39928 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 

Valin Xiangtan with the opportunity to 

resubmit its FOP database to correct its 

data with respect to these items after the 

preliminary results. 

Currency Conversion 

Where applicable, we made currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars, in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act, based on the exchange rates in 

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

exchange/index.html. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following dumping margin exists for the 

period November 1, 2007, through 

October 31, 2008: 

CERTAIN CUT–TO-LENGTH CARBON

STEEL PLATE FROM THE PRC 

Exporter Ad Valorem Margin 

Hunan Valin Xiangtan 

Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 0.00 percent 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of this notice. Interested 

parties who wish to request a hearing or 

to participate if one 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: 

(1) the party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in case 

and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a 

hearing is made, parties will be notified 

of the time and date for the hearing to 

be held at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

In order to allow parties time to 

comment on the export license scheme 

discussed above and to submit 

publicly–available information to value 

FOPs, case briefs from interested parties 

may be submitted not later than 45 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, will be due five days 

later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

Parties who submit case or rebuttal 

briefs in this proceeding are requested 

to submit with each argument (1) a 

statement of the issue and (2) a brief 

summary of the argument. Parties are 

also encouraged to provide a summary 

of the arguments not to exceed five 

pages and a table of statutes, 

regulations, and cases cited. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any such written briefs, not later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

final results of this review. For 

assessment purposes, we calculated 

exporter/importer- (or customer) 

-specific assessment rates for 

merchandise subject to this review. 

Where appropriate, we calculated an ad 

valorem rate for each importer (or 

customer) by dividing the total dumping 

margins for reviewed sales to that party 

by the total entered values associated 

with those transactions. For duty– 

assessment rates calculated on this 

basis, we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting ad valorem rate against the 

entered customs values for the subject 

merchandise. Where appropriate, we 

calculated a per–unit rate for each 

importer (or customer) by dividing the 

total dumping margins for reviewed 

sales to that party by the total sales 

quantity associated with those 

transactions. For duty–assessment rates 

calculated on this basis, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per–unit rate 

against the entered quantity of the 

subject merchandise. Where an 

importer- (or customer) -specific 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent), the Department will 

instruct CBP to assess that importer (or 

customer’s) entries of subject 

merchandise without regard to 

antidumping duties. We intend to 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries 

containing subject merchandise 

exported by the PRC–wide entity at the 

PRC–wide rate we determine in the final 

results of this review. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

this review. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for Valin 

Xiangtan, the cash deposit rate will be 

that established in the final results of 

this review, except if the rate is zero or 

de minimis no cash deposit will be 

required; (2) for previously investigated 

or reviewed PRC and non–PRC 

exporters not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the exporter–specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

for all 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 128.59 percent; and (4) for 

all non–PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporters that supplied that non–PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice 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 notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213. 

Dated: August 3, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–19096 Filed 8–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–821] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand: 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 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 39929 

1We stated that the review covers the following 

companies: C.P. Packaging Co., Ltd., C.P. PolyIndustry Co., Ltd., Master Packaging Co., Ltd. 

(Master Packaging), Naraipak Co., Ltd., Nari 

Packaging (Thailand) Ltd., Poly Plast (Thailand) 

Ltd., and Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd. Id. 

The Department has determined previously that 

Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd., APEC Film 

Ltd., and Winner’s Pack Co., Ltd., comprise the 

Thai Plastic Bags Group (TPBG). See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand, 69 

FR 34122, 34123 (June 18, 2004). 

2The petitioners are the Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, 

Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation. 

the antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from Thailand. The review covers two 

exporters/producers. The period of 

review is August 1, 2007, through July 

31, 2008. 

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: August 10, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, 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) 482–3174 or (202) 482– 

4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 9, 2004, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on PRCBs from 

Thailand. See Antidumping Duty Order: 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004). 

On September 30, 2008, we published a 

notice of initiation of an administrative 

review of seven companies. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 56795, 56796 (September 30, 

2008).1 On January 7, 2009, we 

rescinded the administrative review 

with respect to C.P. Packaging Co., Ltd., 

C.P. Poly–Industry Co., Ltd., Naraipak 

Co., Ltd., Nari Packaging (Thailand) 

Ltd., and Poly Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd. 

See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 

from Thailand: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 682 (January 7, 2009). 

Since initiation of the review, we 

extended the due date for completion of 

these preliminary results. 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 Thailand: Notice of Extension of 

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 32885 (July 2, 2009). 

The period of review (POR) is August 

1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. 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. 

Duty Absorption 

On October 30, 2008, the petitioners2

requested that the Department 

determine whether antidumping duties 

had been absorbed during the POR by 

the respondents. Section 751(a)(4) of the 

Act provides for the Department to 

determine, if requested, during an 

administrative review initiated two or 

four years after the publication of the 

order whether antidumping duties have 

been absorbed by a foreign producer or 

exporter if the subject merchandise is 

sold in the United States through an 

affiliated importer. With respect to 

TPBG, it did not sell subject 

merchandise in the United States 

through an affiliated importer. 

Therefore, it is not appropriate to make 

a duty–absorption determination in this 

segment of the proceeding within the 

meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act. 

See Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. v. United 

States, 508 F.3d 1024, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 

2007). 

As discussed in the ‘‘Use of Adverse 

Facts Available’’ section of this notice 

below, Master Packaging did not 

respond to our antidumping 

questionnaire. Because Master 

Packaging is the sole respondent with 

possible sales to unaffiliated customers 

in the United States through an 

affiliated importer and because this 

review was initiated four years after the 

publication of the order, we have made 

a duty–absorption determination 

concerning Master Packaging in this 

segment of the proceeding in 

accordance with section 751(a)(4) of the 

Act. 

In determining whether the 

antidumping duties have been absorbed 

by the respondent during the POR, we 

presume the duties will be absorbed for 

those sales that have been made at less 

than normal value. This presumption 

can be rebutted with evidence (e.g., an 

agreement between the affiliated 

importer and unaffiliated purchaser) 

that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay 

the full duty ultimately assessed on the 

subject merchandise. See, e.g., Certain 

Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings 

From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind 

in Part, 70 FR 39735, 39737 (July 11, 

2005). 

On May 21, 2009, the Department 

gave Master Packaging an opportunity to 

submit evidence demonstrating that its 

U.S. purchasers will pay any 

antidumping duties ultimately assessed 

on entries during the POR. Master 

Packaging did not provide any such 

evidence. Because Master Packaging did 

not rebut the duty–absorption 

presumption with evidence that the 

unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full 

duty ultimately assessed on the subject 

merchandise, we preliminarily find that 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
39930 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 

antidumping duties have been absorbed 

by Master Packaging on all U.S. sales. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we have verified sales and cost 

information provided by TPBG using 

standard verification procedures, 

including on–site inspection of the 

manufacturers’ facilities, the 

examination of relevant sales and 

financial records, and the selection of 

original documentation containing 

relevant information. Our verification 

results are outlined in the public 

version of the verification report, dated 

July 9, 2009, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the 

main Commerce building. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides 

that, if necessary information is not 

available on the record or if an 

interested party (1) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department, (2) fails to provide such 

information by the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (3) 

significantly impedes the proceeding, or 

(4) provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall use, subject to section 

782(d) of the Act, the facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if that 

information is necessary to the 

determination but does not meet all of 

the requirements established by the 

Department, provided that all of the 

following requirements are met: (1) the 

information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; (5) the 

information can be used without undue 

difficulties. Section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that, if the Department 

determines that a response to a request 

for information does not comply with 

the request, the Department shall 

promptly inform the person submitting 

the response of the nature of the 

deficiency and shall provide that 

person, to the extent practicable, with 

an opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency in light of the time limits 

established for the completion of the 

administrative review. 

In addition, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that, if the Department finds 

that an interested party ‘‘has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information,’’ the Department may use 

information that is adverse to the 

interests of that party as facts otherwise 

available. The purpose of the adverse 

call, as explained in the Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. 

Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) 

(SAA), is ‘‘to ensure that the party does 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate ‘‘to the best of its 

ability’’ than if it had cooperated fully.’’ 

See SAA at 870. Further, as explained 

in the SAA, in employing adverse 

inferences the Department will consider 

‘‘the extent to which a party may benefit 

from its own lack of cooperation.’’ Id. 

On November 25, 2008, we sent a 

questionnaire to Master Packaging 

seeking information related to Master 

Packaging’s corporate structure and its 

production and sales of PRCBs, 

information which is necessary for us to 

complete the administrative review. 

Although we have evidence that Master 

Packaging received the questionnaire, 

Master Packaging did not respond to the 

questionnaire. 

Because Master Packaging has failed 

to provide the information we requested 

and thus has significantly impeded this 

proceeding, we must use facts available 

to establish its dumping margin. See 

section 776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, 

because Master Packaging could have 

provided correct and verifiable data 

about its corporate structure, 

production, and sales but did not do so, 

we determine that Master Packaging has 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability. Therefore, we 

conclude that the use of an adverse 

inference is warranted with respect to 

Master Packaging. See section 776(b) of 

the Act and Nippon Steel Corp. v. 

United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382–83 

(Fed. Cir. 2003). 

As adverse facts available (AFA), we 

have preliminarily assigned Master 

Packaging a dumping margin of 122.88 

percent, the highest rate found in the 

less–than-fair–value investigation. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand, 69 

FR 34122, 34125 (June 18, 2004) (Final 

LTFV). We applied this rate in the less– 

than-fair–value investigation as well as 

in each successive administrative 

review. See Final LTFV, 69 FR at 

34123–34124, Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982, 

1983 (January 17, 2007), Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 64580 

(November 16, 2007) (2005–2006 Final 

Results), and Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Thailand: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 2511, 

2512 (January 15, 2009) (2006–2007 

Final Results). In 2006–2007 Final 

Results, we applied this rate to Master 

Packaging. Id. 

When a respondent is not cooperative, 

such as Master Packaging in this case, 

the Department has the discretion to 

presume that the highest prior margin 

reflects the current margins. See Ta 

Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United 

States, 298 F.3d 1330, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 

2002) (citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 

United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990)). If this were not the case, the 

party would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less. See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 

1190. Further, by using the highest prior 

antidumping duty margin, we offer the 

assurance that the exporter will not 

benefit from refusing to provide 

information. Further, when possible, we 

apply an antidumping duty rate that 

bears some relationship to past practices 

by this company, as it is part of the 

industry in question. See Shanghai 

Taoen Int’l Trading Co. v. United States, 

360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1346 (CIT 2005) 

(citing D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 

113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, 

to the extent practicable, the 

Department corroborate secondary 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’ 

See SAA at 870. As clarified in the SAA, 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See id. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will examine, to the extent practicable, 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information. See 2006–2007 Final 

Results and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

As emphasized in the SAA, however, 

the Department need not prove that the 

selected facts available are the best 

alternative information. See SAA at 869. 

Further, independent sources used to 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 39931 

corroborate such evidence may include, 

for example, published price lists, 

official import statistics and customs 

data, and information obtained from 

interested parties during the particular 

investigation or review. See 19 CFR 

351.308(d) and SAA at 870, 1994 

U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199. 

With respect to the reliability aspect 

of corroboration, the Department found 

the rate of 122.88 percent to be reliable 

in the investigation. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 

FR 3552, 3553–3554 (January 26, 2004) 

(unchanged in Final LTFV). There, the 

Department stated that the rate was 

calculated from source documents 

included with the petition, namely, a 

price quotation for various sizes of 

PRCBs commonly produced in 

Thailand, import statistics, and 

affidavits from company officials, all 

from a different Thai producer of subject 

merchandise. Because the information is 

supported by source documents, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

information is still reliable. See 

Memorandum to the File entitled 

‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand: Inclusion of Memorandum, 

dated January 16, 2004, to the record of 

this administrative review’’ dated 

August 3, 2009 (AFA Memorandum). 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. In the 

investigation, the Department 

determined that, because the price quote 

reflected commercial practices of the 

particular industry during the period of 

investigation, the information was 

relevant to mandatory respondents 

which refused to participate in the 

investigation. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR at 

3553–3554 and AFA Memorandum. No 

party contested the application of that 

rate in the investigation. Id. 

Furthermore, the rate of 122.88 percent 

is the current rate for Master Packaging 

and has been applied to other 

producers/exporters since the less–thanfair–value investigation. Therefore, we 

find this rate continues to have 

relevance. 

Export Price 

For the price to the United States for 

TPBG, we used export price (EP) as 

defined in section 772(a) of the Act. We 

calculated EP based on the packed 

delivery terms Free on Board, Cost, 

Insurance, and Freight, or delivered 

price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for 

exportation to, the United States. See 

section 772(c) of the Act. We made 

deductions, as appropriate, for 

discounts and rebates. See section 

772(d) of the Act. We also made 

deductions for any movement expenses 

in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) 

of the Act. We made adjustments to U.S. 

sales information to reflect minor 

corrections and findings as the result of 

verification. For a detailed explanation 

of these adjustments, see Memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Thailand Thai Plastic Bags 

Industries Group (TPBG), Preliminary 

Results Analysis Memorandum 8/1/07 – 

7/31/08,’’ dated August 3, 2009 

(Analysis Memo). 

Comparison–Market Sales 

Based on a comparison of the 

aggregate quantity of home–market and 

U.S. sales and absent any information 

that a particular market situation in the 

exporting country did not permit a 

proper comparison, we determined that 

the quantity of foreign like product sold 

by TPBG in Thailand was sufficient to 

permit a proper comparison with the 

sales of the subject merchandise to the 

United States, pursuant to section 773(a) 

of the Act. TPBG’s quantity of sales in 

Thailand was greater than five percent 

of its quantity of sales to the U.S. 

market. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 

normal value on the prices at which the 

foreign like product was first sold for 

consumption in Thailand in the usual 

commercial quantities and in the 

ordinary course of trade and at the same 

level of trade as the U.S. sales. We made 

adjustments to the home–market sales 

information to reflect minor corrections 

and findings at verification. For a 

detailed explanation of these 

adjustments, see Analysis Memo. 

Sales Outside the Ordinary Course of 

Trade 

The Department has determined 

preliminarily that certain home–market 

sales are outside the ordinary course of 

trade as defined by section 771(15) of 

the Act. Specifically, we have 

determined that the conditions and 

practices surrounding these sales are not 

normal in the trade under consideration. 

For a detailed discussion of the facts 

and circumstances concerning these 

sales, see Analysis Memo. Accordingly, 

pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i), we 

have excluded these sales from our 

calculation of normal value. 

Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b) of 

the Act, we disregarded the below–cost 

sales of TPBG in the most recently 

completed administrative review of this 

company. See 2005–2006 Final Results, 

72 FR at 64581. Therefore, we have 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that TPBG’s sales of the foreign like 

product under consideration for the 

determination of normal value in this 

review may have been made at prices 

below the cost of production (COP) as 

provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 

the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 

773(b)(1) of the Act, we have conducted 

a COP analysis of TPBG’s sales in the 

comparison market in this review. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the COP based 

on the sum of the costs of materials and 

fabrication employed in producing the 

foreign like product, the selling, general, 

and administrative (SG&A) expenses, 

and all costs and expenses incidental to 

packing the merchandise. In our COP 

analysis, we used the comparison– 

market sales and COP information TPBG 

provided in its questionnaire responses. 

We have determined preliminarily 

that TPBG’s allocation of its costs 

results in products with few or minor 

physical differences having significantly 

different costs of manufacturing 

assigned to them. While TPBG asserts 

that its focus is on export sales, it is 

unreasonable to attribute the starts and 

stoppages resulting from this focus, and 

associated inefficiencies, mainly to the 

home–market products. By TPBG’s own 

admission, the cost differences are not 

due to production activities or 

requirements of the domestic and U.S. 

products. Accordingly, in accordance 

with our practice, for these preliminary 

results of review we have revised 

TPBG’s reported direct labor, variable 

overhead, and fixed overhead to 

eliminate cost differences attributable to 

factors other than physical 

characteristics. See Stainless Steel Bar 

from the United Kingdom: Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 43598 (August 6, 2007), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. See also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Hot–Rolled 

Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel 

Products From Japan, 64 FR 24329 (May 

6, 1999) at Comment 22, and Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Small Diameter 

Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel, Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe 

From Brazil, 60 FR 31960 (June 19, 

1995), at Comment 2. For a detailed 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
39932 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 

explanation of these adjustments, see 

Analysis Memo. 

TPBG provided information in its 

questionnaire responses showing that it 

purchased resin inputs from an 

affiliated party. We consider resin to be 

a major input and therefore have 

applied the major–input rule to value 

such purchases. Accordingly, pursuant 

to section 773(f)(3) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.407(b), we adjusted TPBG’s 

resin costs. 

After calculating the COP in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act, we tested whether comparison– 

market sales of the foreign like product 

were made at prices below the COP 

within an extended period of time in 

substantial quantities and whether such 

prices permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. See 

section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We 

compared model–specific COPs to the 

reported comparison–market prices less 

any applicable movement charges, 

discounts, and rebates. 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, when less than 20 percent of 

TPBG’s sales of a given product were 

made at prices less than the COP, we 

did not disregard any below–cost sales 

of that product because the below–cost 

sales were not made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time. When 20 percent or more of 

TPBG’s sales of a given product during 

the POR were made at prices less than 

the COP, we disregarded the below–cost 

sales because they were made in 

substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time pursuant to 

sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act 

and because, based on comparisons of 

prices to weighted–average COPs for the 

POR, we determined that these sales 

were at prices which would not permit 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time in accordance with 

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 

Model–Matching Methodology 

In making our comparisons of U.S. 

sales with sales of the foreign like 

product in the home market, we used 

the following methodology. If an 

identical comparison–market model 

with identical physical characteristics 

as listed below was reported, we made 

comparisons to weighted–average 

comparison–market prices that were 

based on all sales which passed the COP 

test of the identical product during a 

contemporaneous month. If there were 

no contemporaneous sales of an 

identical model, we identified the most 

similar comparison–market model. To 

determine the most similar model, we 

matched the foreign like product based 

on physical characteristics reported by 

the respondent in the following order of 

importance: (1) quality, (2) bag type, (3) 

length, (4) width, (5) gusset, (6) 

thickness, (7) percentage of high– 

density polyethylene resin, (8) 

percentage of low–density polyethylene 

resin, (9) percentage of low linear– 

density polyethylene resin, (10) 

percentage of color concentrate, (11) 

percentage of ink coverage, (12) number 

of ink colors, and (13) number of sides 

printed. 

Normal Value 

The Department may calculate normal 

value based on a sale to an affiliated 

party only if it is satisfied that the price 

to the affiliated party is comparable to 

the price at which sales are made to 

parties not affiliated with the exporter 

or producer, i.e., sales at arm’s–length 

prices. See section 773(f)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where 

affiliated–party sales were reported, we 

excluded from our analysis sales to 

affiliated customers for consumption in 

the comparison market that we 

determined not to be at arm’s–length 

prices. To test whether these sales were 

made at arm’s–length prices, we 

compared the prices of sales of 

comparable merchandise to affiliated 

and unaffiliated customers, net of all 

rebates, movement charges, direct 

selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance 

with our practice, when the prices 

charged to an affiliated party were, on 

average, between 98 and 102 percent of 

the prices charged to unaffiliated parties 

for merchandise comparable to that sold 

to the affiliated party, we determined 

that the sales to the affiliated party were 

at arm’s–length prices. See 

Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 

Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of 

Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 

2002) (explaining the Department’s 

practice). We included those sales to 

affiliated parties that were made at 

arm’s–length prices in our calculations 

of normal value. 

Comparison–market prices were 

based on the packed, ex–factory, or 

delivered prices to affiliated or 

unaffiliated purchasers. When 

applicable, we made adjustments for 

differences in packing and for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

We also made adjustments for 

differences in cost attributable to 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.411, adjusted as described in the 

‘‘Cost of Production’’ section above, and 

for differences in circumstances of sale 

in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410. For comparisons to EP, we 

made circumstance–of-sale adjustments 

by deducting comparison–market direct 

selling expenses from and adding U.S. 

direct selling expenses to normal value. 

We also made adjustments, if 

applicable, for comparison–market 

indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. 

commissions in EP calculations. 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 

normal value at the same level of trade 

as the EP sales. See the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ 

section below. 

Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we used constructed value as 

the basis for normal value when there 

were no contemporaneous comparable 

sales of the foreign like product in the 

comparison market. We calculated 

constructed value in accordance with 

section 773(e) of the Act. We included 

the cost of materials and fabrication, 

adjusted as described in the ‘‘Cost of 

Production’’ section above, SG&A 

expenses, U.S. packing expenses, and 

profit in the calculation of constructed 

value. In accordance with section 

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A 

expenses and profit on the amounts 

incurred and realized by TPBG in 

connection with the production and sale 

of the foreign like product in the 

ordinary course of trade for 

consumption in the comparison market. 

When appropriate, we made 

adjustments to constructed value in 

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the 

Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 CFR 

351.412 for circumstance–of-sale 

differences and level–of-trade 

differences. For comparisons to EP, we 

made circumstance–of-sale adjustments 

by deducting comparison–market direct 

selling expenses from and adding U.S. 

direct selling expenses to constructed 

value. We also made adjustments, when 

applicable, for comparison–market 

indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. 

commissions in EP comparisons. We 

calculated constructed value at the same 

level of trade as the EP. For a detailed 

explanation of the calculations, as well 

as adjustments to reflect minor 

verification findings, see Analysis 

Memo. 

Level of Trade 

To the extent practicable, we 

determined normal value for sales at the 

same level of trade as the U.S. sales. The 

normal–value level of trade is that of the 

starting–price sales in the comparison 

market. When normal value is based on 

constructed value, the level of trade is 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 39933 

that of the sales from which we derived 

SG&A and profit. 

To determine whether comparison– 

market sales are at a different level of 

trade than U.S. sales, we examined 

stages in the marketing process and 

selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. This analysis 

revealed that there were not any 

significant differences in selling 

functions between different channels of 

distribution or customer type in either 

its comparison or U.S. markets. 

Therefore, we determined that TPBG 

made all comparison–market sales at 

one level of trade. Moreover, we 

determined that all comparison–market 

sales by TPBG were made at the same 

level of trade as its EP sales. For a more 

detailed discussion, see Analysis Memo. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following percentage weighted–average 

dumping margins on PRCBs from 

Thailand exist for the period August 1, 

2007, through July 31, 2008: 

Producer/Exporter Percent Margin 

TPBG ............................ 22.02 

Master Packaging ......... 122.88 

Comments 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to interested parties to 

this review within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 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 

information: (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 

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 for TPBG an exporter/ 

importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment value for merchandise 

subject to this review by dividing the 

total dumping margin (calculated as the 

difference between normal value and 

EP) for each importer or customer by the 

total number of units the exporter sold 

to that importer or customer. We will 

instruct CBP to assess the resulting per– 

unit amount against each unit of 

merchandise in each of that importer’s/ 

customer’s entries during the POR. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties). This clarification 

applies to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by TPBG for which it did not know its 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all–others rate if there is 

no rate for the intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction. For a full discussion of this 

clarification, see Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties. 

For Master Packaging, because we are 

relying on total AFA to establish a 

dumping margin, we will instruct CBP 

to apply 122.88 percent to all entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

that were produced and/or exported by 

Master Packaging. 

We intend to issue liquidation 

instructions to CBP 15 days after 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of PRCBs from 

Thailand entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the 

cash–deposit rates for the reviewed 

companies will be the rates established 

in the final results of this review; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cash– 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review, a prior 

review, or the less–than-fair–value 

investigation but the manufacturer is, 

the cash–deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter 

nor the manufacturer has its own rate, 

the cash–deposit rate will be 2.80 

percent, the all–others rate for this 

proceeding. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importer 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 3, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–19100 Filed 8–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES