.”

***

“Since we could switch our source quickly to other countries, it didn’t affect our company too much.”

***

“Very little change, some of our vendors moved from China to Vietnam and now from Vietnam to

Cambodia.”

***

“Unable to compete in many instances with U.S. manufacturers.”

***

“The products that we import from ***, primarily, have minimum effect because ***.”

***

“Sales drop 50%.”

***

“Before the imposition of the duty, we were importing PRCBs from ***.”

***

“Our business has declined since the imposition of the antidumping order. We have laid off ***.”

***

“We ceased importing prior to imposition of the orders.”

***

“Before the antidumping order, we are very certain about our import cost and duty. It will help us better

plan our import shipment and inventory. After the antidumping order, the import duty is an uncertain cost

factor, especially some antidumping rate will trace back to previous shipment. It creates an uncertain

factor for the importer, we will plan import shipment and inventory more conservative.”

D-9
***

“The duties caused us to stop importing from China, except for a small volume from one producer ***.”

***

“Effectively stopped all imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.”

***

“We are decreasing purchase orders from China since 2004 due to the existing antidumping duty in

imports of PRCBs. The import quantity (1000/M) as below: ***.”

***

“We have not imported from these countries since the orders.”

***

“The existing ADD orders have the affect of making *** somewhat more cautious about where, how and

who it contracts with for PRCBs. Currently, *** requires all PRCB manufacturers it associates with to be

ADD certified, if applicable. Initially *** contracted with manufacturers in China. The same companies

have changed their manufacturing locations to other countries.”

***

“Existing anti dumping duty covering our previous imports of PRCBs from China is a great hardship to

our company and our factories. We had ***. We have been importing this product since *** and never

below fair market value. Since the dumping duty was set, we have looked for factories in other countries

which would equal the quality and timeliness of shipment to no avail. Our factories began operation in

***. The effect of existing antidumping duty, if continued, may put our company of *** employees out

of business and on the unemployment line. 

Our import industry is being hurt by domestic factories that employ many hundreds or thousands

of people and earn many hundreds of thousands of dollars more than this company. They could “buy and

sell” us. I believe we are not damaging the domestics to the extent they say. I believe that would be

impossible. I believe it is an attempt to get rid of their competition in the marketplace. Where were they

before 2004? As said earlier, we have been at this since *** and I do not see how we have even been

close to damaging a domestic industry. At the very least, a partial solution should be considered that

would allow high-end PRCBs into the U.S. under another HTS# as all bags are not the same. I believe

the antidumping was originally intended to keep very low-end t-shirt bags out of the U.S. as that is what

domestics do most of. There is no reason why high-end plastic bags that are not even manufactured in the

U.S. should be in the same classification as the low-end t-shirt bag.”

***

“We stopped purchasing imports from China when the duties were imposed.”

***

“We have stopped importing PRCBs.”

D-10
***

“We still include a supplier with Canadian or Chinese manufacturing. They deliver goods duty paid so

we have no preference to where they are manufacturing.”

***

“The AD orders stopped our importation of PRCBs from China completely.”

***

“No longer import from Thailand and have U.S. suppliers in place.”

***

“The existence of the orders has enabled us to maintain and increase U.S. production and capacity

rather than replacing U.S. production with imports.”

***

“The products from suppliers in the subject countries are not price competitive. However, *** does still

source product from producers in these countries that have separate rates or that are excluded.”

***

“The current dumping order from Thailand has constrained our volume and pricing of Thailand imports.”

***

“Minimal effect.”

***

“No notable significance.”

***

“The antidumping orders affected us by reducing the number of options for importing PRCBs from

China. It moved our emphasis more toward paper bags, which is our more traditional product line.”

In addition, 24 importers did not respond or reported “None,” “not applicable,” “don’t know,” or similar

responses.

D-11
Anticipated Changes In Operations In The Event That The Orders Are Revoked

(Question II-15)

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe anticipated changes in their imports, 

U.S. shipments of imports, or inventories of PRCBs in the future if the antidumping duty orders on

PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand were to be revoked. Their responses are as follows:

***

“We would face a make/buy decision and would likely increase imports from China, Malaysia, and/or

Thailand to obtain PRCBs at prices below our production cost in the United States.”

***

“Increase sales by 50%.”

***

“If the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China will be revoked, we will plan to shop around and

try to find the new source.”

***

“Because revocation of the orders would result in significant increased, lower-priced imports from the

subject countries, we will curtail U.S. production and may consider becoming an importer and

distributor.”

***

“Revocation of the existing order would allow my company to restore my import business to where it was

before, with the same 2 factories in China, and allow my company to continue in business and maintain

the employees we have.”

***

“We would consider increasing our imports.”

***

“*** might start purchasing from these countries again if they were able to meet all of our standards and

capacity needs. *** has no business plan or other supporting documentation to address this issue. 

Reviews of vendors in this category are done every two years.”

***

“We would look at whether it would be necessary to import from these countries in order to be price

competitive in the U.S. market. We currently import some PRCBs from ***. If the orders are revoked,

many other Chinese producers and also producers in Malaysia and Thailand will seek to increase exports

to the U.S. market at very low prices. We would likely invest less in U.S. production capacity and

increase imports if the orders are revoked.”

***

“Yes. We believe that there would be a flood of imports into the US from the subject countries. The

primary culprits would be US importer/distributors. It would likely have an adverse impact on the US

manufacturers of PRCBs.”

D-12
***

“If the antidumping order were to be revoked, we will be based on product value and cost to review and

evaluate possibility of importing from China, Malaysia, and Thailand ***. In fact, we expect the

antidumping duty order on Thailand to be revoked because of the WTO panel decision. But we can not

be sure if we will import from these countries or not? It will depend on the future market situation such

as resin price, labor cost between these countries and other countries.”

***

“If the economy improves, we would expect to import more PRCBs from ***.”

***

“The U.S. market would see a surge in new and lower-priced imports from these countries if the

orders were revoked. We would have to consider additional import sourcing to compete.”

***

“*** currently imports its PRCBs predominantly from Malaysia. If the orders are revoked, *** will still

require each PRCB manufacturer it contracts with to be properly certified. If a change is favorable to a

manufacturer, and that favorable change is reflected in the price *** pays for the PRCBs, then *** may

change its current manufacturing associations and, perhaps, location. Still, *** requires that all

manufacturers it contracts with be certified and compliant with all laws.”

***

“If prices offered are competitive to U.S. products, we will resume importing PRCBs.”

***

“Will be able to favorably compete with fair market pricing against U.S. manufacturers.”

***

“We would consider importing from these countries rather than producing in the United States.”

***

“Not sure if we are still interested in this PRCB’s business due to environmental impact to our planet.”

***

“Maybe, if market for PRCBs can be revived.”

***

“We would increase our imports.”

***

“We believe revocation of antidumping duty orders would increase the amount of high-end PRCBs

imported into the U.S., owing to the low cost of hand labor for finishing PRCBs.” 

In addition, 33 importers did not respond or reported “None,” “not applicable,” “don’t know,” or similar

responses.

D-13
U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS

The Commission requested that purchasers identify and discuss any improvements/changes

in the U.S. PRCBs industry since January 1, 2004. Their responses are as follows:

***

“No change.”

***

“There was no significant improvement/change but the price has been affected because of PRCBs from

other countries.”

***

“From what we know of the industry, we have noted no improvement or changes in the U.S. PRCB

industry since January 1, 2004.”

***

“Plastic compounds stronger and more consistent.”

***

“Prices for PRCBs have gone up, while quality has degraded. Distributors keep switching to other

countries for imports because U.S. bags are not made with consistent quality. Retailers have become used

to die cut, color, and strength of foreign bags and are reluctant to accept U.S. bags. Additionally, very

cheap bags (sometimes below CDI prices) made in China are still available in the market, though is rests

mostly on black opaque bags. We are not sure how these get around the order, but are impossible to

compete with.”

***

“*** is not aware of any changes in the U.S. PRCB industry.”

***

“Very competitive price, improved print quality.”

***

“***, not being a manufacturer, is never involved with industry changes. We are just a small regional

distributor, we are not decision makers.”

***

“The biggest change in the industry has been the merger of producers.”

***

“No change.”

***

“No knowledge of any.”

***

“None noted.”

D-14
***

“As oil pricing rised due to demand the cost for bags outside U.S. increased in price, while Natural Gas

declined in pricing, U.S. market became more competitive, plus tariffs imposed on factories in China.”

***

“Very little change in U.S. industry, many manufacturers are now importing as well.”

***

“The emergence of recycle bags of environmental issues.”

In addition, 32 purchasers did not respond or reported “none,” “not applicable,” “don’t know,” or similar

responses.

The Commission requested that purchasers identify and discuss any improvements/changes

their anticipate in the future U.S. PRCBs industry. Their responses are as follows:

***

“There should be a firm regulation or rules to prevent importing anti-dumping PRCBs within 3-5 years. 

Also quality of bags from China or SE Asia is getting better, so quality also needs to be improved.”

***

“From what we see in the U.S. PRCB industry, we do not foresee any significant improvements.”

***

“As resin blending is studied I suspect to get thinner stronger bags.”

***

“U.S. manufacturers are improving efforts and the industry appears resilient. It continues to grow rapidly

when HDPE prices are lower.”

***

“*** does not anticipate any changes or improvements in the U.S. PRCB industry.”

***

“I heard from supplier bags manufactured in the U.S. is inferior to those manufactured in Taiwan. I

expect improvement in the future.”

***

“None foreseen.”

***

“Once again, we are not.”

***

“Continue to make stronger bags from thinner plastics.”

***

“The product of PRCB decreases and the emergence of different types of cotton bag and plastic bags.”

D-15
***

“U.S. firms are concerned with environmental impact of PRCB and legislation that is being debated

surrounding PRCBs and firms are exploring technological areas that will allow PRCBs to biodegrade in

landfills to satisfy environmental concerns. As an example FL Department of Environmental Protection

has recommended passage of legislation to ban retail establishments from providing single-use PRCBs by

July 2015. Prior to that, they are considering imposing the following charges for single use PRCBs: July

2011 - $0.05, July 2012 - $0.10, July 2013 - $0.15, July 2014 - $0.25.”

***

“I hope we can compete with the cheap labor of foreign countries.”

In addition, 30 purchasers did not respond or reported “none,” “not applicable,” “don’t know,” or similar

responses.

The Commission requested that purchasers report the likely effects of any revocation of the

antidumping orders for imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand on (1) the activities

of their firms and (2) the U.S. market as a whole. Their responses are as follows:

(1) The activities of your firm: 

***

“Increase cost.”

***

“Our main customers went direct so it is not really going to affect us.”

***

“Availability, can U.S. manufacture handle volume?”

***

“We currently buy some bags from China, delivered duty paid.”

***

“If duties are increased on import supplier there are not enough U.S. manufacturers to keep up with

demand.”

***

“We will look to outside U.S. firms in order to reduce costs.”

***

“It would give our firm a good result because we always import paying all taxes or just purchase from the

USA domestic market.”

***

“No change since we buy domestic produced product.”

D-16
***

“No change anticipated.”

***

“We will continue to competitively bid the purchase, and buy based on what’s best for the company.”

***

“Very little effect. Chinese manufacturers that have moved off shore might come back to China.”

***

“***. We believe that we will be able to buy more bags *** if the duties remain in place. If the orders

are revoked, there will be an increase in imports that will be sold at low prices. We expect that *** will

import bags from these countries that will be sold in competition *** and we will be at a disadvantage.”

***

“Hope government can get more American Companies to support American made products.”

***

“I expect no change in the way our business is run, regardless of whether the duties are revoked or

extended.”

***

“Our activities will not change as our purchases are directed by our customer. Our customer might look

at imported PRCBs from China, Malaysia or Thailand.”

***

“Increase purchase from China.”

***

“Not affected.”

***

“None- *** is paying the same price for PRCBs regardless if they are manufactured in the USA or

another country.”

***

“Our firm would allow U.S. manufacturers one more opportunity to match the quality from China and

Thailand. On 1/6 and larger bags, they have beat prices easily, but quality remains an issue. On 1/8 and

lower bags, the quality is good but the prices are extremely high due to labor costs. We will likely shift

all imports of small bags to China and Taiwan and 1/6 bags with U.S. manufacturers. Likely a mix of

imports and domestic. We tend to still pay higher prices for imports even before the order than U.S. bags

on 1/6.”

***

“We will continue to issue future RFPs for PRCB domestically and internationally. Purchases will be

based on best overall value. If the price becomes lower then more bid awards could be made to other

countries.”

D-17
***

“We look first at quality, price second. We owe it to our customers to look at all options as long as the

product is equal quality.”

***

“We are already working towards eliminating purchasing imported PRCBs to support U.S. made

products.”

***

“As we currently do not source domestically due to deficiencies with domestic producers, a retraction of

the duty will not impact sourcing practices.”

***

“Due to the increase in price, customers’ will decrease therefore decrease in the firm’s profit as well.”

***

“*** might start purchasing from those countries again if they were able to meet all of our standards and

capacity needs. However, no change is currently planned.”

***

“*** will continue to purchase PRCBs in the same manner, with a focus on price and quality.”

***

“Currently only buy domestic so would not affect our supply.”

***

“Our firm relies principally on quality, service, and pricing. If these countries have their anti-dumping

duty removed, this would likely result in a larger number of PRCB manufacturers being able to provide

PRCBs, but in all cases such manufacturers would need to meet our standards and specifications for

quality, service and price.”

In addition, 19 purchasers did not respond or reported “none,” “not applicable,” “don’t know,” or similar

responses.

(2) The U.S. market as a whole

***

“Should be the same as above. Competition drives companies to be better and makes a healthy

wholesome market place.”

***

“More imports of PRCBs.”

***

“If the antidumping duty is revoked it would mean a drop in U.S. volume. If companies are more

concerned with price they will push more volume overseas.”

***

“More layoffs more foreign product in U.S.”

D-18
***

“Same as above.” (If duties are increased on import supplier there are not enough U.S. manufacturers to

keep up with demand.)

***

“Availability.”

***

“We have bought and do consider U.S. suppliers. A major U.S. supplier was removed from the supply

base due to ongoing quality issues.”

***

“No change since there are many manufacturers in USA and competition is strong.”

***

“We don’t know the entire U.S. market. We only work regionally ***. Nevertheless, we believe that the

situation in other parts of the United States is no different than in the region in which we operate. If the

orders are revoked, we believe low-priced imports will be found throughout the United States making

business difficult for companies that purchase from U.S. producers.”

***

“U.S. markets would become very competitive. It would force U.S. firms to solve for ways of making

smaller bags more economically. Now that U.S. bags have entered the market throughout the U.S.,

imported bags will have a difficult time entering due to long lead times. However, bags likely circumvent

the ordinance would loose (sic) their competitive advantage, which would be positive for the industry.”

***

“We think the decision makers may look at imported PRCBs from China, Malaysia or Thailand.”

***

“By revocation and environmental pressure in the U.S., many companies will go offshore to purchase

their PRCBs or U.S. firms will move their facilities overseas to emerging markets.”

***

“Increase cost.”

***

“Same as above.” (As we currently do not source domestically due to deficiencies with domestic

producers, a retraction of the duty will not impact sourcing practices.)

***

“Total average price of bag will be increased. However it can protect domestic or any manufacturer to do

business fairly because there would be less price competition.”

***

“I expect import prices to fall if the duties are revoked.”

***

“None- *** is paying the same price for PRCBs regardless if they are manufactured in the USA or

another country.”

D-19
***

“I would be concerned that domestic producers would raise their prices unjustly if countries had

antidumping orders.”

***

“Imports from the subject markets will most likely increase - thus there is potential for U.S. purchases of

PRCBs to go down. However, it seems more likely that most large retailers are not purchasing from U.S. 

producers due to the orders, but are purchasing from other overseas countries.”

***

“The U.S. market will find the best value in the world market and so if pricing from these countries is

reduced due to lifting the duty and no other factors change, more purchases will be made from these

countries.”

***

“Due to the responsibility in the price of end user, the market will decrease.”

In addition, 26 purchasers did not respond or reported “None,” “not applicable,” “don’t know,” or similar

responses.

D-20
FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in the character

of their operations or organization relating to the production of PRCBs in the future if the

antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and/or Thailand were to be revoked. 

(Question II-4.) 

All 24 foreign producers did not respond or reported “None,” “not applicable,” “don’t know,” or similar

responses.

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping duty orders covering imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Taiwan in terms

of their effect on your firm’s production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to

the United States and other markets, and inventories. (Question II-15.) Their responses are as 

follows:

***

“Shrinking orders from the U.S.”

***

“The long term and short term effect of the antidumping order was to reduce overall shipments into the

U.S.”

***

“Because of ADD problem, the sales volume of U.S market is decreasing these years.”

In addition, 21 foreign producers did not respond or reported “None,” “not applicable,” “don’t know,” or

similar responses.

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in their

production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other

markets, or inventories relating to the production of PRCBs in the future if the antidumping duty

orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and/or Thailand were to be revoked. (Question II-16.)

Their responses are as follows:

***

“If the order was revoked we would expect to increase our shipments into the U.S.”

***

“If the antidumping duty was revoked, the sales volume of U.S market will be increased.”

In addition, 22 foreign producers did not respond or reported “None,” “not applicable,” “don’t know,” or

similar responses.

D-21
The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in the character

of their operations or organization relating to the production of PRCBs in the

future. (Question II-3.) Their responses are as follows:

***

“We only ever exported some US$2000 worth of PRCBs to 1 customer to help them out. We as a rule,

actually don’t manufacture PRCBs, and we have no plans to commence manufacturing PRCBs.”

In addition, 23 foreign producers, including *** Malaysian producers, did not respond or reported “No,”

“not applicable,” “don’t know,” or similar responses.

D-22
APPENDIX E

DELIVERED PRICES OF PRCBs

IMPORTED DIRECTLY BY PURCHASERS

E-1

Table E-1

PRCBs: Weighted-average delivered purchase prices and quantities of imported product 3, by

quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Table E-2

PRCBs: Weighted-average delivered purchase prices and quantities of imported product 5, by

quarters, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

E-3