[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37694-37698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18086]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-886


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier 
bags (PRCBs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The review 
covers Rally Plastics Co., Ltd. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 
2007, through July 31, 2008.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made at 
prices below normal value by the company subject to this review. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in this review are requested to 
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 29, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Cartsos 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-
1757 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 9, 2004, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on PRCBs from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 
(August 9, 2004). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department 
received requests for a review of Rally Plastics Co., Ltd. (Rally). In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(g) and 19 CFR 351.221(b) we published a 
notice of initiation of administrative review. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests 
for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 56795 (September 30, 2008).
    Since initiation of the review, we have extended the due date for 
completion of these preliminary results from May 3, 2009, to July 22, 
2009. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia, Thailand, and 
the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 74 FR 17633 (April 
16, 2009), and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People's 
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 32884 (July 9, 2009).
    We are conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is PRCBs, 
which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery 
bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-
sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without 
zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or 
without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater 
than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), 
and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer 
than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 
inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).
    PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and 
free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, 
convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and 
restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased 
products. The scope of the order excludes (1) polyethylene bags that 
are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with 
drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that 
are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific 
end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail 
establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.
    As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently 
classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. 
Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order 
is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified 
information provided by Rally using standard verification procedures 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and the 
examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification 
results are outlined in the public version of the verification report 
on file in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main Department 
building.

NME Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market-economy (NME) country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority. See Brake Rotors From the

[[Page 37695]]

People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 
2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 
New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the 
parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, 
we have calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this 
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can 
demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and 
de facto government control over export activities. The Department 
analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test 
arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (Sparklers), as developed further in the Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). If the 
Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located 
in a market economy, however, then a separate-rate analysis is not 
necessary to determine whether it is independent from government 
control.
    Rally submitted information that demonstrates it is a wholly 
foreign-owned company located in Hong Kong. See Rally's November 26, 
2008, Section A Response, e.g., articles of association, business 
license, and export license. Therefore, we have not conducted a 
separate-rate analysis of Rally.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department analyzes imports from an NME country, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (FOP), 
valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries the 
Department considers to be appropriate. In accordance with section 
773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to 
the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-
economy countries that are at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME country and significant producers of 
comparable merchandise.
    On December 22, 2008, the Department's Office of Policy issued a 
memorandum identifying India as being at a level of economic 
development comparable to the PRC for the POR. See Memorandum entitled 
``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags from the People's Republic of China'' dated December 22, 2008. In 
the Department's March 16, 2009, letter to interested parties 
requesting surrogate-country and surrogate-value comments, the 
Department indicated that India is among the countries comparable to 
the PRC in terms of overall economic development. In addition, based on 
publicly available information placed on the record (i.e., export 
data), India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. See 
Memorandum entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,'' dated 
July 22, 2009.
    Furthermore, India has been the primary surrogate country in 
determinations for past segments of this proceeding and the 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee \1\ submitted surrogate 
values based on Indian data that are contemporaneous with the POR, 
giving further credence to the use of India as a surrogate country. 
See, e.g., Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 52282 (September 9, 2008). The sources of the surrogate 
values are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below and in 
the Memorandum entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the 
People's Republic of China: Surrogate-Values Memorandum,'' dated July 
22, 2009 (Surrogate-Value Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Consisting of Hilex Poly Company, LLC, and the Superbag 
Corporation (collectively, the petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Price

A. Export Price
    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based U.S. price 
on the export price (EP) for sales to the United States because the 
first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of 
importation and the use of constructed EP was not otherwise warranted. 
We calculated EP for Rally based on the prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States.
    In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we first added 
adjustments to the gross unit price and then deducted from the price to 
unaffiliated purchasers, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, 
brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine insurance. 
See Memorandum from Catherine Cartsos to the File, ``Administrative 
Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results Memorandum for Rally Plastics Co., 
Ltd.,'' dated July 22, 2009 (Analysis Memorandum). Consistent with 
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 46584 (August 11, 
2008) (OJ Brazil Final), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 7, we have incorporated freight-related revenues 
as offsets to movement expenses because they relate to the movement and 
transportation of subject merchandise. We also incorporated packing-
related revenue as an offset to packing expenses because these items 
relate to the packing of subject merchandise (see OJ Brazil Final).
    For certain transactions, Rally requested an adjustment for 
remuneration for samples. Because Rally has not adequately supported 
its claim, we have denied this claim for an adjustment to U.S. price. 
See Analysis Memorandum.
B. Surrogate Values for Expenses Incurred in the PRC for U.S. Sales
    Rally reported that, for certain U.S. sales, foreign inland freight 
was provided by an NME vendor or it paid for freight using an NME 
currency. In such instances, we based the deduction of these charges on 
surrogate values. We valued foreign inland freight with the surrogate 
value for truck freight. For foreign brokerage and handling, marine 
insurance, and international freight, Rally reported using market-
economy vendors and stated that it paid these expenses in a market-
economy currency. Where movement services were provided by a market-
economy vendor and the respondent paid in a market-economy currency, we 
deducted the actual cost per kilogram of the freight. See Surrogate-
Value Memorandum.

Normal Value

A. Methodology
    Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the normal value using an

[[Page 37696]]

FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME country and 
the information does not permit the calculation of normal value using 
home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under 
section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases normal value on the 
FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of 
NME countries renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies. 
See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, 
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 
FR 39744 (July 11, 2005) (unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of 2003-2004 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 (January 17, 2006)).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a producer sources an 
input from a market-economy country and pays for it in a market-economy 
currency, the Department will normally value the factor using the 
actual price paid for the input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also 
Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (CAFC 
1994) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to value 
certain FOPs). Where a portion of the input is purchased from a market-
economy supplier and the remainder from an NME supplier, the Department 
will normally use the price paid for the inputs sourced from market-
economy suppliers to value all of the input, provided the volume of the 
market-economy inputs as a share of total purchases from all sources is 
``meaningful.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997), and Shakeproof v. United 
States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382 (CAFC 2001). See also 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1).
    The Department has instituted a rebuttable presumption that market-
economy input prices are the best available information for valuing an 
input when the total volume of the input purchased from all market-
economy sources during the POR exceeds 33 percent of the total volume 
of the input purchased from all sources during the same period. In such 
cases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the 
Department's presumption, the Department will use the weighted-average 
market-economy purchase price to value the input.
    Alternatively, when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an 
input from market-economy suppliers during the period is equal to or 
below 33 percent of its total volume of purchases of the input during 
the period but where these purchases are otherwise valid and there is 
no reason to disregard the prices, the Department will weight-average 
the weighted-average market-economy purchase price with an appropriate 
surrogate value according to their respective shares of the total 
volume of purchases unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds 
to rebut the presumption. When a firm has made market-economy input 
purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are not bona fide, 
or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the 
Department will exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure 
a fair determination of whether valid market-economy purchases meet the 
33-percent threshold. See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy 
Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request 
for Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-19 (October 19, 2006). Also, where the 
quantity of the input purchased from market-economy suppliers is 
insignificant, the Department will not rely on the price paid by an NME 
producer to a market-economy supplier because it cannot have confidence 
that a company could fulfill all its needs at that price. Id.
    We have found in other proceedings that Indonesia, South Korea, and 
Thailand maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all 
markets from these countries may be subsidized and it is our practice 
to disregard input prices from such countries. See China Nat'l Mach. 
Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (CIT 
2003), aff'd 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and 
Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 
FR 12651 (March 15, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 4. The legislative history reflects the 
Department's practice that, in making its determination as to whether 
input values may be subsidized, the Department does not conduct a 
formal investigation; rather, the Department bases its decision on 
information that is available to it at the time it makes its 
determination. See H.R. Rep. 100-576, at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24.
    The FOPs for PRCBs include the following elements: (1) quantities 
of raw materials employed; (2) hours of labor required; (3) amounts of 
energy and other utilities consumed; (4) representative capital and 
selling costs; (5) packing materials. We used the FOPs reported by the 
respondent for materials, labor, energy, by-products, and packing.
B. FOP Valuation
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated normal 
value based on the FOPs reported by the respondent for the POR. To 
calculate normal value, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-
consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values. In selecting 
the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the data.
    During the POR, Rally purchased some of the inputs exclusively from 
market-economy suppliers in a market-economy currency. We valued these 
inputs at the weighted-average market-economy purchase price the 
respondent reported. Consistent with our practice as described above, 
we have disregarded all market-economy input prices from all countries 
that we suspect subsidize the input price. For further analysis, see 
Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
    During the POR, Rally purchased some of the inputs from market-
economy suppliers in an market-economy currency and from NME suppliers 
in NME currency. Accordingly, we have weight-averaged the market-
economy input price with the appropriate surrogate value. Consistent 
with our practice as described above, we have disregarded all market-
economy input prices from all countries that we suspect subsidize the 
input price. For further analysis, see Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
    During the POR, Rally purchased certain inputs exclusively from NME 
suppliers in an NME currency. We have valued these inputs using 
surrogate values from a market-economy country that is at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the PRC and a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. For further analysis, see 
Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
    It is the Department's practice to calculate price-index adjustors 
to inflate or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate values that are not 
contemporaneous with the POR using the wholesale price index for the 
subject country. See, e.g., Certain Preserved

[[Page 37697]]

Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 71 FR 38617, 38619 (July 7, 
2006) (unchanged in Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review, 71 FR 66910 (November 17, 2006)). Therefore, where we could not 
obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR, we 
adjusted surrogate values using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for 
India as published in the International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund.
    Except as indicated below, we valued raw-material inputs using the 
weighted-average unit import values derived from the Monthly Statistics 
of the Foreign Trade of India, as published by the Directorate General 
of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce 
and Industry, Government of India in the World Trade Atlas (WTA), 
available at http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. Consistent with our practice 
as described above, for those surrogate values based upon Indian import 
statistics, we disregarded input prices from all countries that we 
suspect subsidize the input price.
    We have also disregarded Indian import data concerning raw 
materials from countries that we have previously determined to be NME 
countries as well as imports originating from ``unspecified'' countries 
because we could not be certain that they were not from either an NME 
country or a country with generally available export subsidies. See 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From 
the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004), 
(unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 
70 FR 24502 (May 10, 2005)). For a comprehensive list of the sources 
and data we used to determine the surrogate vales for the FOPs, by-
products, and the surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead, 
selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit, see 
Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
    Where appropriate, we adjusted the Indian import prices by 
including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we 
added to the Indian import prices a surrogate freight cost using the 
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the 
production factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the 
production factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance 
with the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (CAFC 1997). 
Where we did not use Indian import data as the basis of the surrogate 
value, we calculated inland freight based on the reported distance from 
the supplier to the factory. We valued truck-freight expenses using a 
per-unit average rate calculated from data on the following Web site: 
http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. See Surrogate-Value 
Memorandum. The logistics section of this Web site contains inland-
freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. Because this 
value is not contemporaneous with the POR, we deflated the rate using 
the WPI. See Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
    We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large 
industries as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the 
Government of India in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty 
and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated July 2006. 
These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly 
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to 
industries in India. Because the rates are not contemporaneous with the 
POR, we deflated the values using the WPI. See Surrogate-Value 
Memorandum.
    For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate 
as reported on the Import Administration web site. See Corrected 2007 
Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 73 FR 27795, 27796 
(May 14, 2008) (available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The source 
of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration website is the 
Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003, ILO (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: 
Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage rates range from 
2003 through 2004. Because this regression-based wage rate does not 
separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, 
we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of 
labor reported by the respondent. See Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
    To value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit values, we used 
information from M/S Synthetic Packers Private Ltd. for the fiscal year 
ending March 31, 2008. From this information, we were able to determine 
factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, labor and 
energy (ML&E) costs, SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead (i.e., 
cost of manufacture), and profit as a percentage of the cost of 
manufacture plus SG&A. See Surrogate-Value Memorandum.
    For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained 
from the WTA and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred 
between the PRC suppliers and the respondent's production facilities. 
See Surrogate-Value Memorandum.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a 
weighted-average dumping margin of 17.95 percent exists for Rally for 
the period August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008.

Comments

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this review within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value FOPs no later than 20 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of 
review. See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii). Any interested party may request 
a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to 
participate in a hearing if a hearing is requested must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain the following: (1) the party's name, address, and 
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) a list of issues 
to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from interested parties 
may be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication 
of this notice of preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs from interested parties, limited to 
the issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted not later than 
five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. 
See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). If requested, any hearing will be held two 
days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 
CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 
this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument a statement 
of the issue, a summary of the arguments not exceeding five pages, and 
a table of

[[Page 37698]]

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) 
of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated 
importer-specific (or customer-specific) assessment rates for 
merchandise subject to this review.
    For these preliminary results, we divided the total dumping margins 
(calculated as the difference between normal value and EP) for each of 
Rally's importers or customers by the total number of units the 
exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will direct CBP to 
assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of 
merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries during the 
review period.
    We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the 
date of publication of the final results of review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the notice of final results of the administrative review 
for all shipments of PRCBs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise 
exported by Rally, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in 
the final results of review; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, the 
cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) for all other PRC exporters 
of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 77.57 
percent; (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the 
cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that 
supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: July 22, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-18086 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S