U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4080 May 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Preliminary)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Joshua Kaplan, Investigator 

Raymond Cantrell, Industry Analyst 

Craig Thomsen, Economist 

Charles Yost, Accountant 

Karl von Schriltz, Attorney 

Mara Alexander, Statistician 

George Deyman, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Edward Petronzio, Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4080 May 2009

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Preliminary)

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nature and extent of alleged countervailable subsidies and sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Alleged subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Alleged sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

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

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

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

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

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Manufacturing facilities and production employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

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

U.S. market characteristics and channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-3

Supply ................................................................... II-3

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-8

Lead times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-8

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

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

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

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

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-5

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-6
ii

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Geographical markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

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

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

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

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

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

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

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

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Sales via internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-12

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

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-13

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

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

Operations on PRCBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital expenditures, research and development expenses, and investment in productive 

facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-7

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-8

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

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

The industry in Indonesia ....................................................... VII-1

The industry in Taiwan ......................................................... VII-3

The industry in Vietnam ........................................................ VII-3

The industries in the subject countries combined ..................................... VII-5

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

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

Antidumping investigations in third-country markets ................................. VII-5

Information on nonsubject countries .............................................. VII-5
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Appendixes

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

B. Calendar of the Commission’s April 21, 2009 conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. Nonsubject-country quarterly price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Alleged effects of subject imports on producers’ existing development and production efforts,

growth, investment, and ability to raise capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. U.S. importers’ comments regarding the importation of PRCBs after December 31, 2008 . . . F-1

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

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

asterisks.
 
 1

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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Preliminary)

POLYETHYLENE RETAIL CARRIER BAGS FROM INDONESIA, TAIWAN, AND VIETNAM

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 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 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a reasonable indication that

an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam of polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) provided for in subheading 3923.21.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. PRCBs imported from Vietnam are alleged to be

subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). PRCBs imported from Indonesia

and Taiwan are alleged to be sold in the United States at 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) and 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) and 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 March 31, 2009, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by Hilex Poly Co.,

LLC, Hartsville, SC, and Superbag Corp., Houston, TX, alleging that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of subsidized and LTFV imports of PRCBs from Vietnam and LTFV imports

of PRCBs from Indonesia and Taiwan. Accordingly, effective March 31, 2009, the Commission

instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-462 and antidumping duty investigations Nos.

731-TA-1156-1158 (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 April 8, 2009 (74 FR 16009). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2009, and all

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

 1

 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a) (2000); see also American Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-04

(Fed. Cir. 1986); Aristech Chem. Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 353, 354-55 (1996). No party argued that the

establishment of an industry is materially retarded by reason of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.

 2

 American Lamb, 785 F.2d at 1001; see also Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535, 1543

(Fed. Cir. 1994).

 3

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

 4

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

1

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of

polyethylene retail carrier bags (“PRCBs”) from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam that are allegedly sold

in the United States at less than fair value and PRCBs from Vietnam that are allegedly subsidized by the

Government of Vietnam.

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS

The legal standard for preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations requires

the Commission to determine, based upon the information available at the time of the preliminary

determination, whether there is a reasonable indication that a domestic industry is materially injured or

threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded, by reason

of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.1

 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence

before it and determines whether “(1) the record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that

there is no material injury or threat of such injury; and (2) no likelihood exists that contrary evidence will

arise in a final investigation.”2

II. BACKGROUND

The petitions in these investigations were filed on March 31, 2009. The petitioners are Hilex

Poly Co., LLC and Superbag Corporation (collectively, “petitioners”), two of the largest domestic

producers of PRCBs.3

 Respondents that participated in the staff conference and filed a post-conference

brief in these preliminary investigations include foreign producers and importers Ampac Packaging

Vietnam Ltd.; The Cannon Group, Inc.; Chung Va (Vietnam) Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.; Elkay Plastics

Co., Inc.; Glopack Packaging PT; Industrias Chung Va (Holdings) Limitada; MHI Inc.; Packaging

Concepts International; PT Super Exim Sari; and PT Super Makmur, and domestic producers and

importers Ampac Plastics LLC and Glopack, Inc. (collectively, “respondents”). 

III. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

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

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

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”4

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

(“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a {w}hole of a domestic

like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major
 5

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 6

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trade 1996).

 8

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

 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Torrington,

747 F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations where

Commerce found five classes or kinds).

 12 See, e.g., Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1304-05 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000);

Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 693 F. Supp. 1165,

1169 n.5 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988); Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1087-88 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1988).

2

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”5

 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like

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

with, the article subject to an investigation ... .”6

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

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

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.7

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.8

 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.9

Although the Commission must accept the determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair

value,10 the Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has

identified.11 The Commission must base its domestic like product determination on the record in these

investigations. The Commission is not bound by prior determinations, even those pertaining to the same

imported products, but may draw upon previous determinations in addressing pertinent domestic like

product issues.12
 13 PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations, Case Nos. A-560-822, A-583-843, A-552-804, 74 Fed. Reg. 19049, 19055 (Apr. 27, 2009).

 14 CR at I-3, 8, 13; PR at I-2, 6, 9.

 15 CR at I-7-8, 10, 13; PR at I-6-7, 9-10; Conference Transcript (“Tr.”) at 117 (Gitlin).

 16 CR at I-13; PR at I-9; Tr. at 82 (Daniels), 141 (Wisla).

 17 CR at I-13-14; PR at I-9-10.

3

B. Product Description

In its notices of initiation, Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of the

investigations as follows:

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. Imports of merchandise

included within the scope of these investigations are currently classifiable under

statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS). This subheading may also cover products that are outside the scope of these

investigations. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these

investigations is dispositive.13

PRCBs are bags made of polyethylene film with handles that are provided by retailers to their

customers free of charge for packaging and carrying purchased goods home from the point of sale.14

PRCBs come in several varieties. T-shirt bags, so called due to their resemblance to tank-top styled

undershirts, are made of thinner (typically less than 1 mil) denser polyethylene film and are generally

printed with simple designs of one or two, but up to four, colors.15 Die-cut and drawstring bags are made

of thicker (around 1 mil) polyethylene film with handles die cut, or punched, into the top portion of the

bags, sometimes reinforced, and are also generally printed with simple designs.16 Higher-end PRCBs may

be made of even thicker polyethylene film, most greater than 2.5 mils, and may possess one or more of

the following features: attached handles of plastic, string, or rope; gussets (i.e., accordion-like creases

that enable the bag to contract and expand); square bottoms; cardboard or plastic inserts at the bottom of

the bag; plastic or metal grommets and fasteners; and elaborate, multi-colored designs printed on multiple

sides of the bag.17 
 18 Respondents’ Br. at 3-4.

 19 Petitioners’ Post-Conference Brief (“Petitioners’ Br.”) at 4; see also Confidential Views, PRCBs from China,

Malaysia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final) (“2004 Confidential Views”) at 12-13; PRCBs from

China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final), USITC Pub. 3710 (August 2004) (“2004

Public Views”) at 9.

 20 Petitioners’ Br. at 5.

 21 Petitioners’ Br. at 6.

 22 Petitioners’ Br. at 6.

 23 Petitioners’ Br. at 7.

 24 Petitioners’ Br. at 7.

 25 Petitioners’ Br. at 8.

 26 Petitioners’ Br. at 8.

4

C. Like Product Analysis

In these preliminary investigations, petitioners argue that the Commission should define a single

domestic like product coextensive with the scope of the investigations, encompassing a continuum of

PRCB products. Respondents counter that the Commission should define two domestic like products

corresponding to “high-end PRCBs,” which they define as PRCBs that are 2.25 mils or more in thickness

and reusable, and “commodity PRCBs,” which they define as PRCBs that are less than 2.25 mils in

thickness and disposable.18 For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, and based on

the following analysis, we define a single domestic like product coextensive with the scope of these

investigations. We intend, however, to re-examine this issue in any final phase of these investigations.

1. Arguments of the Parties

a. Petitioners’ Arguments

Petitioners argue that because the scope of these investigations is identical to the scope of the

antidumping duty investigations conducted in 2004 on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and

the nature of PRCBs has not changed since that time, the Commission should again define a single

domestic like product encompassing a continuum of PRCB products, as it did in the 2004 investigations.19

Petitioners first argue that there is a continuum of PRCB products, with no clear dividing line to

separate high-end PRCBs from other PRCBs, based upon the Commission’s six domestic like product

factors. They argue that all PRCBs have the same physical characteristics, imparted by polyethylene film,

and the same use, being given away free by retailers for carrying goods out of retail establishments.20

They claim that all PRCBs are generally interchangeable across the spectrum of qualities, sizes, and

features,21 and sold through the same channels of distribution, either direct to retailers or indirectly to

retailers via distributors.22 Consumers and producers perceive all PRCBs as within the same product

category, they contend, as all are made of polyethylene film and used to carry goods away from retail

establishments.23 They argue that all PRCBs are produced using the same four-step process – namely

blending, extrusion, printing, and bag conversion – using similar production processes and equipment,

and the same employees.24 Finally, with respect to price, petitioners argue that PRCBs exist on a broad

price continuum, depending upon the characteristics and features specified by retail purchasers,25 with

high-end PRCBs not necessarily priced higher than other types of PRCBs.26 
 27 Petitioners’ Br. at 4. 

 28 Petitioners’ Br. at 8-10.

 29 See Petitioners’ Br. at 11-15.

 30 Respondents’ Postconference Brief (“Respondents’ Br.”) at 4.

 31 Respondents’ Br. at 3-4.

 32 Respondents’ Br. at 4. We note that the Commission is not bound by local or state legislation that purports to

find different categories of PRCBs. Courts have consistently recognized the limited relevance to antidumping and

countervailing duty determinations of administrative actions under other statutes. See, e.g., Minivans from Japan,

Inv. No. 731-TA-522 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 2402 (July 1991) at 29 & n.73 (citing Smith Corona v. United

States, 915 F.2d 683, 686-87 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Torrington Co. v. United States, 745 F.Supp. 718, 722 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1990); Titanium Co. v. United States, 743 F. Supp. 888, 892 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990); Bomont Industries v. United

States, 733 F.Supp. 1507, 1509 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990); Roquette Freres v. United States, 583 F.Supp. 599, 605 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1984)). Compare United States v. Eurodif, S.A., 1289 S.Ct. 878, 887 (2009) (private contract law does

not bind Commerce Department's definition of a “good”). 

 33 Respondents’ Br. at 4.

 34 See Respondents’ Br. at 8-10. 

5

Petitioners next argue that respondents have provided the Commission with no reason to

“reconsider” its domestic like product definition from the 2004 investigations.27 They claim that

respondents have underscored the absence of any clear dividing line between high-end PRCBs and other

PRCBs by proposing multiple, inconsistent definitions of what constitutes high-end PRCBs, as they did in

the 2004 investigations.28 They also contest the factual accuracy of many of respondents’ claims, in

particular respondents’ assertions that domestic producers do not offer high-end PRCBs and cannot

accept orders for smaller quantities of PRCBs.29 

b. Respondents’ Arguments

Respondents dispute petitioners’ assertion that nothing has changed since the 2004 investigations,

and argue that certain laws enacted since 2004, regulating the use and disposal of plastic bags, constitute

an “intervening factor” that warrants the Commission’s reconsideration of the domestic like product

issue.30 In respondents’ view, these laws and a consideration of the Commission’s six domestic like

product factors establish the existence of a clear dividing line separating high-end PRCBs, which they

define as PRCBs that are 2.25 mils or more in thickness and reusable, from “commodity PRCBs,” which

they define as PRCBs that are less than 2.25 mils in thickness and disposable.31

First, respondents claim that jurisdictions including San Francisco and New York City began

passing laws in 2006 to regulate the use and disposal of certain plastic bags.32 All of these laws share one

thing in common, respondents claim, in that they regulate commodity PRCBs, defined as disposable bags

less than 2.25 mils in thickness, while exempting high-end PRCBs, defined as reusable bags 2.25 mils or

more in thickness.33 

Respondents further claim that the Commission’s six domestic like product factors support the

existence of a clear dividing line separating high-end PRCBs from commodity PRCBs based on the

greater thickness, reusability, and labor-intensive hand assembly of high-end PRCBs. According to

respondents, high-end shopping bags are distinguishable from other types of PRCBs in terms of their

value added features and full color graphics; their exemption from bag recycling laws; and their use by

retailers as walking billboards and by consumers as status symbols.34 Other PRCBs, by contrast, are used

for a single trip from the store to the home and reused by consumers, if at all, for such uses as throwing
 35 Respondents’ Br. at 8.

 36 Respondents’ Br. at 8-9.

 37 Respondents’ Br. at 11-12.

 38 Respondents’ Br. at 13.

 39 Respondents’ Br. at 10.

 40 Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414

F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). 

 41 See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 454-55 (1995); Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States,

704 F. Supp. 1075, 1087-88 (CIT 1988); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 693 F.

Supp. 1165, 1669 n.5 (1988). 

 42 CR at I-13; PR at I-9.

6

away pet waste or lining wastepaper baskets.35 According to them, the divergent physical characteristics

and uses of high-end PRCBs and other PRCBs preclude their interchangeable use.36 With respect to

channels of distribution, respondents claim that speciality retailers and boutiques requisition high-end

PRCBs in quantities of 2,500 to 5,000 from “packaging distributors,” while commodity PRCBs are sold

direct to larger retailers and via distributors to smaller retailers in quantities of hundreds of thousands or

millions. In terms of production processes, facilities, and employees, respondents argue that commodity

PRCBs are made in highly automated facilities designed to run continually, while high-end PRCBs are

made on smaller, more flexible equipment coupled with the labor-intensive hand assembly of value added

features, to enable small runs of customized bags.37 With respect to price, respondents estimate that tshirt bags cost $20 to $25 per 1,000 bags, or $0.020 to $0.025 per bag; die-cut/drawstring bags cost $70

to $80 per 1,000 bags, or $0.070 to $0.080 per bag; and high-end bags cost $350 to $650 per 1,000 bags,

or $0.35 to $0.65 and higher per bag.38 All of these various differences between high-end PRCBs and

commodity PRCBs, they claim, are reflected in differing producer, purchaser, and consumer perceptions

of the two product categories.39 

 2. Analysis

Although the Commission defined a single domestic like product in the 2004 investigations, we

are not bound by the Commission’s findings in those investigations because “each injury investigation by

the Commission ‘is sui generis, involving a unique combination and interaction of many economic

variables.’”40 Even with respect to investigations involving precisely the same scope, the Commission

makes its determinations based on the record of each investigation, including the arguments of the

parties.41 Accordingly, we are not “reconsidering” the domestic like product definition from the 2004

investigations, as petitioners and respondents suggest, but defining the appropriate domestic like product

or products based on the record of these preliminary phase investigations. 

Physical characteristics and uses

All PRCBs share the same general physical characteristics and uses. All are made from

polyethylene film and have handles, and all are provided by retailers to their customers free of charge to

package and carry goods from retail establishments.42
 43 As noted above, in the 2004 investigations, the Commission concluded that “there is a continuum of PRCBs

that are made in a wide range of shapes and sizes with varying features . . . primarily determined by retailers” but

“all shar[ing] certain qualities . . . .” CR at I-14; PR at I-10; 2004 Confidential Views at 11; 2004 Public Views at 8.

 44 See CR at I-13-14; PR at I-9-10; Tr. at 118 (Gitlin).

 45 Tr. at 38 (Halimi) (“Let me give you an example of one of these [domestic] higher end bags . . . These bags

compete directly with [subject imports] that have cardboard inserts at the bottom . . . the two bags compete head to

head.”). Faced with similar considerations in the 2004 investigations, the Commission found that “[m]ost

responding purchasers reported that high-end and low-end PRCBs have the same uses . . . and are interchangeable if

size and gauge are comparable . . . However, some purchasers noted differences between high-end and low-end

PRCBs with respect to customer perceptions, physical characteristics, and price.” CR at I-17; PR at I-12; 2004

Confidential Views at 8-9; 2004 Public Views at 7.

 46 See Tr. at 37-38 (Halimi).

 47 See Tr. at 30 (Rizzo) (“Because the product [PRCBs] is given away, [retailers] prefer that the cost of the

product be as close to zero as possible.”).

 48 See Tr. at 38 (Halimi) (“We also compete against other U.S. producers of these products including Northwest,

Genpak, Ampac, and PacShare [sic].”), 108-09 (Mr. von Schriltz: “I’m wondering how many domestic competitors

you have for your higher end bags.” Mr. Halimi: “I have named a few of the companies in my statement. There’s a

company Pakture [sic], Genpak, there’s Rollplast in Northern California. It all really depends on the product line. 

There’s a company locally in California called Leadway. They’re a competitor.”). 

 49 See Tr. at 38 (Halimi).

7

Different types of PRCBs possess different physical characteristics, however.43 Most are made to

the specifications of the retailer and thus are made in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, with various

thicknesses, and with a wide variety of handles, gussets, color combinations, and printing.44 

It is unclear whether the higher-end PRCBs produced in the United States, which reportedly

possess physical characteristics and uses similar to those of subject imported high-end PRCBs, satisfy

respondents’ proposed definition of high-end PRCBs in terms of thickness.45 At the conference,

petitioners submitted as exhibits “higher end” PRCBs produced in the United States by Command

Packaging with features similar to those of subject imported high-end PRCBs, including thicker-gauge

material, attached handles, square bottoms, gussets, and multi-color graphics printed over a substantial

portion of the bags, but did not specify the thickness of the bags.46 

Interchangeability

There would appear to be limited interchangeability between t-shirt bags, die-cut bags, and

drawstring bags, at one extreme, and high-end shopping bags, on the other, given the substantial physical

and price differences between these types of PRCBs. Image-conscious specialty retailers and boutiques

are willing to pay a substantial premium for aesthetically pleasing high-end bags, and would not likely

substitute comparatively duller commodity PRCBs. Conversely, big box retailers, grocery stores, and

drug stores would not likely substitute more costly high-end shopping bags for less costly commodity

PRCBs when their primary concern is minimizing the cost of PRCBs.47 Mr. Halimi of Command

Packaging testified that his company’s domestic competition for sales of higher-end PRCBs is limited to a

relative handful of domestic producers, suggesting that most domestic producers do not make PRCBs that

are interchangeable with his company’s higher-end bags.48 On the other hand, it is unclear whether the

higher-end PRCBs produced in the United States, which are reportedly interchangeable with subject

imported high-end PRCBs, satisfy respondents’ proposed definition of high-end PRCBs in terms of

thickness.49 
 50 See Tr. at 102-103 (Halimi).

 51 CR at I-9-12, 15; PR at I-6-8, 10-11. Respondents argued that subject imported high-end PRCBs are made

using higher quality extruders and printed using the rotogravure printing process, unlike subject imported commodity

PRCBs. See CR at I-10; PR at I-8; Tr. at 126, 150-51 (Lin). There is no evidence on the record, however, that

domestically produced higher-end PRCBs are produced on different extruders or with different printing equipment

than other types of PRCBs. See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-7 (noting that domestically produced PRCBs are printed

using the flexographic printing process). 

 52 CR at I-14; PR at I-10; Tr. at 80 (Halimi).

 53 CR at I-11-12; PR at I-8; see also Tr. at 127-28 (Lin), 131 (Perry).

 54 When considering whether there are two or more domestic like products, the Commission assesses whether

there are clear dividing lines among differing domestic articles, and the analysis of the domestic like product factors

may thus pertain only to differences in manufacturing methods between domestic articles. 

 55 Tr. at 80 (Halimi) (“What is called the conversion line . . . those are specific to the product line.”). In the 2004

investigations, the Commission found that “the basic process for production of PRCBs generally involves blending,

extrusion, printing, and bag conversion” and noted that the labor-intensity of imported high-end bag production was

not a relevant consideration. CR at I-15; PR at I-11; 2004 Confidential Views at 9-10; 2004 Public Views at 7. The

Commission also found that the production facilities, processes, and employees utilized by domestic producers to

make high-end PRCBs and other PRCBs varied by producer: “Some U.S. producers reported that high-end and all

other PRCBs were produced using very similar production methods . . . A few producers acknowledged some

differences in the manufacturing processes between high-end and all other PRCBs.” CR at I-15; PR at I-11; 2004

Confidential Views at 10; 2004 Public Views at 7-8. 

 56 CR at II-1-2; PR at II-1; CR/PR at Table II-1.

 57 Tr. at 122-23 (Gitlin). In the 2004 investigations, the Commission found that the channels of distribution for

high-end PRCBs and other PRCBs differed somewhat. CR at I-17; PR at I-12; 2004 Confidential Views at 9; 2004

(continued...)

8

Common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees

All types of PRCBs are generally produced in the same facilities with the same employees, but

not necessarily with the same overall production processes.50 While the first three steps of the four-step

PRCB production process – namely, blending, extruding, and printing – are shared by all types of PRCBs,

the last production step, conversion, differs according to the type of PRCB being produced.51 For

example, Command Packaging uses the same extrusion and printing equipment for all 10 types of PRCBs

that it produces, from t-shirt bags to higher-end PRCBs, but different conversion equipment.52 

Respondents emphasize that their production process for high-end PRCBs differs from domestic

producers’ process for making low-end bags due to the labor-intensity of the conversion process, which

can include the insertion of cardboard or plastic bottoms and the attachment of rope handles by hand.53

The labor-intensity of producing imported high-end PRCBs is not a basis for drawing a clear dividing line

between high-end PRCBs and other PRCBs produced in the United States, however, because all PRCB

production in the United States is fully automated.54 Nevertheless, there is some evidence that the

conversion process for domestically produced higher-end PRCBs that are reportedly similar to imported

high-end PRCBs differs from the conversion process for other types of domestically produced PRCBs.55

Channels of distribution

All types of PRCBs are sold either directly to retailers or to distributors that ultimately sell the

PRCBs to retailers.56 Respondents testified that the channels of distribution for high-end PRCBs and

other PRCBs had been different, but have increasingly converged as distributors that used to offer only

commodity PRCBs are increasingly offering high-end PRCBs as well.57 
 57 (...continued)

Public Views at 7.

 58 Data on customer perceptions from purchasers are unavailable since purchasers’ questionnaires are not

normally issued in preliminary phase investigations. CR at I-17; PR at I-12. In the 2004 investigations, the

Commission found that “[m]ost purchasers . . . reported that there is no clear distinction between high-end and lowend PRCBs,” though “some purchasers noted differences between high-end and low-end PRCBs with respect to

customer perceptions, physical characteristics, and price.” CR at I-17; PR at I-12; 2004 Confidential Views at 9;

2004 Public Views at 7.

 59 See Tr. at 37-38 (Halimi).

 60 See Tr. at 38, 108-09 (Halimi).

 61 See Tr. at 121-22, 134, 152-53 (Gitlin). 

 62 See CR at I-18; PR at I-12-13; see also Tr. at 120 (Gitlin); Respondents’ Br. at 13. The average unit value of

domestic producers’ U.S. shipments ranged from 1.3 to 1.5 cents per bag, while the average unit value of subject

imports ranged from 0.9 to 1.3 cents per bag. CR/PR at Table C-1; see also id. at Tables V-1-4 (pricing product

prices ranged from 0.8 to *** cents). Separate average unit value and pricing data for high-end PRCBs were not

collected in these preliminary phase investigations. In the 2004 investigations, the Commission found that non-highend PRCB prices “were generally lower” than high-end PRCB prices. CR at I-18; PR at I-13; 2004 Confidential

Views at 10; 2004 Public Views at 8. It also found, however, that “many U.S. firms had shipments of PRCBs not

classified as high-end PRCBs in [price] ranges that were much higher” than the average unit values for commercial

domestic shipments of PRCBs. 2004 Confidential Views at 10; 2004 Public Views at 8. 

 63 Petitioners’ Br. at 8 (citing PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos., 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3710 (Aug. 2004) at 9 n.37) (noting that in the 2004 investigations, the Commission found that the

average unit values of five domestic producers exceeded the average unit value of subject imports of high-end

PRCBs, as defined by respondents in those investigations). 

9

Customer and producer perceptions

Customers and producers perceive some differences between t-shirt, die-cut, and drawstring

PRCBs, on the one hand, and high-end PRCBs, on the other.58 Mr. Halimi of Command Packaging

testified that his company’s higher-end PRCBs compete directly with imported high-end PRCBs,

implying that his company’s lower-end PRCB products, including t-shirt bags, do not.59 He also

indicated that his domestic competition for sales of higher-end PRCBs is limited.60 Mr. Gitlin of

Glopack, an importer and foreign producer of high-end PRCBs, testified that retailers perceive high-end

PRCBs as different and superior to other PRCBs due to their superior design characteristics and

durability, which render them “walking advertisements” when used and reused by consumers.61 In

exempting PRCBs that are 2.25 mils or more in thickness, the state and local environmental statutes cited

by respondents also suggest that high-end PRCBs are perceived as different than other PRCBs in certain

respects.

Price

The record indicates that high-end PRCBs are priced from 25 to 65 cents per bag, which is

substantially more than the average unit value of subject imports or domestic producer shipments, or the

prices of the pricing products for which data were collected, none of which were high-end.62 There is also

evidence, however, that PRCBs exist on a broad price continuum, with high-end PRCBs not necessarily

more expensive than other types of PRCBs.63 

 
 64 Respondents acknowledge that lower quality PRCBs can be reused. See Respondents’ Br. at 8. 

 65 2004 Confidential Views at 12; 2004 Public Views at 9.

 66 Respondents have proffered somewhat inconsistent definitions of high-end PRCBs in these preliminary phase

investigations. See Petitioners’ Br. at 11-12. In their written comments on draft questionnaires for the final phase of

these investigations, as provided under 19 C.F.R. § 207.20(b), we expect respondents to provide the Commission

with a more detailed definition of the high-end PRCBs that they urge the Commission to define as a separate

domestic like product. 

10

Conclusion

The record indicates that, broadly speaking, t-shirt, die-cut, and drawstring PRCBs are similar to

high-end PRCBs. All PRCBs are made of polyethylene film and feature handles and printed designs, and

all are typically provided by retailers free of charge for packaging and carrying goods out of retail

establishments. As such, PRCBs of the same size and gauge are generally interchangeable. The first

three steps of the four-step PRCB production process – namely, blending, extrusion, and printing – are

shared by all PRCBs, as are production facilities and employees. Since the 2004 investigations, high-end

PRCBs have increasingly been distributed by the same distributors that handle other PRCBs.

There are some salient differences between high-end PRCBs and other PRCBs, however. Mr.

Halimi testified that the higher-end PRCBs produced by Command Packaging possess certain features,

such as square bottoms and attached handles, not generally found on other types of PRCBs. He also

indicated that the conversion process for higher-end PRCBs, which presumably imparts their special

features, differs from the conversion process for other types of PRCBs. 

The significantly higher price of high-end PRCBs would make it uneconomical for purchasers to

substitute high-end PRCBs for other types of PRCBs, even if technically feasible. That purchasers are

willing to pay such a premium for high-end PRCBs suggests that they are perceived differently in the

marketplace, as an advertising vehicle as much as a utilitarian item. The environmental statutes cited by

respondents lend further support to this inference, in apparently recognizing that consumers tend to reuse

heavier-gauge PRCBs to a greater extent than other types of PRCBs.

Nevertheless, there is insufficient evidence on the record of these preliminary investigations for

us to conclude that there is a clear dividing line separating high-end PRCBs from other types of PRCBs

on the continuum of PRCB products. Respondents propose drawing such a line on the bases of gauge,

with bags 2.25 mils or more in thickness qualifying as “high-end PRCBs,” and reusability. The gauge of

the domestically produced higher-end PRCBs that reportedly compete with imported high-end PRCBs is

unclear, however, and PRCBs with gauges thinner than 2.25 mils can be reused.64 

Also unclear is the extent to which domestically produced PRCBs in the middle of the continuum

are similar to or different from imported high-end PRCBs. In the 2004 investigations, the Commission

found that the respondents’ arguments, which were similar to those advanced by respondents in these

preliminary investigations, “do not account for the vast array of PRCBs that fall in the middle of the

continuum” but instead “focus on . . . products at the opposite ends of the continuum.”65 In our view,

respondents’ domestic like product arguments in these preliminary phase investigations suffer from a

similar shortcoming. 

For the foregoing reasons, we define a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the

scope of the investigation defined by Commerce, comprised of a continuum of PRCBs. We intend to

explore this issue further in any final phase of these investigations, however, and intend to collect

separate data on high-end PRCBs, assuming that a clear definition can be provided that distinguishes

between these two types of PRCBs.66
 67 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 68 CR/PR at Table III-1. Domestic producers of PRCBs during the period of investigation include Ampac, API,

Bemis, Command, Durabag, Europackaging, Genpak, Golden, Hilex, Inteplast, Omega, Poly-Pak, Roplast,

Superbag, and Unistar. Id.

 69 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 70 See CR/PR at Table III-5; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 71 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 72 See CR/PR at Table III-1.

 73 The ratio of subject imports to domestic production ranged from *** to *** percent. CR/PR at Table III-5. 

Subject imports as a percentage of domestic production increased from *** in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and to

*** percent in 2008 for ***; from *** in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and to *** percent in 2008 for ***; from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008 for ***; from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008 for ***; from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008 for ***; and from *** in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and to *** percent in

2008 for ***. Id. With respect to ***, the ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** in 2006, *** in

2007, and *** in 2008. Id. With respect to ***, the ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** in each

year of the period. Id. We note, however, that the ratio of subject import purchases to domestic production was ***

percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008 for *** and *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007,

and *** in 2008 for ***. Id. We also note that one related party, ***, and three additional related parties, ***. See

CR/PR at Table III-1. 

11

IV. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a {w}hole 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.”67 In defining the domestic industry, the

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

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

Based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry as all domestic

producers of PRCBs.68

A. Related Parties

We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from

the domestic industry pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B) allows the

Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.69 Exclusion

of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each

investigation. 

Eight domestic producers, ***, qualify as related parties because they were importers of subject

merchandise from Indonesia, Taiwan, or Vietnam during the period of investigation.70 In addition, ***

are related to subject foreign exporters of PRCBs.71 As discussed below, we find that circumstances do

not warrant the exclusion of any related party in these preliminary phase investigations.

Related parties together accounted for a substantial *** percent of domestic production in 2008,

with the three largest related parties, ***, alone accounting for *** percent of domestic production that

year.72 During the period of investigation, the ratio of subject imports to domestic production increased

***, but remained less than 50 percent for all related parties, indicating that all retained a primary interest

in domestic production as opposed to importing.73 Indeed, petitioners assert that domestic producers have
 74 Petitioners’ Br. at 22; Tr. at 20 (Bazbaz) (“[S]ome domestic producers are using blended sales programs. That

is a domestic producer will commit to sell a customer its higher priced domestic bags and lower priced imported

bags at a single average price.”).

 75 See CR/PR at Table VI-2. We note that the related party with the highest ratio of subject imports to domestic

production, ***. See id. at Table VI-2 & n.1.

 76 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Chairman Aranoff does not rely on individualcompany 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.

 77 For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, Commissioner Pinkert does not rely upon

financial performance as a factor in determining whether there are appropriate circumstances to exclude related

parties from the domestic industry. The present record is not sufficient to infer from the companies’ profitability on

their U.S. operations whether they have derived a specific benefit from importing. See Allied Mineral Products v.

United States, 28 C.I.T. 1861, 1865-67 (2004). For the final phase of these investigations, Commissioner Pinkert

invites the parties to provide any information they may have with respect to whether these companies are benefitting

financially from their status as related parties. 

 78 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i).

 79 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-280

(continued...)

12

been forced to import PRCBs as a means of sustaining their higher-cost domestic operations.74 At the

same time, there is currently no evidence that related parties derived a significant financial benefit from

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

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

parties.75 76 77 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 the like product,

excluding no related parties.

V. CUMULATION

A. Background

For purposes of evaluating the volume and price effects for a determination of reasonable

indication of material injury by reason of the subject imports, section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Tariff Act

requires the Commission to cumulate subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed

and/or investigations self-initiated by Commerce on the same day, if such imports compete with each

other and with domestic like products in the U.S. market.78 In assessing whether subject imports compete

with each other and with the domestic like product, the Commission has generally considered four

factors:

(1) the degree of fungibility between the subject imports from different countries and

between 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 geographic markets of subject

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 the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.79 80
(...continued)

(Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff'd, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int'l

Trade), aff'd, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 80 Commissioner Lane notes with respect to the first factor that her analysis does not require such similarity of

products that a perfectly symmetrical fungibility is required. See Separate Views of Commissioner Charlotte R.

Lane, Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China, Germany, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA1126-1128 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3964 (Nov. 2007).

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

 82 The Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at

848 (1994) (“SAA”) expressly states that “the new section will not affect current Commission practice under which

the statutory requirement is satisfied if there is a reasonable overlap of competition.” SAA at 848 (citing Fundicao

Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898, 902 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988)), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See

Goss Graphic Sys., Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082,1087 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998) (“cumulation does not

require two products to be highly fungible”); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at 52 (“Completely overlapping

markets are not required.”).

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

 84 CR at II-11; PR at II-8.

 85 CR at II-11-12; PR at II-8; CR/PR at Table II-3.

 86 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 87 CR at IV-5, V-2; PR at IV-5, V-2.

13

While no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not exclusive, these

factors are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for determining whether the subject

imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.81 Only a “reasonable overlap” of

competition is required.82

The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in these investigations because petitioners filed

the antidumping duty petitions with respect to Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and the countervailing

duty petition with respect to Vietnam, on March 31, 2009.83 None of the statutory exceptions to

cumulation is applicable. 

B. Analysis

Based on the record of these preliminary phase investigations, we find a reasonable overlap of

competition between subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and between subject imports

from each source and the domestic like product. First, the record indicates that there is a high degree of

substitutability between subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and subject imports from

each source and the domestic like product.84 Most responding producers and importers reported that

subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam are “always” or “frequently” used interchangeably

with each other and with the domestic like product.85 When asked whether differences other than price

are ever significant to purchasers, most producers and importers responded “sometimes” or “never,”

though a significant minority of importers reported that differences other than price are “always” or

“frequently” significant to purchasers choosing between subject imports and the domestic like product.86

Second, PRCBs from all sources generally served the same geographic markets during the period

of investigation. Subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam entered the United States through

multiple ports of entry dispersed across the country, with roughly one-third shipped under 100 miles, onethird shipped between 100 and 1,000 miles, and one-third shipped over 1,000 miles.87 Consistent with

these data, 21 of 39 importers of subject PRCBs reported serving customers nationwide, while 18
 88 CR at II-3; PR at II-2; CR/PR at Table II-2. We note that these data do not break out the country source of the

subject imported PRCBs.

 89 CR/PR at Table II-3, IV-5.

 90 Shipments to end users accounted for between 63.9 and 69.4 percent of U.S. shipments of the domestic like

product, between 53.2 and 71.7 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Indonesia, between 55.1 and 64.2

percent of subject imports from Taiwan, and between 35.0 and 57.3 percent of subject imports from Vietnam. 

CR/PR at Table II-1. U.S. shipments of subject imports from Vietnam to end users were at their nadir in 2006 at

35.0 percent before increasing to 57.3 percent in 2007 and 51.1 percent in 2008. Id. 

 91 Shipments to distributors accounted for between 30.6 and 36.1 percent of U.S. shipments of the domestic like

product, between 28.3 and 46.8 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Indonesia, between 35.8 and 44.9

percent of subject imports from Taiwan, and between 42.7 and 65.0 percent of subject imports from Vietnam. 

CR/PR at Table II-1. 

 92 CR at IV-5; PR at IV-5.

 93 In these preliminary phase investigations, subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, respectively,

accounted for more than 3 percent of the volume of PRCBs imported into the United States from all sources in the

most recent 12-month period for which data are available preceding the filing of the petition. CR at IV-6; PR at IV5-6. As such, we find that subject imports are not negligible under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24).

 94 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 95 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

(continued...)

14

reported serving one or more regional markets.88 Petitioners contend that domestic producers and subject

imports alike serve customers nationwide, and 11 of 15 domestic producers reported that they serve

customers nationwide.89 Thus, subject imports from all three sources and the domestic like product serve

all regions of the United States.

Third, subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the domestic like product shared

the same general channels of distribution. During the period examined, shipments directly to end users

accounted for a majority of U.S. shipments of the domestic like product and subject imports from

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam.90 The balance of U.S. shipments of PRCBs from all sources were made

to distributors.91 

Finally, PRCBs from all sources were simultaneously present in the U.S. market, given that

subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam entered the United States in every month of the

period examined.92 

Based on these factors, we conclude that there is a reasonable overlap of competition between and

among subject imports and the domestic like product, and, therefore, cumulate subject imports from

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam for our analysis of reasonable indication of material injury by reason of

subject imports.

VI. REASONABLE INDICATION OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF

IMPORTS OF SUBJECT MERCHANDISE FROM INDONESIA, TAIWAN, AND

VIETNAM93

In the preliminary phase of antidumping or countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation.94 In making this

determination, the Commission must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the

domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in

the context of U.S. production operations.95 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not
 95 (...continued)

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

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 96 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 97 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 98 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 99 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

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

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

1996).

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

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

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

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

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

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

tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458

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

2001).

 102 Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. 103-

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

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

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

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

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

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

(continued...)

15

inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”96 In assessing whether there is a reasonable indication that

the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant

economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.97 No single factor is

dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”98

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether there is a reasonable

indication that the domestic industry is “materially injured by reason of” unfairly traded imports,99 it does

not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the

Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.100 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject

imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that

relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those

imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard

must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a

sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.101

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

be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject

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

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

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

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

statutory material injury threshold.102 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not
 102 (...continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”). 

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

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

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

injury.”).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject imports. Mittal explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price-competitive, nonsubject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an important

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

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

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

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

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

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

16

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.103 Nor does the

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

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

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.104 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.105

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

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

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

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”106 107 Indeed, the

Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid
 108 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

 114 We provide in the discussion of impact in section VI.D. below an analysis of other factors alleged to have

caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 

17

adherence to a specific formula.”108

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

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

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

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

imports.109 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have

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

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

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

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

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

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

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

injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.110 Accordingly, we do not consider

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

subsequent to Bratsk.

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

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

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

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.111 112

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

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

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

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.113 114

For the reasons stated below, we find that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic

industry producing PRCBs is materially injured by reason of subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and
 115 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 116 CR at II-9; PR at II-7.

 117 CR at II-9; PR at II-7.

 118 CR at II-9; PR at II-7. Petitioners argued that, notwithstanding the data showing a decline in apparent

consumption between 2006 and 2008, PRCB demand has remained stable despite environmental concerns and the

recession. As support, they cite Mr. Bazbaz’s testimony that only 1 percent of reusable bags are actually reused for

subsequent retail purchases, and highlight the finding of the Progressive Bag Alliance that San Francisco’s ban on

PRCBs has had no effect on PRCB consumption there. Petitioners’ Br. at 22-23. The recession has not dented

PRCB demand, they claim, because consumers have cut back on the value of each retail purchase but not the

frequency of their retail purchases. Petitioners’ Br. at 23; Tr. at 92 (Halimi). In any final phase of these

investigations, we intend to examine further the short-term and longer-term factors affecting demand for PRCBs,

including economic conditions, environmental concerns, and the relative popularity and substitutability of paper

bags and reusable bags made of cloth or other materials. 

 119 CR/PR at Tables III-1, C-1.

 120 CR/PR at Tables III-1, C-1.

 121 CR/PR at Tables III-2, C-1; CR at III-3; PR at III-2.

18

Vietnam that are allegedly sold at less than fair value in the United States and subject imports from

Vietnam that are allegedly subsidized by the Government of Vietnam.

A. Conditions of Competition

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis in the preliminary phase of these

investigations.

1. Demand Conditions 

 Apparent U.S. consumption for PRCBs declined by 7.0 percent during the period of

investigation, from 109.8 billion bags in 2006 to 106.2 billion bags in 2007 and 102.1 billion bags in

2008.115 When asked how demand for PRCBs in the U.S. market has changed since 2006, seven

responding producers reported a decrease, seven reported no change, and one reported an increase.116

Similarly, 16 of 35 responding importers reported that PRCB demand has declined since 2006, 16

reported no change, and 3 reported an increase.117 Reasons given by responding producers and importers

for the decline in PRCB demand since 2006 included the weakening economy, increased use of

alternative bag types, legislative actions regulating the use of PRCBs, environmental concerns, and

increased polyethylene prices in 2008 due to high oil prices.118 

 

 2. Supply Conditions

a. Domestic Capacity

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 2008, respectively.119 All other domestic producers combined accounted for only ***

percent of domestic production in 2008.120 Between 2006 and 2008, four domestic PRCB production

facilities closed (three owned by Hilex and one by Europackaging), resulting in a 3.4 percent decline in

domestic production capacity.121

Petitioners claim that PRCB production facilities must be operated around the clock to reduce
 122 Petitioners’ Br. at 20. Respondents agree with petitioners that automated PRCB production facilities are

designed to be operated continuously. See Respondents’ Br. at 11.

 123 Petitioners’ Br. at 21.

 124 CR/PR at Tables IV-3-4.

 125 CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1. The next largest source of nonsubject imports was Canada, which accounted for 2

percent of total imports during the 2006-08 period. CR at II-8; PR at II-6.

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

 127 Derived by Commission staff from proprietary Customs data. See EDIS Document No. 403714.

 128 See CR at II-11, 13; PR at II-8-9.

 129 CR at II-11-12; PR at II-8; CR/PR at Table II-3.

 130 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 131 Petitioners’ Br. at 19.

 132 CR at V-7; PR at V-5. 

19

unit costs to an economical level, and that this factor compels domestic producers to defend their sales to

key customers, their “baseload business,” by meeting low subject import prices.122 Customers lost to

subject imports, they contend, may only be regained by undercutting the new incumbent supplier’s

price.123 In any final phase of these investigations, we intend to explore further the market dynamics

associated with sales to large customers.

b. Nonsubject Imports

Nonsubject imports declined from 34.7 billion bags in 2006, or 31.6 percent of apparent U.S.

consumption, to 20.9 billion bags in 2007, or 19.7 percent of apparent U.S. consumption, before

increasing slightly to 21.8 billion bags in 2008, or 21.3 percent of apparent U.S. consumption, a volume

37.2 percent below that of 2006.124 The principal sources of nonsubject imports were China, Malaysia,

and Thailand,125 and PRCBs from all three countries are subject to antidumping duty orders imposed in

2004.126 A substantial proportion of imports from these countries was imported from producers not

subject to the orders, however, including *** percent of imports from China, *** percent of imports from

Malaysia, and *** percent of imports from Thailand, in 2008.127

c. Substitutability

The record indicates that there is a high degree of substitutability between PRCBs, regardless of

the source, and that price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions.128 Most responding

producers and importers reported that subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam are “always”

used interchangeably with each other and with the domestic like product.129 When asked whether

differences other than price are significant in their sales of PRCBs, most producers and importers

responded “sometimes” or “never,” though a significant minority of importers reported that differences

other than price are “always” or “frequently” significant to purchasers choosing between subject imports

and the domestic like product.130

Petitioners argue that price competition between the domestic like product and subject imports

has intensified since the 2004 investigations due to the increased use of internet events held by

purchasers, including reverse auctions.131 The record does not support petitioners’ claim, however, as 11

of 15 responding producers and 32 of 39 responding importers reported that they do not sell PRCBs over

the internet.132 Of the five responding firms that reported the proportion of their sales made over the

internet, only one firm indicated that this proportion was significant, ranging from 30 to 35 percent, while
 133 CR at V-7-8; PR at V-5.

 134 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 135 CR/PR at Tables IV-3-4.

 136 CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 137 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 138 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 139 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 140 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 141 See CR at II-11-14; PR at II-8-10; CR/PR at Tables II-3-4.

20

four reported that this proportion was relatively small, ranging from 1 to 10 percent.133 

B. Volume of Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume

of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”134

During the period of investigation, cumulated subject import shipments increased by 114 percent;

increasing from 6.8 billion bags in 2006 to 14.7 billion bags in 2007 and then decreasing to 14.6 billion

bags in 2008, as cumulated subject imports increased their share of apparent U.S. consumption from 6.2

percent in 2006 to 13.8 percent in 2007 and 14.3 percent in 2008.135 The value of cumulated subject

imports increased by 188 percent over the period, from $64.6 million in 2006 to $161.9 million in 2007

and $186.0 million in 2008.136 At the same time, the ratio of subject imports to domestic production, by

quantity, increased from 9.5 percent in 2006 to 20.0 percent in 2007 and 21.7 percent in 2008.137 

We recognize that the 8.1 percentage point increase in cumulated subject import market share

between 2006 and 2008 came at the expense of nonsubject import market share, which declined 10.3

percentage points during the period due principally to the imposition of antidumping duty orders on

imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.138 We note, however, that the domestic industry increased

its market share by only 2.2 percentage points during the period, which was far less than the increase in

subject import market share, and lost 2.1 percentage points of market share between 2007 and 2008 as

cumulated subject imports further increased their market share by half of a percentage point.139

For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that subject import volume

is significant, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States, and

that the increase in subject import volume and market share also is significant.

C. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Section 771(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of subject imports, 

the Commission shall consider whether – (I) there has been significant price underselling

by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the

United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses

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

occurred, to a significant degree.140

As addressed in section VI.A.2.c. 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.141 

Twelve domestic producers, 12 importers of PRCBs from Indonesia, 13 importers of PRCBs from
 142 CR at V-9; PR at V-6. 

 143 See CR at V-9-10; PR at V-6.

 144 The probative value of average unit value data is questionable, given evidence that PRCBs can range in price

from 2.5 cents to 65 cents per bag depending on their weight and other physical attributes. See CR at I-17-18; PR at

I-12-13. We therefore do not rely on such data in our pricing analysis.

 145 CR/PR at Table V-5. 

 146 CR/PR at Table V-5. 

 147 See CR/PR at Tables V-1-5.

 148 CR at V-10; PR V-6-7.

 149 CR at V-10; PR at V-7.

 150 See 2004 Confidential Views at 31-32; 2004 Public Views at 22 (citing quarterly comparisons based on

quantities in thousands of bags); Tr. at 63 (Dorn). 

 151 See CR/PR at Table IV-1 (subject imports from Vietnam accounted for 44.9 percent of cumulated subject

imports in 2006, 49.7 percent of cumulated subject imports in 2007, and 49.3 percent of cumulated subject imports

in 2008); CR at V-10; PR at V-6 (reported pricing data accounted for 16.0 percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from

Vietnam).

21

Taiwan, and 19 importers of PRCBs from Vietnam provided usable quarterly net U.S. f.o.b. selling price

data for four products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.142 Pricing

data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 95.4 percent of the domestic industry’s U.S.

shipments of PRCBs, 59.5 percent of PRCBs imported from Indonesia, 80.1 percent of PRCBs imported

from Taiwan, and 16.0 percent of PRCBs imported from Vietnam during the period of investigation.143

These data indicate a mixed pattern of over- and underselling, with a tendency towards overselling.144

Specifically, between the first quarter of 2006 and the fourth quarter of 2008, subject imports

oversold the domestic like product in 95 of 143 quarterly comparisons, or 66.4 percent of the time, at

margins ranging from 0.1 percent to 162.3 percent.145 Subject imports undersold the domestic like

product in 48 of 143 quarterly comparisons, or 33.6 percent of the time, at margins ranging from 1.2

percent to 79.6 percent.146 

Subject import overselling was most pronounced with respect to the highest volume pricing

products. With respect to products 1 and 2, which accounted for the vast majority of domestic pricing

product shipments during the period of investigation, subject imports oversold the domestic like product

in 64 of 72 quarterly comparisons, or 88.9 percent of the time.147

Nevertheless, there is some question as to the probative value of the pricing data collected in

these preliminary phase investigations. Pricing comparisons between different sources of PRCBs are

complicated by the fact that each of the four pricing product definitions encompasses a range of sizes and

hence weights of bags.148 Because the price of a given PRCB is influenced by the weight of the

polyethylene resin used in its production, the price per 1,000 bags within each pricing product category

could vary substantially depending upon bag weight.149 Though petitioners argue that pricing data

collected on the basis of price per pound would be more probative, we note that the Commission relied

upon pricing data on the basis of price per 1,000 bags in the 2004 investigations, and petitioners testified

at the conference that they “saw no reason to urge the Commission to seek anything different” in these

preliminary phase investigations.150 We intend to collect pricing data on the basis of both price per pound

and price per 1,000 bags in any final phase of these investigations. Another factor reducing the probative

value of pricing data in these preliminary phase investigations is the low data coverage of subject imports

from Vietnam, which was the largest source of subject imports.151

 Of *** lost sales allegations totaling $*** and *** lost revenue allegations totaling $***, only

two lost sales allegations and one lost revenues allegation were confirmed, totaling $*** and $***,
 152 CR at V-19; PR at V-14; CR/PR at Tables V-6-7.

 153 CR/PR at Tables V-6-7; CR at V-26; PR at V-14-15.

 154 See CR/PR at Tables V-2-4. 

 155 See CR/PR at Table V-1. 

 156 CR/PR at Table VI-1. The domestic industry’s unit raw material costs per 1,000 bags declined from $8.82 in

2006 to $8.17 in 2007, but increased to $9.88 in 2008. Id. Mr. Bazbaz testified at the conference that the index of

raw material prices used by Superbag peaked in September 2008 and then declined through December 2008. Tr. at 

91. 

 157 CR/PR at Table VI-1. 

22

respectively.152 We note, however, that purchasers involved in *** of the *** allegations did not respond

to the Commission staff’s attempts to confirm them, and ***, neither confirmed nor denied the

allegations.153 Accordingly, we intend to investigate lost sales and revenues allegations further in any

final phase of these investigations. 

We do not find a strong indication of price depression since domestic like product prices for

products 2, 3, and 4 were only slightly lower in the fourth quarter of 2008 than in the first quarter of

2006.154 Domestic like product prices for product 1 declined 7.1 percent over the period, but accounted

for at most 4.9 percent of domestic pricing product shipments in any one quarter.155

We do find some indication that subject import competition suppressed domestic like product

prices. The domestic industry’s unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) increased 7.5 percent during the period

of investigation, driven largely by a 12.0 percent increase in unit raw material costs, while the average

unit value of domestic industry sales increased only 5.1 percent.156 Consequently, the ratio of COGS to

net sales increased from 90.3 percent in 2006 to 90.4 percent in 2007 and to 92.4 percent in 2008.157 

The dramatic increase in cumulated subject import volume and market share between 2006 and

2008, coupled with the price sensitivity of the PRCB market and the domestic producers’ need to operate

their factories continuously, suggests that subject import competition contributed to the cost-price squeeze

experienced by domestic producers during the period. Cumulated subject imports could not have

increased their penetration of the U.S. market so rapidly without competitive prices, and such price

competition would have constrained domestic producers from increasing their own prices. On the other

hand, the 7.0 percent decline in apparent U.S. consumption during the period also would have contributed

to the cost-price squeeze by reducing the domestic industry’s rate of production and hence increasing its

unit COGS, as fixed costs came to be spread over fewer units of production. We intend to further

examine these factors in any final phase of these investigations.
 158 Commerce initiated antidumping duty investigations based on estimated dumping margins of 35.47 to 60.24

percent for PRCBs from Indonesia, 76.25 to 95.81 percent for PRCBs from Taiwan, and 28.49 to 76.11 percent for

PRCBs from Vietnam. CR at I-5; PR at I-4 (citing 74 Fed. Reg. 19049 (April 27, 2009)). Commerce initiated a

countervailing duty investigation on PRCBs from Vietnam covering 11 alleged subsidy programs, including two

policy lending programs, three grant programs, three income tax programs, and three import tax and value added tax

(“VAT”) exemption programs. CR at I-5; PR at I-4 (citing 74 Fed. Reg. 19049 (April 27, 2009)). The specific

alleged subsidy programs are as follows: (1) preferential lending for exporters; (2) preferential lending for the

plastics industry; (3) an export promotion program; (4) an export bonus program; (5) a new product development

program; (6) income tax preferences for exporters; (7) income tax preferences for foreign invested enterprises

(“FIEs”); (8) income tax preferences for FIEs operating in encouraged industries; (9) import tax exemptions for FIEs

using imported goods to create fixed assets; (10) import tax exemptions for FIEs importing raw materials; and (11)

VAT exemptions for FIEs using imported goods to create fixed assets. Id.

 159 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

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

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

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

 160 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

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

 161 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 162 CR/PR at Tables III-2, C-1.

 163 CR at III-3; PR at III-2. We recognize that Mr. Daniels of Hilex testified at the conference that his company’s

capacity reductions resulted “to some degree” from efforts to consolidate its production facilities after the acquisition

of Sonoco and Vanguard. Tr. at 95 (Daniels).

 164 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 165 See Tr. at 20 (Bazbaz), 26-27 (Daniels) (“Our reduction in capacity has been matched by an equivalent drop in

(continued...)

23

D. Impact of the Subject Imports158

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Act provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the

subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a

bearing on the state of the industry.”159 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity

utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on investment,

ability to raise capital, research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor

is dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”160

Based on the record of these preliminary phase investigations, we find that the domestic

industry’s performance declined over the period of investigation according to most measures. 

Domestic industry production increased 2.4 percent between 2006 and 2007, from 71.6 billion

bags to 73.3 billion bags, but declined 8.4 percent to 67.1 billion bags in 2008, a level 6.3 percent below

that in 2006.161 Domestic PRCB capacity increased a slight 0.5 percent between 2006 and 2007, from

84.3 billion bags to 84.8 billion bags, but declined 4.0 percent in 2008 to 81.4 billion bags, a level 3.5

percent below that in 2006.162 This capacity reduction resulted in large part from the closure of four

domestic PRCB production facilities, three by Hilex and one by Europackaging.163 Consistent with these

trends in capacity and production, the domestic industry’s rate of capacity utilization increased from 84.9

percent in 2006 to 86.4 percent in 2007 before declining to 82.4 percent in 2008, a level lower than that in

2006.164 Given that domestic producers reportedly must operate their facilities continuously to reduce

their unit costs to economical levels, it is particularly noteworthy that domestic producers were unable to

boost their rate of capacity utilization even as they shuttered four production facilities.165 Domestic
 165 (...continued)

our sales and production. This has left us with as much excess capacity as we had before closing the three plants. 

This is a major problem because our facilities, like those of Superbag, are designed to operate continuously.”)

 166 CR/PR at Table III-6. Hours worked declined from 7,536,000 in 2006 to 7,328,000 in 2007 and to 7,140,000

in 2008. Id. Labor productivity in bags per hour initially increased from 9,498 bags in 2006 to 9,998 bags in 2007,

but declined to 9,397 bags in 2008, a level 1.1 percent below that in 2006. Id.

 167 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 168 CR/PR at Tables IV-3-4.

 169 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 170 CR/PR at Table VI-1. The 30.3 percent increase in SG&A expenses between 2007 and 2008 also contributed

to the decline in operating income. Id.

 171 CR/PR at Table VI-5. R&D expenses also declined from $1.7 million in 2006 and 2007 to $1.2 million in

2008. Id. 

 172 CR/PR at Table VI-6.

 173 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 174 See Tr. at 18 (Bazbaz) (“[W]e have been deprived of some of the benefits we previously enjoyed as a result of

the orders against China, Thailand and Malaysia. In fact, in certain respects, we are in worse shape now than before

(continued...)

24

industry employment declined throughout the period, from 3,348 workers in 2006 to 3,213 workers in

2007 and to 3,030 workers in 2008, for a 9.5 percent decline over the period.166

The domestic industry’s net sales trended lower with production, increasing 5.0 percent between

2006 and 2007, from 70.3 billion bags to 73.8 billion bags, but declining 8.4 percent in 2008 to 67.6

billion bags, a level 3.8 percent below that of 2006.167 The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of PRCBs

followed a similar trend, increasing 3.4 percent between 2006 and 2007, from 68.3 billion bags to 70.7

billion bags, before declining 7.0 percent to 65.7 billion bags in 2008, a level 3.8 percent below that of

2006. The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption increased from 62.2 percent in 2006

to 66.5 percent in 2007, but declined to 64.4 percent in 2008, a level 2.2 percentage points higher than in

2006.168 

The domestic industry’s financial performance was weak in 2006 and 2007 and deteriorated

markedly in 2008. As domestic producers increased their prices in an effort to recoup higher raw material

costs, their net sales value remained stable during the period, declining 3.5 percent between 2006 and

2007, from $1.017 billion to $981.4 million, but increasing 4.8 percent to $1.028 billion in 2008, a level

slightly higher than that in 2006.169 But the domestic industry’s operating income of $4.9 million in 2006

and 2007 amounted to only 0.5 percent of sales in both years, and swung to an operating loss of $37.5

million in 2008, or 3.7 percent of sales, as the increase in the domestic industry’s unit COGS outstripped

the increase in the unit value of total net sales.170 The domestic industry’s capital expenditures also

declined markedly from $38.8 million in 2006 to $17.2 million in 2007 and to $15.3 million in 2008, a

level 60.7 percent lower than that in 2006.171 Its return on investment, *** percent in 2006 and 2007, ***

to *** percent in 2008.172

For purposes of these preliminary phase investigations, we find that there is an apparent causal

nexus between the subject imports and the deteriorating condition of the domestic industry. Cumulated

subject imports increased their market share during the period of investigation, while the domestic

industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption declined towards the end of the period.173 Moreover, the

significant increase in cumulated subject import volume and market share during the period examined

limited the domestic industry’s ability to benefit from the antidumping duty orders imposed on PRCBs

from China, Malaysia, and Thailand in 2004, as domestic producers were unable to recoup market share

lost to PRCBs from those sources prior to 2004.174 We also have found some indication that subject
 174 (...continued)

the previous cases were filed. This is not due to factors other than the imports from the countries under

investigation.”); see also 2004 Confidential Views at 30; 2004 Public Views at 21 (finding that “[t]he cumulated

subject imports gained market share at the expense of the domestic industry,” whose share of apparent U.S.

consumption declined from 88.0 percent in 2001 to 77.0 percent in 2003).

 175 See section VI.C., supra. We cannot say that the record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence

that there is no material injury by reason of subject imports, or that no likelihood exists that evidence supporting an

affirmative material injury or threat finding will arise in a final investigation. See American Lamb, 785 F.2d at

1001. 

 176 Although Commissioner Pinkert agrees that the prior footnote correctly cites the applicable legal standard for

affirmative preliminary determinations, he declines to join it.

 177 See section VI.A.2.c., supra. In any final phase of these investigations, we intend to collect additional

information on these issues. 

 178 Based on pricing product data, nonsubject imports were priced lower than the domestic like product in 43

quarterly comparisons and higher than the domestic like product in 84 quarterly comparisons. Compare CR/PR at

Tables D-1-4 and Staff Confidential Spreadsheets (EDIS Document No. 403084) with id. at Tables V-1-4. 

Nonsubject imports were priced lower than subject imports in 177 quarterly comparisons and higher than subject

imports in 201 quarterly comparisons. Id. We note that these pricing comparisons suffer from the same potential

shortcomings addressed in section VI.C., supra.

 179 In any final phase of these investigations, Commissioner Pinkert will invite parties to comment on whether

Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006), is applicable to the facts of these

investigations. 

25

import competition contributed to the cost-price squeeze experienced by domestic producers over the

period examined.175 176 In any final phase of these investigations, we intend to collect additional

information to aid in our examination of the impact of subject imports on the domestic industry,

particularly with respect to the issues of domestic like product and price competition. 

We have considered whether there are other factors that have an impact on the domestic industry. 

We recognize that the 7.0 percent decline in apparent U.S. consumption may have had a role in the

domestic industry’s deteriorating performance during the period of investigation. We also recognize that

nonsubject imports were a significant factor in the U.S. market during the period, and that subject imports

increased their market share largely at the expense of nonsubject imports.177 There is some evidence,

however, that nonsubject import prices were generally higher than domestic like product and subject

import prices.178 179 Thus, it would appear that any injury we have found from cumulated subject imports

cannot be attributed to nonsubject imports.

Consequently, the record in these preliminary phase investigations indicates an apparent causal

nexus between the subject imports and the adverse condition of the domestic industry and thus

demonstrates a reasonable indication of material injury by reason of subject imports. We therefore

conclude that for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, the subject imports have had a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations, we find that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of subject imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam that are

allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and PRCBs from Vietnam that are allegedly

subsidized by the Government of Vietnam.

 1

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

merchandise subject to these investigations.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

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

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

Co., LLC (“Hilex”), Hartsville, SC, and Superbag Corp. (“Superbag”), Houston, TX, on March 31, 2009,

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 polyethylene retail carrier bags

(“PRCBs”)1

 from Vietnam and LTFV imports of PRCBs from Indonesia and Taiwan. Information

relating to the background of the investigations is provided below.2

Effective date Action

March 31, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations (74 FR 16009, April 8, 2009)

April 21, 2009 Commission’s conference1

April 27, 2009 Commerce’s notices of initiation (74 FR 19049 (AD); 74 FR 19064 (CVD))

May 14, 2009 Date of the Commission’s vote

May 15, 2009 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

May 22, 2009 Commission’s views transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses that appeared at the conference is presented in app. B.

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

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

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

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

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any
I-2

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

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

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

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

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

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

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

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

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

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

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

. . . 

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

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

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

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

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

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

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

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Organization of the Report

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

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

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

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

and V present the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise, respectively. Part VI

presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory

requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat

of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

PRCBs are generally used by retail customers to package and carry their purchased products

home from the point of sale. The leading U.S. producers of PRCBs are Advance Polybag, Inc. (“API”),

Hilex, Inteplast Group Ltd. (“Inteplast”), and Superbag, while leading reporting producers of PRCBs in

subject countries include *** and *** in Indonesia; *** and *** in Taiwan; and *** and *** in Vietnam. 

The leading U.S. importer of PRCBs from Indonesia is ***, while the leading importers from Taiwan are

*** and *** and the leading importers from Vietnam are *** and ***. Leading importers of PRCBs from

nonsubject countries (primarily China, Malaysia, and Thailand) include ***. 

Apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs totaled approximately 102 billion PRCBs ($1.5 billion) in

2008. Currently, 15 firms are known to produce PRCBs in the United States. U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of PRCBs totaled approximately 66 billion PRCBs ($997 million) in 2008, and accounted for
 3

 Countries subject to antidumping orders in the United States include China, Malaysia, and Thailand.

 4

 Petition, p. 5.

 5 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 69 FR 47957, August 6, 2004. Inteplast

Group, Ltd.; PCL Packaging, Inc.; and Vanguard Plastics, Inc. were co-petitioners with Hilex (the High Density

Film Division of Sonoco Products Co., which was purchased by Hilex in February 2004) and Superbag in the 2004

investigations.

 6 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.

 7

 Petition, p. 3.

I-3

64.4 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 66.4 percent by value. U.S. imports from

subject sources totaled approximately 15 billion PRCBs ($186 million) in 2008 and accounted for

14.3 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 12.4 percent by value. U.S. imports from

countries currently subject to antidumping duty orders3

 totaled approximately 19 billion PRCBs ($255

million) in 2008 and accounted for 18.4 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 17.0

percent by value. U.S. imports from other nonsubject sources totaled approximately 3 billion PRCBs

($63 million) in 2008 and accounted for 2.9 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and

4.2 percent by value.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigations is presented in appendix C, table C-1. Except

as noted, U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of 15 firms that accounted for the

vast majority of U.S. production of PRCBs during 2008. U.S. imports are based on official import

statistics of Commerce.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

PRCBs have been the subject of previous antidumping duty investigations in the United States. 

In 2004, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by

reason of imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand of PRCBs that were found by

Commerce to be sold in the United States at LTFV. The product scope used in these previous

investigations was the same as the scope being used in the current investigations involving Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam.4

 Hilex and Superbag, the two petitioners in these current investigations, were also

petitioners in the 2004 investigations.5

 

Additionally, 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.6

 Settlements and

consent orders were entered into with some respondents, and a general exclusion order was entered

against all other covered imports.7
 8 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty

Investigation and Request for Public Comment on the Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports From

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 74 FR 19064, April 27, 2009.

 9 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 19049, April 27, 2009.

I-4

NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALLEGED SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Alleged Subsidies

On April 27, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

countervailing duty investigation on PRCBs from Vietnam.8

 The following government programs in

Vietnam are involved:

A. Policy Lending Programs

1. Preferential Lending for Exporters

2. Preferential Lending for the Plastics Industry

B. Grant Programs

1. Export Promotion Program

2. Export Bonus Program

3. New Product Development Program

C. Income Tax Programs

1. Income Tax Preferences for Exporters

2. Income Tax Preferences for Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIEs)

3. Income Tax Preferences for FIEs Operating In Encouraged Industries

D. Import Tax and Value Added Tax (VAT) Exemption Programs

1. Import Tax Exemptions for FIEs Using Imported Goods to Create Fixed Assets

2. Import Tax Exemptions for FIEs Importing Raw Materials

3. VAT Exemptions for FIEs Using Imported Goods to Create Fixed Assets

Alleged Sales at LTFV

On April 27, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

antidumping duty investigations on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam.9

 Commerce has

initiated antidumping duty investigations based on estimated dumping margins of 35.47 to 60.24 percent

for PRCBs from Indonesia, 76.25 to 95.81 percent for PRCBs from Taiwan, and 28.49 to 76.11 percent

for PRCBs from Vietnam.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations 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
 10 Ibid.

I-5

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.10

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-1 presents current ad valorem tariff rates for PRCBs. Imports of PRCBs from

Indonesia are eligible for duty-free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences, upon proper

importer claim, or are dutiable at the general rate. Imports of PRCBs from Taiwan and Vietnam are

dutiable at the general rate of 3 percent ad valorem.

Table I-1

PRCBs: Tariff rates, 2009

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2

Column

23

Rates (percent)

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 Taiwan and Vietnam.

 2

 Special rates not applicable when the General rate is free. Imports from Indonesia are duty-free pursuant to the Generalized

System of Preferences. Taiwan and Vietnam are not eligible for special rates of duty.

 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 in this column. 

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009, revision 1).

THE PRODUCT

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
 11 Information in this paragraph is from the petition unless otherwise noted.

 12 Conference transcript, p. 78 (Daniels).

 13 Petitioners’ postconference brief, Petitioners’ Responses to Questions from Staff, pp. 5-6. 

 14 ***. 

 15 Staff examination of samples exhibited during the conference.

 16 Conference transcript, pp. 16-17 (Bazbaz) and p. 33 (Rizzo).

 17 Ibid., pp. 37-38 (Halimi), together with examination of samples exhibited during the conference.

 18 Petition, p. 5.

 19 Conference transcript, pp. 83-84 (Dorn).

 20 Ibid., p. 37 (Halimi), together with examination of samples exhibited during the conference.

 21 Conference transcript, p. 77 (Daniels), together with examination of samples exhibited during the conference.

 22 Conference transcript, p. 15 (Dorn).

 23 Ibid., pp. 15-16 (Bazbaz), and ***.

I-6

merchandise.11 PRCBs, whether domestically produced or imported, consist principally of FDAapproved 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,12 and may contain single or double-sided printing in single or multiple colors.13 14 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,15 while imported PRCBs usually carry the recycling symbol but

not necessarily the producer logo or country-of-origin identification.16 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.17 

PRCBs are generally dispensed free of charge to customers in a full range of retail outlets,

including grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, and discount stores, together with

restaurants.18 T-shirt bags (which derive their name from the fact that they resemble sleeveless

undershirts that have two straps that rest on shoulders) are high-volume PRCBs19 dispensed in a wide

variety of retail outlets; they may consist of so-called low-end thin-walled HDPE bags found in grocery

and many other stores, to larger and thicker t-shirt bags found in department stores.20 T-shirt bags may

also contain softer, glossier, and more puncture-resistant LDPE resins, especially linear low-density

polyethylene (“LLDPE”).21 In contrast, higher-end bags are typically found in a variety of retail outlets,

ranging from medium-scale die cut bags dispensed at fast food outlets to medium to high-scale LDPE diecut shopping bags found in upscale department stores, and on to even more upscale bags which may

contain attached handles, flat bottoms and the like, that are dispensed to customers in boutiques and other

specialty stores. According to petitioners, the full range of bags is reportedly produced in both the United

States and the subject countries.22

Manufacturing Process

The process for manufacturing PRCBs is generally the same everywhere in the world. 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.23 In the United 
 24 ***.

I-7

States, producers run high-volume plants continuously on a 24/7 basis due to the capital-intensive and

competitive nature of the business. The major costs are ***.24

The following diagram illustrates the fundamentals of the blown film extrusion process, typically

employed worldwide.

Figure I-1

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 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 top of the cooling tower the bubble of the desired thickness is collapsed and formed into a

two-sided plastic film of up to 6 feet or more in width. On the way down to ground level, the plastic film

sheet runs through rollers which smooth out the film before being fed to 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. 

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 each

side in up to four 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
 25 Conference transcript, p. 119 (Gitlin).

 26 ***.

 27 Conference transcript, p. 83 (Daniels).

 28 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 5.

 29 Ibid.

 30 Conference transcript, p. 8 (Dorn).

 31 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 3.

 32 Ibid., p. 4.

I-8

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 can employ the organic solvent-based rotogravure printing process, and claim superior

print quality.25 The printed film roll next proceeds in a continuous fashion to a slitter sealer 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. High volume t-shirt or die-cut 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.26 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 inch).27

One mil (0.001 inch) is equal to 25.4 microns.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6) price. Information regarding these factors is

discussed below.

Petitioners contend that all PRCBs constitute a single domestic like product, coextensive with the

scope of the investigations,28 as was found by the Commission in the final investigations on PRCBs from

China, Malaysia, and Thailand in 2004.29 Petitioners claim that nothing has changed to revise the

definition of the domestic like product as set forth in 2004.30

Respondents contend that there are two distinct domestic like products in these investigations: 

(1) low-end commodity type t-shirt bags and medium-end die-cut handle bags and drawstring bags, and

(2) custom-made high-end shopping bags. Respondents assert that although the high-end shopping bags

are also made from polyethylene, they are made from thick gauge polyethylene of at least 2.25 mils in

thickness, going up to 3 or 4 mils, thus making them reusable items, and that high-end shopping bags also

incorporate value-added materials such as cardboard inserts, handles of various materials, and plastic or

metal grommets, all of which must be applied by hand.31 Respondents contend that what has changed

since the Commission made its previous domestic like product determination in the 2004 investigations is

that beginning in 2006, states and municipalities have begun to regulate the use and disposal of PRCBs,

and have defined the term “reusable bags” to mean bags with thicknesses greater than 2.25 mils (57

microns), thus making a clear and defining distinction among PRCBs.32 They point to a distinct dividing
 33 Respondents submitted copies of the various statutes referred to at the Commission's April 21 conference, and

those statutes have been placed in the record of the investigations.

 34 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 11.

 35 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final),

USITC Publication 3710, August 2004, p. 6.

 36 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 5.

 37 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 3.

 38 Ibid., p. 7.

 39 Ibid., p. 8.

 40 T-shirt bags used in grocery stores are very thin (conference transcript, p. 125 (Lin)), approximately 0.6 mils

(15 microns) in thickness (respondents’ postconference brief, p. 6).

 41 Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 4 and 6, and conference transcript, p. 118 (Gitlin).

 42 Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 6-7.

I-9

line between “reusable plastic bags” as defined by, for example, the state of California, the state of New

York, and New York City as bags having a thickness of 2.25 mils and above.33

Petitioners contend that respondents’ allegation that a bright dividing line exists for PRCBs of

2.25 mils or more in thickness (essentially “high-end” PRCBs) cannot be supported. Petitioners contend

that there is a continuum of PRCBs with no dividing line, and that domestic producers make PRCBs at

the high end of the continuum of PRCBs (e.g., Command Packaging (“Command”)), at the low end (e.g.,

t-shirt bags of Hilex and Superbag), and bags in between.34 

In the 2004 investigations of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission

determined that high-end PRCBs “are not clearly distinct from all other PRCBs but are part of a

continuum of products which we define as a single domestic like product.”35

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Petitioners note that all PRCBs are made of polyethylene film, whether high-density, low-density,

and/or linear low-density, and that the end uses for all PRCBs are the same, i.e., to package and carry

goods from retail establishments; such bags are given away for free.36 

Respondents assert that high-end shopping bags are different from t-shirt bags and medium-end

die-cut handle bags and drawstring bags in that they incorporate value-added materials such as cardboard

or hard plastic bottoms and tops, applied handles made of either hard plastic, rope, ribbon, or paper, and

hard plastic or metal grommets and fasteners.37 High-end shopping bags also reportedly have highregister full-color graphics, with some having 100-percent coverage of the bag, including side gussets. 

They are viewed by customers as more attractive and decorative, serving as a walking billboard for

establishments such as high-end specialty or boutique retailers.38 Since high-end PRCBs are reportedly

2.25 mils or greater in thickness, they are allegedly not subject to plastic bag recycling laws; in any event,

they are not good candidates for recycling because of the various materials of construction, including

affixed cardboard, hard plastic, rope, fabric, and metal.39 On the other hand, t-shirt, die-cut, and

drawstring bags are either quickly discarded or recycled. 

Nearly all t-shirt bags and die-cut bags are reportedly less than 1 mil in thickness, whereas highend shopping bags are greater than 2.25 mil (57 microns),40 and most are made in thicknesses higher than

2.5 mil (63 microns).41 Die-cut merchandise bags and drawstring bags are generally made in thicknesses

of 1 mil (25 microns).42 T-shirt bags reportedly use either high density polyethylene or a mixture using
 43 Ibid., p. 7.

 44 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final),

USITC Publication 3710, August 2004, pp. 8-9.

 45 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 7.

 46 Ibid., p. 7, and conference transcript, pp. 38-39 (Halimi).

 47 Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 11-12.

 48 Petitioners’ postconference brief, Petitioners’ Responses to Questions from Staff, p. 6.

 49 Conference transcript, p. 38 (Halimi).

 50 Petitioners’ postconference brief, Petitioners’ Responses to Staff Questions, p. 5.

I-10

very high percentages of polyethylene in order for the maximum strength needed for the bags to hold the

weight of a bag of groceries.43

The Commission determined in 2004 that:

“{T}here is a continuum of PRCBs that are made in a wide range of shapes and sizes,

with varying features like handles, gussets, color, and printing. The differences in

PRCBs are primarily determined by retailers, who specify the dimensions, size, shape,

strength, handle type, color, and printing, as needed to serve their customers. Although

PRCBs may vary in size, shape, and printing, they all share certain qualities – they are

made of polyethylene resin, have handles, and are provided by retailers to customers free

of charge to transport purchased items out of a store.”44

Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees

Petitioners contend that the raw materials, production processes, and equipment used to make

PRCBs are essentially the same for all types of PRCBs.45 For example, U.S. producer Command uses the

same extrusion and printing equipment to produce all its t-shirt bags and higher-end bags.46 In response

to respondents’ allegations that the production processes for high-end shopping bags and all other PRCBs

are entirely different,47 petitioners cite Superbag’s film extrusion and printing equipment which can be

used to make any type of PRCB. The bag conversion equipment can reportedly be used to make ***. 

Hilex’s film extrusion and printing equipment can be used to make die cut merchandise bags, bottom

gusset merchandise bags with side seals, and header merchandise bags, while Command’s extrusion

equipment and printing equipment are used to make all of its ten PRCB product types. Its converting

equipment is product-specific, but its employees are trained to work on any of the converting lines.48 In

addition to producing higher-end t-shirt bags, Command reported that it was a major U.S. producer of

other higher-end PRCBs, including wave bags, high trundle bags, and soft knit bags. There is reportedly

a significant overlap in the equipment and employees that Command uses to make all of its PRCB

products.49 

Petitioners also state that there is no PRCB production technology that is specific to the subject

countries; the very same type of equipment used there is also used by companies in the United States. If

necessary, a bag producer can contract out the printing of the rolls of film to companies that specialize in

printing, in order to achieve any desired level of print quality.50

Respondents argue that t-shirt bags, die-cut bags, and drawstring bags are commodity products

that are produced in huge production runs on capital-intensive, fully automated machinery; there is no
 51 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 11.

 52 Ibid., p. 10.

 53 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final),

USITC Publication 3710, August 2004, pp. 7-8.

 54 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 6.

 55 Conference transcript, pp. 14-15 (Dorn).

 56 Conference transcript, pp. 37-38 (Halimi). Command also competes with several other domestic producers of

high-end PRCBs. Ibid, p. 38.

 57 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 8, and conference transcript, p. 122 (Gitlin).

 58 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 10.

 59 Ibid., p. 8.

I-11

manual labor involved. In contrast, high-end shopping bags require intensive hand assembly51 and are

made on small extruding and printing machines.52 

In the 2004 investigations, the Commission noted that:

“{T}he basic process for production of PRCBs generally involves blending,

extrusion, printing and bag conversion. The entire PRCB production process in

the United States is automated, with little or no manual labor required other than

for the maintenance and adjustment of the machinery. Thus . . . respondents’

argument that manual labor . . . distinguishes high-end PRCBs from all other

PRCBs does not apply to U.S. production of the domestic like product. Some

U.S. producers reported that high-end and all other PRCBs were produced using

very similar production methods . . . A few producers acknowledged some

differences in the manufacturing processes between high-end and all other

PRCBs.”53

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

Petitioners view PRCBs as a continuum of domestic like products, from lower-end t-shirt bags, to

the medium-end t-shirt and die-cut merchandise bags, to the high-end bag categories.54 They contend that

there is no dividing line at the 2.25 mils thickness gauge, and that domestically produced PRCBs are

produced both below and above that thickness.55 For example, Command produces, sells and competes in

the full continuum of domestic PRCBs, from more upscale t-shirt bags to various mid-range die-cut

merchandise and restaurant bags, to the pricier high-end shopping bags exceeding 2.25 mils in thickness

designed with attached carrying handles and up-scale printing demanded by consumers of such bags.56

Respondents contend that because high-end shopping bags and other PRCBs are so vastly

different, they are not interchangeable in the marketplace.57 They state that retail high-end shopping bags

not only convey the merchandise to purchasers, but also serve as advertising vehicles for brands or

names.58 High-end shopping bags are “reusable,” providing customers with the latitude to use them in

other ways, e.g., providing a gift bag for a friend or the carrying of shoes and lunch between home and

the workplace. Although these bags are not viewed as candidates for recycling because of the particular

materials of construction (e.g., hard plastic or rope handles, plastic or metal grommets, and embedded

cardboard and bottom inserts), they are viewed as “reusable” because they are 2.25 mils or more in

thickness and not subject to the recycling laws reportedly imposed by various states and municipalities.59

In fact, respondents view the various state and municipal statues defining a “plastic reusable bag”as those
 60 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final),

USITC Publication 3710, August 2004, p. 7.

 61 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 6.

 62 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 9.

 63 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final),

USITC Publication 3710, August 2004, p. 6.

 64 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 8.

I-12

plastic bags 2.25 mils or greater, as providing a distinct dividing line between high-end shopping bags

and all other PRCBs.

In the 2004 investigations, the Commission stated that:

“Most responding purchasers reported that high-end and low-end PRCBs have the same

uses (both are handed out at the point of purchase) and are interchangeable if size and

gauge are comparable. Most purchasers also reported that there is no clear distinction

between high-end and low-end PRCBs. However, some purchasers noted differences

between high-end and low-end PRCBs with respect to customer perceptions, physical

characteristics, and price.”60

Since purchasers’ questionnaires are not normally sent in the preliminary phase of investigations, there is

little developed on the record of the current investigations on purchasers’ perceptions of the similarities

and/or differences between high-end shopping bags and other PRCBs.

Channels of Distribution

Petitioners contend that all PRCBs are sold through the same channels of distribution, whether

directly to retail establishments or indirectly to retail establishments through distributors.61 Respondents

report that t-shirt bags, die-cut bags, and drawstring bags are commodity products sold in large quantities

directly to grocery store chains, drugstore chains, mass merchandisers, and box store chains, and a

significant share may be sold through internet sales and reverse auctions. Respondents claim that no

high-end bags are sold via internet or reverse auctions. High-end shopping bags are for “mom and pop”

stores, retailers like individual boutiques, or large upscale retailers. High-end shopping bags are also

custom-made products, and are sold through packaging distributors and in much smaller quantities than

other PRCBs.62 

In the 2004 investigations, the Commission acknowledged “some differences between high-end

PRCBs and all other PRCBs, such as . . . distribution channels.”63

 Information on the channels of distribution of domestically produced and imported PRCBs is

presented in Part II of this report, Conditions of Competition in the U.S. Market.

Price

Petitioners state that there is a broad price continuum for PRCBs, depending on factors such as

the blend of polyethylene film used, the thickness of such film, the design of the bag, the size of the bag,

the complexity of the print design, and the number of print colors used.64 Respondents contend that there
 65 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 13.

 66 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final),

USITC Publication 3710, August 2004, p. 6.

 67 Ibid., p. 8. In the 2004 investigations, high-end PRCBs were defined as “PRCBs with inserts of cardboard,

rigid plastic, or other rugged flat materials at the bottom and/or top and PRCBs with separately applied handles other

than drawcords or those made of polyethylene. Also included are heat-sealed square-bottomed or rectangularbottomed PRCBs without inserts of cardboard, rigid plastic, or other rugged flat materials” (questionnaire instruction

booklets in the 2004 investigations).

I-13

is a definite price distinction for high-end shopping bags, which are priced from 35 to 65 cents per bag,

whereas other PRCBs are 8 cents a bag or less (with bulk t-shirt bags at 2.5 cents or less per bag).65 

In the 2004 investigations, the Commission acknowledged “some differences between high-end

PRCBs and all other PRCBs, such as . . . price.”66 The Commission also indicated that average unit

values for commercial domestic shipments of PRCBs other than high-end PRCBs were generally lower

than those for high-end PRCBs.67 

Pricing information obtained in the current investigations is presented in Part V of this report,

Pricing and Related Information. The Commission obtained pricing data on four product categories of

PRCBs, none of which were high-end PRCBs (three of the categories were for types of t-shirt bags and

one category was for a type of die-cut bag). Prices varied considerably among the four categories for

which pricing data were obtained.
 
 1

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 25-26 and conference transcript, pp. 31-32 (Rizzo).

 2

 Conference transcript, pp. 119 and 162 (Gitlin).

 3

 To a certain extent, many PRCBs function as advertising for retail establishments. See, e.g., conference

transcript, p. 190 (Dorn). However, high-end bags such as square-bottomed bags may be easier to read than t-shirt

bags because the thicker polyethylene film of high-end bags does not bunch up when carrying an item, whereas the

film in t-shirt bags bunches up and makes reading the store name or logo difficult. Respondents’ joint

postconference brief, p. 10. Also, respondents contend, “High-end bags are a piece of artwork that express the

image and the wishes of the retailer.” Conference transcript, p. 122 (Gitlin). 

 4

 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 5.

 5

 Conference transcript, p. 31 (Rizzo).

 6

 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 9.

 7

 Conference transcript, pp. 122-123 (Gitlin).

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS AND CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Sales and distribution of PRCBs are organized in a variety of ways. Some large retailers import

directly and also purchase from domestic producers. Other firms purchase bags from importers and

producers. The market includes distributors of varying sizes that sell imported and domestically produced

PRCBs. These distributors may or may not offer other packaging services (e.g., printing) along with the

PRCBs. Domestic producers also import or purchase PRCBs in order to complement their product

offering. Some retailers may also import directly; in fact, *** and *** were among the largest importers

of PRCBs during 2006 to 2008. It is very common for sales to be negotiated between producers and

retailers, with the product actually being shipped to distributors which will ship a bundle of items,

including the PRCBs, to the end user.1

 The percentage of shipments from producers and importers

reported to go to distributors and end users is presented in table II-1.

To serve the various categories of customers, plastic bags come in a variety of types,

such as t-shirt bags, die-cut handle bags, wave handle bags, patch handle bags, drawstring style bags,

flat-bottom loop handle bags, and others. Differences in dimensions and printing further differentiate

these products. Imported high-end bags typically are printed using a solvent-based rotogravure process

which yields a higher-quality print job than the water-based flexographic printing typically found among

domestic producers of PRCBs.2

 High-end bags may have printing that serves as a form of advertising3

for the firm (a.k.a. “bagvertising”). Parties have agreed that high-end PRCBs account for less than 1

percent of total PRCB consumption in the United States.4

Petitioners contend that a large portion of both the subject imports and the domestic like product

are shipped to distributors that warehouse them and then ship them to retailers along with other items

such as register tape.5

 Respondents contend that this is the case for t-shirt style bags sold through food

service distributors to smaller stores, but often t-shirt style bags are also sold directly to mass-market

retailers, grocers, drug stores, and big box chain stores. High-end PRCBs, they claim, are sold through

packaging distributors which also sell other packaging products such as tissue paper and ribbons.6

Further, high-end PRCBs used to be sold through different channels of distribution than other PRCBs, but

now food service and retail packaging distributors are beginning to sell high-end PRCBs.7
II-2

Table II-1

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs, by sources and channels of

distribution, 2006-08

Item 2006 2007 2008

Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs to:

 Distributors 31.5 36.1 30.6

 End users 68.5 63.9 69.4

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs from Indonesia:

 Distributors 28.3 29.9 46.8

 End users 71.7 70.1 53.2

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs from Taiwan:

 Distributors 35.8 44.9 39.7

 End users 64.2 55.1 60.3

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs from Vietnam:

 Distributors 65.0 42.7 48.9

 End users 35.0 57.3 51.1

Note.–Data for domestic producers include only U.S. commercial shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS

Eleven U.S. producers reported selling PRCBs nationwide, whereas the other four reported that

they served regional markets. Twenty-one of 39 importers reported serving the national market, whereas

the other 18 reported serving regional markets (table II-2).
 8

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 33-34.

 9

 Conference transcript, pp. 67-69 (Bazbaz, Daniels, and Halimi).

II-3

Table II-2

PRCBs: Geographic market areas in the United States served by domestic producers and

importers of subject product

Region Producers Importers

National 11 21

Mid-Atlantic 3 2

Midwest 4 7

Northeast 2 9

Northwest 3 3

Rocky Mountains 2 0

Southeast 3 5

Southwest 3 4

West Coast 2 6

Note.–Fifteen producers and 39 importers responded to this question. Firms were not limited to the number of

market areas that they could report.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

Fifteen producers of PRCBs responded to the Commission’s questionnaire. The largest producer

is *** which accounted for *** percent of sales of domestically produced PRCBs in 2008 on a quantity

basis. Petitioners reported that Hilex closed three facilities in California, North Carolina, and Texas since

the start of 2007, and Europackaging, LLC (“Europackaging”) has closed its domestic operations.8

 In

addition, 10 of 14 U.S. producers imported PRCBs during the period of investigation; representatives of

the three producers appearing at the conference noted that this was due, at least partially, to not having the

right equipment to make a certain size bag.9

Domestic Production

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 factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of

unused capacity, small levels of interchangeable inventories, small levels of export shipments, and the

existence of some production alternatives.
 10 Conference transcript, p. 105 (Daniels). In addition, Mr. Daniels reported that he believes Hilex does not make

any unprinted bags. Ibid.

 11 These data are based on imports under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085.

 12 On a quantity basis.

II-4

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ reported capacity utilization decreased unevenly, increasing from 84.9 percent in

2006 to 86.4 percent in 2007 before decreasing to 82.4 percent in 2008 (see table III-2). 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 increased from 3.1 percent in

2006 to 3.2 percent in 2007 and 2008 (see table III-3). This level of exports during the period 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.

Inventory levels

In general, domestic 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.10 As such, inventories held by 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, decreased unevenly from 5.4 percent in 2006 to 4.7 percent in 2008 (see table III-4). These

data indicate that U.S. producers have little ability to use inventories to increase shipments to the U.S.

market.

Production alternatives

Six of the 15 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, food bags, garbage bags, industrial bags, LDPE bags and

sheeting, non-PRCB merchandise bags, security bags, specialty film, and wickets.

Foreign Supply

Seven countries supplied 94.0 percent of the quantity of imported PRCBs in 2008: Thailand,

China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Canada. Companies in Thailand, China, and Malaysia

have been subject to antidumping duty orders in the United States since 2004, which are scheduled to be

reviewed beginning in July 2009.11

U.S. imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam increased by 114.9 percent (7.8

billion bags) between 2006 and 2007, then decreased by 0.6 percent in 2008 (see table C-1).12 Petitioners

reported that there are allegedly 90 manufacturers and exporters of PRCBs in Indonesia, Taiwan, and
 13 Petition, exhs. II-4, II-5, and II-6.

 14 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 38-43.

 15 The United States is Indonesia’s second-largest trading partner under HTS subheading 3923.21, which includes

sacks and bags of polymers of ethylene. Whereas Indonesia’s exports to the United States under HTS subheading

3923.21 decreased from 20.8 million kg to 9.8 million kg over 2006-08, Indonesia’s exports to Japan increased from

29.0 million kg to 31.7 million kg, and now account for 51.3 percent of Indonesia’s total exports under this broader

HTS subheading. The next-largest destination for Indonesia’s exports under this HTS subheading is the United

Kingdom, which accounted for just over half of what Indonesia exported to the United States. Global Trade Atlas.

 16 The United States is Taiwan’s largest destination for exports classified under HTS subheading 3923.21, and

was the destination for 80.2 percent of Taiwan’s exports in 2008. Taiwan’s exports to the United States under HTS

subheading 3923.21 increased from 29.1 million kg to 38.0 million kg over 2006-08, and increased the United

States’ share from 70.3 in 2006 to 80.2 percent in 2008. The only other large export market for Taiwan’s exports

under this HTS subheading is Japan, which accounted for 16.8 percent of Taiwan’s exports in 2008. Global Trade

Atlas.

II-5

Vietnam combined,13 and that many of these companies have been increasing their capacity, have excess

capacity, and are export-oriented.14 

Indonesia

Industry Capacity--According to five foreign producer questionnaire responses received by the

Commission, reported capacity in Indonesia decreased irregularly by 1.7 percent between 2006 and 2008

(from 4.5 billion bags to 4.7 billion bags in 2007 and 4.4 billion bags in 2008). Production increased 10.3

percent from 2006 to 2007 (from 3.7 billion bags to 4.1 billion bags), but it decreased by 20.6 percent in

2008 to 3.2 billion bags. Capacity utilization decreased irregularly in a similar way: from 82.2 percent in

2006 to 73.3 percent in 2008. 

Alternative Markets--The share of Indonesia’s shipments of PRCBs exported to the United

States, as a share of its total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2006 to 60.7 percent in 2008.15

Principal alternative export markets identified by Indonesian producers and exporters include Africa,

Canada, Denmark, the EU, Hong Kong, Japan, the Middle East, the Netherlands, Poland, Singapore,

Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 

Inventory Levels--The ratio of U.S. importers’ inventories of Indonesian PRCBs, as a percentage

of their total U.S. shipments of PRCBs from Indonesia, increased irregularly from *** percent in 2006 to

*** percent in 2008. 

Taiwan

Industry Capacity--According to three foreign producer questionnaire responses received by the

Commission, reported capacity in Taiwan increased by *** percent between 2006 and 2008 (from ***

billion bags in 2006 to *** billion bags in 2007 and *** billion bags in 2008). Production increased ***

percent from 2006 to 2007 (from *** billion bags to *** billion bags), and further increased by ***

percent in 2008 to *** billion bags. Capacity utilization decreased irregularly, however: from ***

percent in 2006 to *** in 2007 and *** percent in 2008. 

Alternative Markets--The share of Taiwan’s shipments of PRCBs exported to the United States,

as a share of its total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. No Taiwan

producer or exporter listed alternative export markets for the PRCBs that it exports.16 

Inventory Levels--The ratio of U.S. importers’ inventories of Taiwan PRCBs, as a percentage of

their total U.S. shipments of PRCBs from Taiwan, decreased from 18.0 percent in 2006 to 13.9 percent in

2007, then increased to 20.8 percent in 2008.
 17 Additionally, one producer marked both “yes” and “no.” This response was not included in the summation.

 18 Conference transcript, p. 58 (Daniels).

II-6

Vietnam

Industry Capacity--According to 10 foreign producer questionnaire responses received by the

Commission, reported capacity in Vietnam increased by *** percent between 2006 and 2008 (from ***

billion bags to 3.8 billion bags in 2007 and 5.7 billion bags in 2008). Production increased by ***

percent from 2006 to 2007 (from *** billion bags to 3.6 billion bags), and further increased by 32.1

percent in 2008 to 4.7 billion bags. Capacity utilization decreased over that time: from *** percent in

2006 to 94.8 in 2007 and 83.8 percent in 2008. 

Alternative Markets--The share of Vietnam’s shipments of PRCBs exported to the United States,

as a share of its total shipments, decreased irregularly, increasing from *** percent in 2006 to 73.3

percent in 2007 before decreasing to 60.2 percent in 2008. Principal alternative export markets identified

by Vietnamese producers and exporters include Australia, the EU, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, the

Netherlands, Panama, South America, and the United Kingdom. 

Inventory Levels--The ratio of U.S. importers’ inventories of Vietnamese PRCBs, as a percentage

of their total U.S. shipments of PRCBs from Vietnam, increased from 5.8 percent in 2006 to 20.3 percent

in 2008. 

Nonsubject Imports

Thailand, China, and Malaysia were the first, second, and fourth largest sources of imports of

PRCBs during 2006-08. On a quantity basis, imports from these countries decreased by 44.6 percent

(13.0 billion bags) between 2006 and 2007, with 85.9 percent of the decrease attributable to a drop in

imports from Thailand. Imports from these large nonsubject countries that are subject to antidumping

duty orders then increased by 16.9 percent (2.7 billion bags) between 2007 and 2008. Canada was the

eighth-largest source of imported PRCBs from 2006 to 2008, but only accounted for 2.0 percent of the

quantity of total imports during that period. 

General Supply Conditions

When asked if there had been any changes in the product range or marketing of PRCBs, 12 of the

13 responding producers17 and the 35 of the 38 responding importers reported that there have not been

any significant changes. Producer *** noted that there has been a movement away from patch handle

bags towards wave top bags. Importer *** reported that “Recently, bag manufacturers have been

marketing a biodegradable additive in their bags.” In addition, importer *** stated that it believes

“domestic manufacturers are making thinner bags.” 

Demand

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

Demand for PRCBs is derived primarily from retail and food service demand, as many of these

firms provide PRCBs to their customers to carry home food and other merchandise. Petitioners stated

that demand has not been hurt by the recent economic downturn, as people are still shopping and needing

PRCBs; petitioners noted that consumers are just shopping at stores like Wal-Mart more often.18 In the

2004 investigations, petitioners suggested that demand is dependent on population growth, not the retail
 19 Petitioners’ postconference brief in the 2004 investigations on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, p.

23.

 20 No producer or importer responding to the Commission’s questionnaires described global trends in demand for

PRCBs.

 21 One producer that noted that there was “no change” in demand stated that demand has decreased over the last

three quarters due to the current recession.

 22 See, e.g., conference transcript, p. 12 (Levinson), pp. 57 and 62 (Daniels).

 23 Conference transcript, pp. 57-59 and 62 (Bazbaz, Daniels, and Halimi).

 24 Telephone interview with ***.

 25 Conference transcript, pp. 63-66 (Daniels).

II-7

environment.19 From 2006 to 2008, apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs decreased by 7.0 percent in

terms of quantity. 

Producers and importers were asked specifically how the demand for PRCBs in the U.S. and

worldwide markets has changed since 2006.20 One producer (***) noted an increase in demand since

2006, seven producers noted a decrease, and seven reported that there has been no change. Five of the

producers that described demand as decreasing attributed the decrease to the weakening economy;21 two

attributed the decline to an increasing use of alternative bag types; and two attributed it to pending or

passed legislative actions which may limit the use of PRCBs. 

 Sixteen of 35 responding importers reported a decrease in demand since 2006, three reported an

increase, and sixteen reported that there has been “no change.” Importers attributed declining demand to

the following causes: increasing use of alternative types of bags (reported by 7 importers); the economic

recession (5 importers); environmental concerns (5 importers), legislation in communities banning or

taxing PRCBs (3 importers); and the increased cost of oil in 2008, leading to higher polyethylene resin

prices (2 importers). Importer *** reported that overall demand has increased since 2006, despite a

decrease in demand in 2008 due to the cost of resin.

Substitute Products

Four of 15 producers and 21 of 39 importers reported that there are products that can be used in

place of PRCBs. All four producers and 18 importers reported that paper bags can be used in place of

PRCBs, and three producers and 16 importers reported that reusable bags (whether cloth, woven, nonwoven, or something else) could be used as a substitute for PRCBs. According to parties, the demand for

reusable heavy duty plastic, cloth, woven, or other bags has been increasing.22 Petitioners contend that

the effect on the market has been minimal and has caused a reduction in demand of less than one

percent.23 A representative from purchaser *** noted that his firm has undergone advertising campaigns

to get people to use the more than *** reusable bags that it has sold. Their efforts are paying off and

people are reusing these bags “more and more and more.” Still, the most recent data he has seen is a

decrease in usage of PRCBs of only *** percent.24 Four of 15 producers and 16 of 39 importers stated

that demand for PRCBs has been affected by the increased availability and/or use of reusable bags. In

their importer questionnaire responses, *** characterized the effect as being “negligible,” “less than 1

percent of the end user customers utilize reusable bags,” and “not that much,” respectively. In contrast,

*** noted that where it has market information, it estimates a “5 percent to 10 percent demand reduction

of PRCBs as a result of increased use of reusable bags.”

There has also been a recent push to ban, tax, or add a fee to the use of PRCBs in various

localities throughout the United States. San Francisco was the first to enact such a ban for supermarkets

and pharmacies for most PRCBs of less than 2.25 mils of thickness. Other jurisdictions have been

considering legislative action, but petitioners contend that no other laws have been passed.25 
 26 Staff suggests that, based on the evidence submitted, the degree of substitution between high-end bags

manufactured domestically and those imported from the subject countries is lower due to print quality options,

handle options (rope, tape, grommets, and other hand-applied options), and cardboard insert options.

 27 These data do not include the response of ***, since it replied both “3 days” and “4 weeks.”

 28 Using a simple average, 70.5 percent is sold on a produced-to-order basis.

 29 ***.

 30 One of these importers is ***.

II-8

Cost Share

Although high-end bags cost more than other PRCBs, the costs of either type of PRCB are very

small compared to most retail purchases, and retailers generally provide PRCBs free 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 and importer questionnaire

responses, staff believes that on the whole, there is likely to be a high degree of substitution between

PRCBs produced in the United States and those produced in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam.26

Lead Times

Eleven of the 14 responding producers reported that at least 50 percent of their PRCBs was made

on a produced-to-order basis. Based on a simple average, 66.0 percent was sold produced-to-order and

lead times for these orders averaged 27 days. Lead times for those producers who reported selling PRCBs

out of inventory ranged from 2 to 14 days and averaged 8.0 days.27

Nearly half (17 of 35) of the responding importers reported only selling on a produced-to-order

basis and five reported only selling out of inventory.28 Reported lead times for importers’ sales from

inventory averaged 5.6 days. For importers’ sales that are produced to order, however, lead times

averaged 11.6 weeks.29

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Producers and importers were asked to assess how interchangeable PRCBs produced in the

United States, Indonesia, Taiwan, Vietnam, and nonsubject countries are; responses are presented in

Table II-3. The majority of producers and importers that reported familiarity with imported PRCBs

replied that U.S.-produced PRCBS are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with both subject and

nonsubject imports. Producers and importers also reported that subject imports are “always” or

“frequently” interchangeable with each other, and that domestic PRCBs and subject imported PRCBs are

“always” or “frequently” interchangeable with PRCBs from nonsubject countries. Eight importers30

responding that U.S.-produced PRCBs are “sometimes” or “never” interchangeable with subject imported

PRCBs described the differences between domestic product and subject imports that limited their

interchangeability. Four importers stated that value-added, hand-applied items such as cardboard 
II-9

Table II-3

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products

produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. Indonesia 10 3 1 0 14 4 4 0

U.S. vs. Taiwan 11 3 0 0 17 3 1 1

U.S. vs. Vietnam 11 3 1 0 17 6 3 0

U.S. vs. other countries 10 2 0 0 14 2 4 1

Indonesia vs. Taiwan 10 1 0 0 12 3 0 0

Indonesia vs. Vietnam 10 1 0 0 12 6 0 1

Indonesia vs. other countries 9 0 0 0 11 4 1 0

Taiwan vs. Vietnam 10 2 0 0 14 4 0 0

Taiwan vs. other countries 8 1 0 0 12 3 0 0

Vietnam vs. other countries 9 1 0 0 13 4 0 0

 1 Producers and importers 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.

bottoms, injection-molded or rope handles, and grommets are not available from domestic producers.

Also, two importers stated that imports have a better print quality and that only imported PRCBs can have

side and bottom gussets. One importer, however, stated that the order sizes of imported PRCBs are not

acceptable by some end users. 

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, Indonesia, Taiwan, Vietnam, and nonsubject

countries (table II-4). A majority of producers and importers reported that differences other than price are

“sometimes” or “never” significant in their sales of PRCBs. Thirteen importers identified characteristics

other than price that play a role in sales of PRCBs: five reported that bags that have value-added, handapplied items are not available from producers in the United States; four mentioned superior overseas

print quality; three noted that U.S. producers require large minimum quantities; two mentioned PRCBS

with side and bottom gussets being unavailable from domestic producers; one mentioned that the

domestic industry does not make small bags; one reported better quality bags being imported from

Indonesia and Vietnam; and one reported that domestic producers offer shorter lead times.
 31 Conference transcript, p. 122 (Gitlin).

 32 Conference transcript, p. 112 (Perry).

 33 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 12-19.

II-10

Table II-4

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

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. Indonesia 02393658

U.S. vs. Taiwan 0 1 4 9 2 4 6 10

U.S. vs. Vietnam 0 2 4 9 4 7 5 9

U.S. vs. other countries 01382559

Indonesia vs. Taiwan 00381158

Indonesia vs. Vietnam 00382169

Indonesia vs. other countries 00171168

Taiwan vs. Vietnam 0 0 4 7 3 1 6 8

Taiwan vs. other countries 00272148

Vietnam vs. other countries 00272159

 1 Producers and importers 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 their firms’ sales of the PRCBs.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Respondents contend that the PRCBs produced by petitioners are commodity t-shirt bags and

that, with regard to imported bags, “High-end bags are a piece of artwork that express the image and the

wishes of the retailer out on the street,”31 which make up about one percent of the PRCB market.32

Petitioners contend that t-shirt sacks or bags are a commodity product that competes solely on the basis of

price.33
 1

 Total U.S. PRCB production is unknown; however, a statement provided by petitioners estimated total U.S.

production in 2008 of approximately *** billion bags. See petition exhibit II-3. Data from U.S. producer

questionnaire responses results in total production of approximately 67.1 billion bags in 2008.

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the alleged subsidies and margins of dumping was presented

earlier in this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is

presented in Parts IV and V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or

Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of 15 firms that accounted for

nearly 100 percent of U.S. production of PRCBs during 2008.1

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to 49 U.S. companies identified in the petition and

through independent staff research. Out of these 49 companies, 15 provided useable data, 7 certified that

they had not produced PRCBs since January 1, 2006, and the remaining 27 provided no response. Of the

producers that provided useable data, petitioners (Hilex and Superbag) combined for almost *** percent

of U.S. production in 2008, 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 petitioners accounted for over 90 percent of U.S.

production in 2008. 

Presented in table III-1 is a list of current domestic producers of PRCBs and each company’s

position on the petition, production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms, and share of reported

production of PRCBs in 2008.

Table III-1

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

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 ***

Durabag *** Tustin, CA None ***

Europackaging *** Salem, NH *** ***

Table continued on following page.
 2

 Producer questionnaire responses, section II-2.

III-2

Table III-1--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

Firm

Position

on

petition

U.S. production

location(s)

Related and/or affiliated

firms

Share of

production

(percent)

Genpak *** Bloomington, MN *** ***

Golden *** Nutly, NJ None ***

Hilex ***

Carrollton, TX

Farmers Branch, TX

Jacksonville, FL

Jerome, ID

Milesburg, PA 

North Vernon, IN

Richmond, VA

Overland, MO None ***

Inteplast ***

Livingston, NJ

Lolita, TX

N. Dighton, MA *** ***

Omega *** Lyndhurst, NJ ***

***

Poly-Pak *** Melville, NY None ***

Roplast *** Oroville, NY *** ***

Superbag *** Houston, TX None ***

Unistar ***

Harahan, LA

Houston, TX

***

*** ***

Total 100.0

Note.-- Because of rounding, shares may not total to 100.0 percent. Pan Pacific Plastics Mfg., Inc., (“PPMI”) a

U.S. producer of PRCBs, did not provide a questionnaire response but gave estimated production of *** bags in

2008. Letter from ***, April 16, 2009.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Capacity, production, and capacity utilization all declined during the period for which data were

collected. Much of the decrease in capacity and production can be attributed to plant closures by Hilex

(three facilities closed) and Europackaging (one facility closed). Additionally, *** was forced to move

production equipment overseas for much of this period due to Hurricane Katrina.2

 Superbag did offset

some of this decrease in capacity, however, when the company purchased additional equipment after the
 3

 Conference transcript, p. 56 (Halimi).

 4

 *** reported using 29 percent of its production resources to produce PRCBs; *** reported using 57 percent of

its production resources for PRCBs; *** reported using 100 percent of its equipment and 95 percent of its workers

for PRCBs; *** reported using 85 percent of its equipment and 19 percent of its workers for PRCBs; *** reported

using 40 percent of its production resources for PRCBs; and *** reported using 47 percent of its equipment and 50

percent of its workers for PRCBs. Alternative products produced using the same production resources consisted

mostly of non-PRCB bags and plastic film.

III-3

imposition of duties on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.3 Additionally, *** added *** new

extruders in 2006 and this led to an increase in capacity of approximately *** bags annually. U.S.

producers’ aggregate capacity was well below apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs in each of the years

2006-2008.

Of the 15 U.S. producers, *** were the 6 firms reporting production of other products using the

same equipment and/or workers used to produce PRCBs.4

 U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and

capacity utilization data for PRCBs are presented in table III-2. 

Table III-2

PRCBs: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-2008

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Capacity (1,000 bags) 84,338,496 84,788,204 81,372,448

Production (1,000 bags) 71,574,007 73,259,361 67,090,935

Capacity utilization (percent) 84.9 86.4 82.4

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of PRCBs are presented in table III-3. From 2006 to 2008,

total shipments decreased on a quantity basis but increased slightly on a value basis. There was no

internal consumption or transfers to related firms reported. 

Table III-3

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-2008

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Commercial shipments 68,349,846 70,661,966 65,741,416

Internal consumption 0 0 0

Transfers to related firms 0 0 0

Table continued on following page.
III-4

Table III-3--Continued

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-2008

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 bags)

U.S. shipments 68,349,846 70,661,966 65,741,416

Export shipments 2,204,285 2,367,291 2,204,742

Total shipments 70,554,131 73,029,257 67,946,158

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments 982,919 937,922 997,311

Internal consumption 0 0 0

Transfers to related firms 0 0 0

U.S. shipments 982,919 937,922 997,311

Export shipments 37,913 38,829 36,188

Total shipments 1,020,832 976,751 1,033,499

Unit value (per 1,000 bags)

Commercial shipments $14.38 $13.27 $15.17

Internal consumption (1

) (1) (1)

Transfers to related firms (1

) (1) (1)

Average U.S. shipments 14.38 13.27 15.17

Export shipments 17.20 16.40 16.41

Average all shipments 14.47 13.37 15.21

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments 96.9 96.8 96.8

Internal consumption 0.0 0.0 0.0

Transfers to related firms 0.0 0.0 0.0

U.S. shipments 96.9 96.8 96.8

Export shipments 3.1 3.2 3.2

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Not applicable.

 

Note.– Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. *** reported having tolling agreements for

PRCB production. Companies with tolling agreements in place were instructed to include tolled production in their

shipment data. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-5

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data on end-of-period inventories of PRCBs during the period for which data were collected are

presented in table III-4.

Table III-4

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-2008

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Inventories (1,000 bags) 3,820,279 4,042,763 3,187,540

Ratio to production (percent) 5.3 5.5 4.8

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 5.6 5.7 4.8

Ratio to total shipments (percent) 5.4 5.5 4.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Eight of the 15 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. The U.S. producers with the largest

imports of PRCBs from subject countries during this period were ***, whose imports alone represented

*** of all U.S. imports of PRCBs from Vietnam, and ***, which represented almost *** percent of U.S.

imports from Taiwan. In 2008, U.S. producers that imported directly or purchased imports of PRCBs

from subject countries represented over *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports from two of the three

subject countries (Taiwan and Vietnam) and *** percent of U.S. imports from Indonesia. U.S. producers’

imports and purchases of PRCBs are presented in table III-5. 

Table III-5

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ production, imports, and purchases, by company, 2006-2008

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

*** *** *** ***

 1 *** reported importing from Vietnam because this allows its parent company to have geographic diversification

and low-cost production.

 2

 *** reported importing from Vietnam because this allows the company to supplement its capacity in the United

States.

 3

 *** reported importing from Vietnam because the company needed lower-priced products to compete with the

“very low-priced imports from Vietnam, Indonesia, Taiwan.”

 4

 *** did not provide a specific reason for importation of PRCBs.

 5

 *** “has been forced to import to avoid losing additional sales to lower-priced dumped imports from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam.”

 6

 *** cited constraints on production capacity including equipment, building space, labor shortages, and

seasonality as reasons for importing PRCBs from Taiwan and Vietnam.

 7

 *** cited printing restrictions, price, and quality as reasons for importing PRCBs from Vietnam.

 8

 *** reported importing from Taiwan and Vietnam in order to “compete against low priced imports.”

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-6

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for PRCBs are presented in table III-6. 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 and the *** positions eliminated by Europackaging

during the period for which data were collected. During this same period, API, Command, and Inteplast

increased the number of production-related workers employed at their facilities, and these increases offset

somewhat the effect of the aforementioned plant closures on the U.S. industry as a whole. Hourly wages

and unit labor cost increased during the period for which data were collected, while hours worked and

productivity decreased. This stands to reason given that the number of workers producing PRCBs

decreased by a relatively smaller percentage than did overall PRCB production in the United States. 

Table III-6

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2006-2008

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Production and related workers (PRWs) 3,348 3,213 3,030

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 7,536 7,328 7,140

Hours worked per PRW 2,251 2,281 2,356

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 102,313 108,425 108,566

Hourly wages $13.58 $14.80 $15.21

Productivity (bags produced per hour) 9,498 9,998 9,397

Unit labor costs (per 1,000 bags) $1.43 $1.48 $1.62

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms that, based on a

review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have imported at least five

percent of total imports or one million dollars worth of PRCBs from any country under HTS statistical reporting

number 3923.21.0085 in any one year since 2006.

 2

 According to questionnaire responses, subject imports in 2008 totaled 8.6 billion PRCBs. U.S. Department of

Commerce statistics show total subject imports during 2008 of 14.6 billion PRCBs.

 3

 At the preliminary conference, counsel for both petitioners and respondents attributed an increase in imports

from subject countries to the antidumping duty orders currently in place on China, Malaysia, and Vietnam. 

Conference transcript, pp. 5-6 (Dorn) and pp. 132-133 (Perry). 

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, 

AND MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 83 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 35 companies,

representing over half of the total volume of PRCBs imported from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam

imported from 2006-2008 under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085.2

 

For subject countries, the leading U.S. importer of PRCBs from Indonesia is ***, while the

leading importers from Taiwan are *** and the leading importers from Vietnam are ***. Leading

importers of PRCBs from nonsubject countries (primarily China, Malaysia, and Thailand) include ***. 

U.S. IMPORTS

From 2006 to 2008, total imports decreased on a quantity basis but increased on a value basis. 

Subject imports more than doubled during the period for which data were collected on both a volume and

a value basis. This increase from subject countries resulted in an increase in their share of the quantity of

total imports from 16.5 percent in 2006 to 40.1 percent in 2008. During the same period, nonsubject

imports from all other sources decreased. Nonsubject imports from the three countries that are currently

subject to antidumping duty orders decreased on a quantity basis during the period for which data were

collected but increased on a value basis.3

 

Table IV-1 presents 2006-2008 annual data for U.S. imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan,

Vietnam, and all other sources. Table IV-2 presents monthly import data for 2008.
IV-2

Table IV-1

PRCBs: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-2008

Source

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Indonesia 1,592,965 3,396,505 2,819,569

Taiwan 2,171,587 3,988,867 4,575,499

Vietnam 3,061,998 7,288,037 7,192,325

 Subtotal 6,826,550 14,673,409 14,587,393

Countries subject to AD duty orders1 29,079,228 16,114,332 18,833,894

All other sources 5,575,003 4,748,210 2,942,934

Total 41,480,781 35,535,951 36,364,221

Value (1,000 dollars)

2

Indonesia 25,400 45,808 40,948

Taiwan 19,454 42,318 56,848

Vietnam 19,734 73,757 88,189

 Subtotal 64,588 161,884 185,986

Countries subject to AD duty orders1 219,763 228,082 255,232

All other sources 51,774 76,586 63,180

Total 336,125 466,552 504,398

Unit value (per 1,000 bags)

1

Indonesia $15.95 $13.49 $14.52

Taiwan 8.96 10.61 12.42

Vietnam 6.44 10.12 12.26

 Average 9.46 11.03 12.75

Countries subject to AD duty orders1 7.56 14.15 13.55

All other sources 9.29 16.13 21.47

Average, all sources 8.10 13.13 13.87

Table continued on following page.
IV-3

Table IV-1--Continued

PRCBs: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-2008

Source

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Share of quantity (percent)

Indonesia 3.8 9.6 7.8

Taiwan 5.2 11.2 12.6

Vietnam 7.4 20.5 19.8

 Subtotal 16.5 41.3 40.1

Countries subject to AD duty orders1 70.1 45.3 51.8

All other sources 13.4 13.4 8.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Indonesia 7.6 9.8 8.1

Taiwan 5.8 9.1 11.3

Vietnam 5.9 15.8 17.5

 Subtotal 19.2 34.7 36.9

Countries subject to AD duty orders1 65.4 48.9 50.6

All other sources 15.4 16.4 12.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 China, Malaysia, and Thailand. 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 (China), Bee Lian Plastic Industries (Malaysia),

and Thai Plastic Bags Industries Group (Thailand). Imports of PRCBs from these firms are included in the

category “Countries subject to AD duty orders.” 2

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
IV-4

Table IV-2PRCBs: U.S. imports, by sources, January-December 2008

Source

Month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept O

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Indonesia 391,104 348,394 230,739 373,328 243,379 237,394 189,968 219,892 130,964 17Taiwan 481,292 350,783 575,193 369,719 270,424 234,980 319,714 471,288 488,597 33Vietnam 695,106 543,976 628,881 431,336 452,207 570,142 616,063 537,741 579,665 76 Subtotal 1,567,502 1,243,153 1,434,813 1,174,383 966,010 1,042,516 1,125,745 1,228,921 1,199,226 1,27Countriessubject to ADduty orders1 1,294,460 1,097,096 1,519,054 1,632,166 1,404,166 1,387,621 1,207,431 1,674,452 1,711,624 1,99

All othersources 273,019 252,097 210,038 149,557 232,243 216,660 286,526 214,893 377,115 18

Total 3,134,981 2,592,346 3,163,905 2,956,106 2,602,419 2,646,797 2,619,702 3,118,266 3,287,965 3,45

Value (1,000 dollars)2

Indonesia 5,083 4,592 3,696 4,929 3,424 2,835 2,683 3,442 2,321 

Taiwan 5,354 4,418 5,020 4,830 3,934 3,703 4,356 5,325 6,052 

Vietnam 7,635 6,403 6,547 5,757 5,807 6,864 7,271 7,075 6,625 

 Subtotal 18,073 15,413 15,263 15,516 13,164 13,402 14,309 15,842 14,998 1Countriessubject to AD duty orders1 18,493 16,161 18,688 18,865 17,724 19,523 18,680 22,512 26,887 2

All othersources

5,395 5,729 4,558 4,045 5,607 5,429 5,116 4,982 5,255 

Total 41,961 37,302 38,508 38,425 36,495 38,354 38,105 43,336 47,140 5

1 China, Malaysia, and Thailand. 2 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
 4

 Conference transcript, pp. 42-43 (Narkin).

 5

 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1),

1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

 6

 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)). For countervailing duty investigations, the applicable

percentages are four and seven percent, respectively.

IV-5

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether imports should be cumulated, the Commission determines whether U.S.

imports from the subject countries compete with each other and with the domestic like product and has

generally considered four factors: (1) fungibility; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same

geographic market; (3) common or similar channels of distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the

market. Issues concerning channels of distribution and fungibility are addressed 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 Indonesia 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 Norfolk, VA. U.S. imports of PRCBs from

Taiwan also entered multiple U.S. ports of entry, dispersed across the nation. The overwhelming majority

of imports entered via the ports of Los Angeles, Galveston, TX, and New York. Lastly, U.S. imports of

PRCBs from Vietnam also entered multiple U.S. ports of entry, dispersed across the nation, and the

overwhelming majority of imports entered via the ports of Los Angeles, Baltimore, MD, New York, and

Galveston. At the conference, petitioners argued that imports from the three subject countries are sold in

the same geographic markets as each other and as the domestic like product.4

Simultaneous Presence in the Market

Commerce statistics and pricing data submitted to the Commission show that imports from

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam entered the United States in every month of the 2006-2008 period. 

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.5

 Negligible imports are generally defined in the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic

like product where such imports account for less than three percent of the volume of all such merchandise

imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that

precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there are imports of

such merchandise from a number of countries subject to antidumping duty investigations initiated on the

same day that individually account for less than three percent of the total volume of the subject

merchandise, and if the imports from those countries collectively account for more than seven percent of

the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12-month

period, then imports from such countries are deemed not to be negligible.6

 Imports from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam accounted for 6.5, 11.2, and 19.6 percent of total imports of PRCBs by quantity
 7

 Data compiled using official Commerce statistics.

IV-6

during the 12-month period beginning March 2008 and ending February 2009, respectively, and therefore

none of the three subject countries’ imports are considered negligible.7

 

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs during the period for which data were

collected are shown in table IV-3. The volume of apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs decreased by 7.0

percent between 2006 and 2008 while the value increased by 13.8 percent during this period.

Table IV-3

PRCBs: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S. consumption,

2006-2008

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 bags)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 68,349,846 70,661,966 65,741,416

U.S. imports from–

Indonesia 1,592,965 3,396,505 2,819,569

Taiwan 2,171,587 3,988,867 4,575,499

Vietnam 3,061,998 7,288,037 7,192,325

 Subtotal 6,826,550 14,673,409 14,587,393

Countries subject to AD duty orders1 29,079,228 16,114,332 18,833,894

All other sources 5,575,003 4,748,210 2,942,934

Total U.S. imports 41,480,781 35,535,951 36,364,221

Apparent U.S. consumption 109,830,627 106,197,917 102,105,637

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments $982,919 $937,922 $997,311

U.S. imports from--

Indonesia 25,400 45,808 40,948

Taiwan 19,454 42,318 56,848

Vietnam 19,734 73,757 88,189

 Subtotal 64,588 161,884 185,986

Countries subject to AD duty orders1 219,763 228,082 255,232

All other sources 51,774 76,586 63,180

Total U.S. imports 336,125 466,552 504,398

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,319,044 1,404,474 1,501,709

 1 China, Malaysia, and Thailand.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. In order to obtain greater importer coverage than what was

provided by questionnaire data, official Commerce import statistics were used as a proxy for U.S. shipments of imports.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
IV-7

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-4. U.S. producers’ share of apparent U.S.

consumption experienced a small increase on a quantity basis during the period for which data were

collected. On a value basis, the U.S. producers’ share decreased by 8.1 percentage points. This decrease

corresponded with an increase in the share of consumption held by subject imports of PRCBs. The share

of consumption held by imports of nonsubject-country PRCBs decreased on a quantity basis and

increased on a value basis.

Table IV-4

PRCBs: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-2008

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Apparent U.S. consumption 109,830,627 106,197,917 102,105,637

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,319,044 1,404,474 1,501,709

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 62.2 66.5 64.4

U.S. imports from--

Indonesia 1.5 3.2 2.8

Taiwan 2.0 3.8 4.5

Vietnam 2.8 6.9 7.0

 Subtotal 6.2 13.8 14.3

Countries subject to AD duty orders1 26.5 15.2 18.4

All other sources 5.1 4.5 2.9

All countries 37.8 33.5 35.6

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 74.5 66.8 66.4

U.S. imports from--

Indonesia 1.9 3.3 2.7

Taiwan 1.5 3.0 3.8

Vietnam 1.5 5.3 5.9

 Subtotal 4.9 11.5 12.4

Countries subject to AD duty orders1 16.7 16.2 17.0

All other sources 3.9 5.5 4.2

All countries 25.5 33.2 33.6

 1 China, Malaysia, and Thailand.

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
IV-8

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Data on the ratio of imports to U.S. production of PRCBs are presented in table IV-5. The

decrease in U.S. production during the period for which data were collected corresponded with an

increase in the ratio of imports from subject countries to U.S. production. During that same period, the

ratio of imports from nonsubject countries to U.S. production decreased.

Table IV-5

PRCBs: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2006-2008

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 bags)

U.S. production 71,574,007 73,259,361 67,090,935

Imports from:

 Indonesia 1,592,965 3,396,505 2,819,569

 Taiwan 2,171,587 3,988,867 4,575,499

 Vietnam 3,061,998 7,288,037 7,192,325

 Subtotal 6,826,550 14,673,409 14,587,393

 Countries subject to AD duty orders1 29,079,228 16,114,332 18,833,894

 All other sources 5,575,003 4,748,210 2,942,934

 Total imports 41,480,781 35,535,951 36,364,221

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

Imports from:

 Indonesia 2.2 4.6 4.2

 Taiwan 3.0 5.4 6.8

 Vietnam 4.3 9.9 10.7

 Subtotal 9.5 20.0 21.7

 Countries subject to AD duty orders1 40.6 22.0 28.1

 All other sources 7.8 6.5 4.4

 Total imports 58.0 48.5 54.2

 1 China, Malaysia, and Thailand.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce

statistics.
 1

 Petitioners reported that prices of polyethylene were similar worldwide, partly due to their relationship to

changes in oil and natural gas prices. Conference transcript, pp. 59-60 (Bazbaz, Daniels, and Halimi).

 2

 These estimates are based on HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Materials

The main raw material used in the production of PRCBs is polyethylene. It and other raw

materials accounted for 70.3 percent of the total cost of goods sold during 2008 (see Part VI: Financial

Condition of U.S. Producers). The price of polyethylene decreased irregularly through 2006 before

generally increasing through August 2008 (figure V-1).1

 Prices then decreased rapidly through January

2009 before recovering slightly in February and March 2009.

Figure V-1

Polyethylene: Average monthly U.S. price, January 2006-March 2009

Source: Compiled from data published in Chem Data.

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Transportation costs for PRCBs to the United States (excluding U.S. inland transportation costs)

from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam were estimated to be 8.3, 7.9, and 8.1 percent, respectively, in

2008. These estimates are derived from official import data and represent the transportation and other

charges on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with customs value.2

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2006200720082009

Cents per pound

A verage P olyethylene P rice
 3

 Additionally, two producers reported a cost of “100 percent.”

 4

 The other seven importers reported even higher transportation costs: 15, 17, 20, 25, 25, 25, and 100 percent. 

Disregarding the 100-percent data point, the overall average is 7.8 percent.

V-2

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Thirteen U.S. producers reported that, generally, U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 1.9

to 6.1 percent of the total delivered cost of PRCBs, and averaged 3.6 percent.3

 Twenty-five of 32

responding importers reported that inland transportation costs ranged between 1 and 10 percent

(averaging 4.7 percent)4

 of the total delivered cost of PRCBs.

Thirteen of 15 U.S. producers reported that they arranged delivery. Producers reported that they

shipped 16.7 percent of their PRCBs less than 100 miles, 56.5 percent of their PRCBs between 101 and

1,000 miles, and 26.8 percent of their PRCBs more than 1,000 miles, based on a simple average. Thirtythree of the 36 responding importers reported that they arranged delivery. Based on a simple average, the

31 responding importers reported shipping 33.6 percent of their PRCBs less than 100 miles, 33.6 percent

between 101 and 1,000 miles, and 32.9 percent more than 1,000 miles.

Exchange Rates

Quarterly nominal and real exchange rate data reported by the International Monetary Fund for

the Indonesian rupiah relative to the U.S. dollar are presented figure V-2. Nominal exchange rates

between the Taiwan dollar and the U.S. dollar reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis are

presented in figure V-3, and between the Vietnamese dong and the U.S. dollar (as reported by the

International Monetary Fund) are presented in figure V-4. 

Figure V-2

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Indonesian rupiah relative

to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, retrieved from http://www.imfstatistics.org/imf/

on April 27, 2009.

Figure V-3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008

Jan.-Mar. 2006 = 100

Nominal Real
V-3

Exchange rates: Index of the nominal exchange rate of the Taiwan dollar relative to the U.S. dollar,

by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, retrieved from http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXTAUS / on

April 27, 2009.

Figure V-4

Exchange rates: Index of the nominal exchange rate of the Vietnamese dong relative to the U.S.

dollar, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, retrieved from http://www.imfstatistics.org/imf/

on April 27, 2009.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2006 2007 2008

Jan.-Mar. 2006 = 100

Nominal

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2006 2007 2008

Jan.-Mar. 2006 = 100

Nominal
 5

 Multiple producers reported that they use more than one method of determining prices.

 6

 Conference transcript, p. 59 (Bazbaz).

 7

 As with the producers, multiple importers reported that they use more than one method of determining prices.

These data include producers who also import.

 8

 *** reported that although *** percent of its sales are via short-term contracts, neither quantity nor price is set. 

V-4

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

The 15 U.S. producers of PRCBs reported that they use a variety of methods in determining

prices. The manner in which prices are determined can depend on the size of the customer. Overall, nine

producers use transaction-by-transaction negotiations, five have contracts for multiple shipments, four

adjust their prices due to market conditions or competitive pricing, three use price lists, and two reported

reverse auctions sometimes determining prices.5

 Additionally, four producers stated that their pricing

moves in conjunction with polyethylene resin prices. At the preliminary conference, Mr. Bazbaz of

Superbag averred that for his firm, and to his knowledge the rest of the industry, PRCB prices reflect

changes in plastic resin prices which “are adjusted by the weight of the bags multiplied by the change of

that index.”6

Among importers, 21 reported that they set prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis, seven

contract for multiple shipments, six use price lists, four use a cost-plus markup, and two use market

pricing as a guide. Additionally, four importers use the price of polyethylene resin in determining their

prices, and one reported reverse auctions as sometimes determining prices.7

 

Nine of the 15 producers reported that they sell their PRCBs via long-term contracts and shortterm contracts, as well as on the spot market. The other six reported that they only sell PRCBs using one

or two of those methods. Based on a simple average, 24.6 percent of U.S. producers’ sales are via longterm contracts (over 12 months in length), 29.8 percent of sales are via short-term contracts (12 months or

less in length), and 45.6 percent are spot sales.8

 Thirteen of 32 responding importers sell PRCBs

exclusively on a spot basis, two sell exclusively on a short-term contract basis, and one sells exclusively

on a long-term contract basis. The other half of responding importers used a combination of these

approaches, selling 45.3 percent on the spot market, 39.6 percent via short-term contracts, and 15.1

percent via long-term contracts.

The 10 producers selling via long-term contracts reported that contracts are up to two years in

length. Seven of the 10 noted that prices could be renegotiated or changed based on changes in

polyethylene resin prices. Three producers noted that prices are fixed, three noted that both prices and

quantities are fixed, two stated that neither price nor quantities are fixed, one stated that quantities are

fixed, and one stated that it varies by contract. Five producers indicated that long-term contracts usually

have a meet-or-release clause, while an equal number reported the opposite. Short-term contracts entered

into by the 13 responding producers can vary in length from 2 months to a year, do not typically have

price renegotiations (reported by nine producers) or meet-or-release clauses (reported by eight producers),

and fix both prices and quantities (reported by seven producers). 

Twelve importers reported selling via long-term contracts between one and two years in length. 

Eight of the 12 importers noted that prices could, at least sometimes, be renegotiated or changed based on

changes in polyethylene resin prices. Five importers stated that these contracts typically fix both price

and quantity, three noted that it depends on the contract, two reported that prices are fixed, and one

importer each reported that either quantity is fixed or neither prices nor quantities are fixed. Nine of the

12 responding importers indicated that long-term contracts usually do not have a meet-or-release clause. 

Short-term contracts entered into by the 20 responding importers can vary in length from 3 months to a
 9

 Other payment terms listed by producers were net 10 and net 31 days. Other payment terms listed by importers

were net 10, net 60, net 90, and payment on delivery.

 10 These discounts are in addition to those previously mentioned for early payment.

 11 Prebates are cash incentives offered to customers to enter into a supply agreement that are paid at the beginning

of the contract. Conference transcript, p. 72 (Rizzo).

 12 These discounts are in addition to those previously mentioned for early payment.

 13 Only ***.

 14 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 19-20 and 25, and conference transcript, p. 73 (Bazbaz).

 15 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 18-20.

V-5

year, do not typically have price renegotiations (as reported by 13 importers) or meet-or-release clauses

(as reported by 15 importers), and fix both prices and quantities (as reported by 9 importers).

Sales Terms and Discounts

Eleven of the 15 producers and 22 of 31 responding importers reported that sales terms for

PRCBs are generally net 30 days.9

 Eight of the 15 producers and nine of the 31 responding importers

stated that they give discounts for early payment. Eight producers reported that prices are generally

quoted on a delivered basis, three generally quote prices on an f.o.b. warehouse/factory basis, and four

quote prices on both a delivered and f.o.b. basis. Among responding importers, 14 reported that they

generally quote delivered prices, 12 generally quote f.o.b. prices, and 5 quote prices using both methods.

With respect to discounts, nine of 14 producers reported offering some type of volume discount

on their sales of PRCBs,10 though these discounts may apply to as few as one customer. Additionally,

*** reported that it offers rebates, and, on occasion, prebates.11 Five producers reported that they do not

offer discounts beyond those granted for early payment. Ten of 34 responding importers reported giving

quantity discounts; one reported giving discounts to distributors; one reported giving a rebate based on

total volume of purchases that include products other than PRCBs; and 22 reported that they do not offer

discounts.12

Sales via Internet

Eleven of 15 reporting producers and 32 of 39 reporting importers stated that they do not sell

PRCBs over the internet. The firms that listed selling via the internet, including via reverse auctions,

were ***.13 Among these firms, the following estimates of their sales via internet in 2008 were provided: 

“perhaps 1 percent,” “nearly 2 percent ***,” “9.4 percent,” “approximately 10 percent,” and “30 to 35

percent.” Petitioners report that sales via the internet, including reverse auctions, have gained in

popularity since the 2004 investigations of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.14 Some

transactions occurred through reverse auctions on the internet, a type of procurement that typically

involves a single purchaser and many sellers. Internet auctions conducted in 2008 that petitioners

identified include a wide variety of purchasers: ***. Additionally, internet bids were sought by *** in

2008. Petitioners alleged that reverse auctions and internet bidding make the focus of the competition

solely based on price.15

PRICE DATA

The Commission asked U.S. producers and importers of PRCBs to provide quarterly data for the

total quantity and f.o.b. value of certain PRCBs that were shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S.
 16 The Commission asked importers of PRCBs from nonsubject countries to submit pricing data with respect to

their largest source of nonsubject imports. One firm, ***, refused to comply with the Commission’s request. ***

stated that doing so could ***. He was informed that BPI could not be shared, but he maintained that *** without

necessarily disclosing it. He was then contacted by the staff attorney, and reiterated these claims, adding that ***

concerns were legitimate, and opined that he had no choice but to balance *** obligations in the preliminary phase

investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, with its broader interests. He was reminded that the

Commission reserved the right to take adverse inferences against *** if it were deemed to be uncooperative. He

noted that *** might be in a position to disclose the requested information in any final phase investigations. 

Telephone interviews with ***.

 17 Some firms reported data for products that don’t exactly fit the description that was provided, but were thought

to compete closely with bags in that category. ***. These data are included in the pricing data presented below.

 18 Pricing data for nonsubject countries China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore, and Thailand can be

found in app. D. The large majority (*** percent) of these sales of nonsubject-country imports originated in China. 

V-6

market during the period January 2006 to December 2008. The products for which pricing data were

requested are as follows:

Product 1.--Small “t-shirt sack”-style bag with (a) dimensions 7-10” width x 4-6” side x

12-20” length, (b) 10-17 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).

Product 2.--Medium “t-shirt sack”-style bag with (a) dimensions 11-13” width x 6-8” 

side x 18-26” length, (b) 11-25 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).

Product 3.--Large “t-shirt sack”-style bag with (a) dimensions 15-18” width x 8-10” side 

x 27-30” length, (b) 13-32 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).

Product 4.--Die-cut-handle-style merchandise bags with (a) dimensions 12-20” width x 3-5”

side x 20-30” length, (b) 13-32 microns film thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d)

printed with at least two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage

for entire bag).

Twelve U.S. producers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, along

with 12 importers with sales of PRCBs from Indonesia, 13 importers with sales of PRCBs from Taiwan,

and 19 importers with sales of PRCBs from Vietnam. In addition, seven importers reported usable

pricing data for their imports from nonsubject countries.16 Not all firms reported pricing for all products

for all quarters.17 Pricing data for the four products reported by these firms, shown in tables V-1 to V-4

and figures V-5 to V-8, accounted for 95.4 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs, 59.5

percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, 80.1 percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Taiwan,

and 16.0 percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Vietnam in 2006-08. Pricing data reported by importers

of PRCBs from nonsubject countries accounted for *** percent of U.S. imports from those nonsubject

countries in 2008.18

Pricing comparisons between different sources of PRCBs are complicated by the fact that each of

the four pricing product definitions encompasses a range of sizes, and hence weights, of bags. This can
 19 Conference transcript, pp. 59-60 (Bazbaz).

V-7

cause the weight of the unit of measure (1,000 bags) to vary considerably. *** submitted an analysis

calculating the weight of a few sizes of bags that all fall within the definition of pricing product 2. The

weight of 1,000 bags of the largest type of PRCBs that fall within the definition of pricing product 2 is

333.6 percent heavier than the weight of the smallest bags that fall within the definition of the same

pricing product. The difference in bag weight is due to the increased polyethylene resin and other

additives used to make the bags. Because PRCB pricing is affected by the weight of the polyethylene

resin used to produce the PRCBs, quarterly pricing data appear to be affected somewhat by this.19 
Table V-1

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1,1 and margins of (overs

by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

Period

United States Indonesia Taiwan 

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

Quantity

(1,000

bags)

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

Quantity

(1,000

bags)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

Quantity

(1,000

bags)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

2006: Jan.-Mar. $9.60 671,117 $*** *** *** $12.91 54,352 (34.5) $***  Apr.-June 8.97 634,731 *** *** *** 16.39 60,385 (82.6) ***  July-Sept. 8.70 676,438 *** *** *** 12.34 60,992 (41.9) 8.17  Oct.-Dec. 8.23 841,592 *** *** *** 13.92 76,221 (69.0) 9.09 2007: Jan.-Mar. 8.88 517,017 *** *** *** 12.87 67,822 (44.9) ***  Apr.-June 8.48 651,070 *** *** *** 10.11 103,431 (19.2) 8.78  July-Sept. 8.36 719,592 9.28 33,685 (11.1) 11.60 89,058 (38.8) ***  Oct.-Dec. 8.12 771,356 *** *** *** 13.57 85,060 (67.1) 8.53 2008: Jan.-Mar. 9.29 522,742 *** *** *** 16.01 43,627 (72.3) 9.07  Apr.-June 9.18 604,699 *** *** *** 15.06 52,082 (64.0) ***  July-Sept. 10.35 599,895 *** *** *** 17.56 46,810 (69.7) 10.84  Oct.-Dec. 8.92 591,512 *** *** *** 15.25 68,363 (70.9) 10.58 

1 Small "t-shirt sack"-style bag with (a) dimensions 7-10" width x 4-6" side x 12-20" length, (b) 10-17 microns film thickness, (c) side g

with one or two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag).Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-8
Table V-2

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2,1 and margins of (overs

by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

Period

United States Indonesia Taiwan 

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

Quantity

(1,000

bags)

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

Quantity

(1,000

bags)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

Quantity

(1,000

bags)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

2006: Jan.-Mar. $13.56 13,489,844 $*** *** *** $*** *** *** $12.47  Apr.-June 12.63 15,098,568 *** *** *** *** *** *** 11.70  July-Sept. 12.55 15,437,551 *** *** *** *** *** *** 12.40  Oct.-Dec. 12.65 15,483,317 *** *** *** *** *** *** 13.84 2007: Jan.-Mar. 11.21 14,784,483 *** *** *** 15.75 464,862 (40.5) 13.27  Apr.-June 11.22 15,844,584 *** *** *** 15.72 591,090 (40.1) 11.27  July-Sept. 12.07 16,554,222 *** *** *** *** *** *** 13.05  Oct.-Dec. 12.81 15,396,171 *** *** *** *** *** *** 14.67 2008: Jan.-Mar. 13.32 13,399,467 *** *** *** *** *** *** 14.76  Apr.-June 13.39 14,886,400 *** *** *** *** *** *** 15.23  July-Sept. 14.23 14,908,821 *** *** *** *** *** *** 15.86  Oct.-Dec. 13.52 15,388,307 *** *** *** *** *** *** 16.20 

1 Medium "t-shirt sack"-style bag with (a) dimensions 11-13" width x 6-8" side x 18-26" length, (b) 11-25 microns film thickness, (c) sid

with one or two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag).Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-9
Table V-3

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3,1 and margins of (overs

by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

Period

United States Indonesia Taiwan 

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

Quantity

(1,000

bags)

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

Quantity

(1,000

bags)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

Quantity

(1,000

bags)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

2006: Jan.-Mar. $30.89 196,478 $*** *** *** $*** *** *** $***  Apr.-June 28.80 207,243 *** *** *** 19.29 14,089 33.0 37.45  July-Sept. 26.97 274,075 *** *** *** *** *** *** 38.61  Oct.-Dec. 27.60 334,789 *** *** *** *** *** *** 49.87 2007: Jan.-Mar. 26.81 234,030 *** *** *** *** *** *** 40.06  Apr.-June 26.35 235,691 *** *** *** *** *** *** 53.43  July-Sept. 28.06 293,331 *** *** *** *** *** *** 41.82  Oct.-Dec. 28.62 369,430 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2008: Jan.-Mar. 30.57 180,651 *** *** *** *** *** *** 42.09  Apr.-June 31.50 165,801 *** *** *** *** *** *** 40.25  July-Sept. 32.42 197,196 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Oct.-Dec. 30.11 326,481 *** *** *** *** *** *** 42.81 

1 Large "t-shirt sack"-style bag with (a) dimensions 15-18" width x 8-10" side x 27-30" length, (b) 13-32 microns film thickness, (c) sid

with one or two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag).Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-10
Table V-4

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4,1 and margins of (overs

by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

Period

United States Indonesia Taiwan 

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

Quantity

(1,000

bags)

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

Quantity

(1,000

bags)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

Quantity

(1,000

bags)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

bags)

2006: Jan.-Mar. $27.27 216,215 -- 0 -- $*** *** *** $***  Apr.-June 25.79 302,770 $*** *** *** *** *** *** 23.90  July-Sept. 24.43 402,233 *** *** *** *** *** *** 42.72  Oct.-Dec. 25.38 414,315 *** *** *** *** *** *** 42.09 2007: Jan.-Mar. 23.41 209,736 17.40 14,132 25.7 *** *** *** ***  Apr.-June 23.37 339,141 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. 23.83 404,186 *** *** *** *** *** *** 47.83  Oct.-Dec. 23.95 430,573 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2008: Jan.-Mar. 24.49 253,045 17.16 8,456 30.0 *** *** *** 38.87  Apr.-June 25.65 321,157 *** *** *** *** *** *** 49.34  July-Sept. 26.73 320,852 *** *** *** *** *** *** 48.33  Oct.-Dec. 27.19 330,461 *** *** *** *** *** *** 48.12 

1 Die-cut-handle-style merchandise bags with (a) dimensions 12-20" width x 3-5" side x 20-30" length, (b) 13-32 microns film thicknes

(d) printed with at least two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag).Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-11
V-12

Figure V-5

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices of product 1 as reported by U.S. producers and

importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-6

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices of product 2 as reported by U.S. producers and

importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-7

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices of product 3 as reported by U.S. producers and

importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-8

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices of product 4 as reported by U.S. producers and

importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Price Trends

Prices of U.S.-produced PRCBs generally decreased from the start of 2006 until the first or second

quarter of 2007. Prices then generally increased for products 2 through 4 until the third quarter of 2008. 

In contrast, prices for domestically produced product 1 continued to decline slightly through 2007. Prices

of product 1 increased irregularly by 11.4 percent between the first and third quarters of 2008. In the

fourth quarter of 2008, when prices of polyethylene resin had begun to decrease sharply, prices of

products 1, 2, and 3 decreased (by 13.8, 5.0, and 7.1 percent, respectively), while the price of product 4

continued to increase slightly. 

Trends are more difficult to discuss for the prices of products imported from Indonesia, Taiwan,

and Vietnam during 2006. Prices did not tend to move consistently in conjunction with other subject

import prices, with domestic prices, or with the price of polyethylene resin. With respect to products 1

and 2, prices of imports from all three subject countries moved irregularly upward, particularly during the

second half of the period of study. Product 3 imported from Indonesia and Taiwan followed this same

general pattern, but product 3 imports from Vietnam displayed highly variable prices that decreased on

the whole from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the third quarter of 2008 while resin prices were rising. 

Prices for product 4 imported from all three subject countries were particularly erratic over most of the

2006-08 period. 

Price Comparisons

Imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam undersold the U.S. product in 48 of 143

quarterly comparisons, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.2 to 79.6 percent. Conversely,

imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam oversold the U.S. product in 95 of 143 quarterly

comparisons, with margins of overselling ranging from 0.1 to 162.3 percent. A summary of margins of

underselling and overselling is presented in table V-5. 
V-13

Table V-5

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)

Average

margin of

underselling

(percent) 

Range of

margins of 

underselling

(percent)

Average

margin of

(overselling)

(percent)

Range of

margins of

(overselling)

(percent)

Indonesia

1 0 12 -- -- (54.2) (0.1) - (162.3)

2 0 12 -- -- (56.6) (34.9) - (75.6)

3 12 0 21.1 5.1 - 43.6 -- --

4 8 3 31.6 9.5 - 48.8 (86.1) (39.8) - (143.7)

Total 20 27 25.3 5.1 - 48.8 (58.8) (0.1) - (162.3)

Taiwan

1 0 12 -- -- (56.2) (19.2) - (82.6)

2 1 11 20.6 20.6 - 20.6 (39.4) (15.4) - (51.3)

3 11 1 19.9 7.0 - 40.6 (0.6) (0.6) - (0.6)

4 7 5 57.4 3.6 - 79.6 (44.3) (12.6) - (121.5)

Total 19 29 33.8 3.6 - 79.6 (45.9) (0.6) - (121.5)

Vietnam

1 4 8 8.6 2.4 - 16.5 (8.6) (2.1) - (18.6)

2 3 9 5.5 1.2 - 8.1 (11.9) (0.5) - (19.9)

3 1 11 27.3 27.3 - 27.3 (49.6) (19.8) - (102.8)

4 1 11 7.3 7.3 - 7.3 (90.0) (45.9) - (139.8)

Total 9 39 9.5 1.2 - 27.3 (43.9) (0.5) - (139.8)

Total

Subject 48 95 25.7 1.2 - 79.6 (48.7) (0.1) - (162.3)

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested that U.S. producers of PRCBs report any instances of lost sales and

lost revenues experienced due to competition from imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam since

January 1, 2006. Eight of the 14 responding producers reported that they had reduced prices and three

had rolled back announced price increases, allegedly due to imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam. Eight of the 14 producers also alleged that they had lost sales due to low-priced imports from

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam. All of the lost sales and lost revenue allegations are presented in tables

V-6 and V-7 and are discussed in more detail below. Staff was able to contact 53 of the 60 listed
 20 The Commission was not supplied with sufficient information to investigate lost revenue allegations with

respect to ***.

 21 The lost revenue and lost sales allegations were made by ***. Producers *** reported that they had neither

lost sales nor revenues since January 1, 2006.

 22 Telephone interview with ***.

 23 Telephone interview with ***.

 24 Telephone interview with ***.

 25 Telephone interview with ***.

 26 Telephone interview with ***.

 27 Telephone interview with ***.

V-14

purchasers.20 There were *** lost sales allegations totaling $*** and *** lost revenue allegations totaling

$***.21 Two of the lost sales allegations and one of the lost revenue allegations were confirmed, totaling

$*** and $***, respectively. Additional information, where relevant, is summarized in the individual

responses below.

Table V-6

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

***

***.22

***

***.

***

***.

***

***.23

***

***.24

***

***.

***

***.25

***

***.

***

***.26

***

***.

***

***.27

***
 28 Telephone interview with ***.

 29 Telephone interview with ***.

 30 Fax from ***.

 31 Fax from ***.

 32 Fax from ***.

 33 Fax from ***.

V-15

***.28

***

***.

***

***.

***

***.

***

***.

***

***.

***

***.29

***

***.

In addition, purchasers responding to lost sales and lost revenue allegations also were asked

whether they shifted their purchases of PRCBs from U.S. producers to suppliers of PRCBs from

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam since January 2006. Three of the 28 responding purchasers (***)

reported that they had shifted purchases of PRCBs from U.S. producers to subject imports since January

1, 2006; one of these purchasers (***) reported that price was the reason for the shift. Purchaser ***

stated that ***. Purchaser ***.

In addition, two of 24 purchasers (***) reported that since January 1, 2006, U.S. producers

reduced their prices in order to compete with the prices of subject imports. Additionally, though, ***.30

Two purchasers responding that domestic producers had not reduced prices stated why they responded

negatively: *** reported that “***”31 and *** reported that its “***.32 Purchaser *** noted that its

current supplier has stopped purchasing PRCBs from Vietnam as of January 2009, so that “there was no

impact to current pricing.”33
 
 1

 The firms are: Ampac; API; Bemis; Command; Durabag; Europackaging; Genpak; Golden; Hilex; Inteplast;

Omega; 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

***.

 2

 Adding to the industry’s recorded operating loss, ***.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Fifteen U.S. firms provided usable financial data for each of their latest three fiscal years on their

operations producing PRCBs.1

 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 VI-1 and are briefly

summarized here. Net sales quantity irregularly declined between 2006 and 2008, while sales value

irregularly rose over the same period due to changes in the average unit value of sales. The increase in

the cost of goods sold (“COGS”) was greater than the increase in sales whether measured by value (about

$32 million versus $11 million) or on a per-unit basis ($0.98 versus $0.73 per 1,000 bags). The ratio of

COGS to net sales also rose by 2 percentage points from 2006 to 2008. The increase in COGS was driven

by increasing raw material costs, which offset a decline in other factory costs and an increase in sales

value. The increase in COGS resulted in gross profit being lower in 2008 than in 2007. Total selling,

general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses also irregularly rose from 2006 to 2008,2

 and the industry

as a whole recorded an operating loss in 2008 after reporting small levels of profit in 2006 and 2007. Net

income before taxes was negative in each of the three years for which data were gathered, but cash flow,

which declined from 2006 to 2008, was positive because depreciation expenses were higher than the

negative net income figure in each year.
VI-2

Table VI-1

PRCBs: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-2008 

Item

Fiscal year

2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Net sales1 70,282,963 73,816,808 67,625,322

Value ($1,000)

Net sales1 1,016,647 981,429 1,028,098

COGS

 Raw materials 620,065 602,887 668,040

 Direct labor 102,419 103,307 103,244

 Other factory costs 195,349 181,329 178,315

 Total COGS 917,833 887,523 949,599

Gross profit 98,814 93,906 78,499

SG&A expenses2 93,910 89,053 116,046

Operating income or (loss)2 4,904 4,853 (37,547)

Interest expense 33,335 45,402 34,363

Other expense 9,975 4,010 5,290

Other income 7,696 8,010 14,204

Net income or (loss) (30,710) (36,549) (62,996)

Depreciation 65,120 64,567 69,200

Cash flow 34,410 28,018 6,203

Ratio to net sales (percent)

COGS:

Raw materials 61.0 61.4 65.0

Direct labor 10.1 10.5 10.0

Other factory costs 19.2 18.5 17.3

Average COGS 90.3 90.4 92.4

Gross profit 9.7 9.6 7.6

SG&A expenses2 9.2 9.1 11.3

Operating income or (loss)2 0.5 0.5 (3.7)

Net income or (loss) (3.0) (3.7) (6.1)

Table continued on following page.
VI-3

Table VI-1--Continued

PRCBs: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-2008

Item

Fiscal year

2006 2007 2008

Unit value (per 1,000 bags)

Total net sales $14.47 $13.30 $15.20

COGS:

 Raw materials 8.82 8.17 9.88

 Direct labor 1.46 1.40 1.53

 Other factory costs 2.78 2.46 2.64

 Total COGS 13.06 12.02 14.04

Gross profit 1.41 1.27 1.16

SG&A expenses2 1.34 1.21 1.72

Operating income or (loss)2 0.07 0.07 (0.56)

Net income or (loss) (0.44) (0.50) (0.93)

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses3 666

Data 15 15 15

1

 As noted earlier, there are *** differences between the data reported in the trade section of the responses to

the Commission’s questionnaire and these data due to timing differences. 2

 In 2008, ***. If this were not included, the industry’s operating income would still be negative although it would

be lower by this amount. Also, the ratio of industry SG&A expenses to sales would be *** percent while the

average per-unit value would be $*** per 1,000 bags; the industry’s ratio of operating loss to sales would be ***

percent while its average unit value would be a negative $*** per bag instead of the numbers shown. ***. 3

 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Raw material costs, which are primarily composed of polyethylene resin and color concentrates,

rose in absolute value and as a percentage of net sales during the period for which data were gathered, as

noted earlier. Raw material costs also increased as a share of total COGS, from 68 percent in 2006 to 70

percent in 2008. Raw material costs ranged from $*** per 1,000 bags to $*** per 1,000 bags in 2008

depending upon the firm. These values appear to be in line with reported sales values and the

corresponding company product mix; the average of $9.88 per 1,000 bags in 2008 reflects the large-scale

production of light-weight bags by several U.S. firms. The relationship between raw material costs and

sales value is shown in the following tabulation:
 3

 It should be noted that 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.

VI-4

PRCBs: Average unit values of raw material costs and sales, by firms, 2008

Firm

Unit value of raw

material costs (per

1,000 bags)

Unit value of total

net sales (per

1,000 bags)

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** ***

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.88 15.20

Table VI-2 presents the results of operations on a company-by-company basis, while table VI-3

presents operating data for the 15 firms sorted into three industry segments according to sales.

Table VI-2

PRCBs: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years 2006-2008

* * * * * * *

Table VI-3 presents operating data on domestic producers grouped into segments by sales in

2008. 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). Within the first group, ***,3

 while the ***. Overall sales value increased ***

while the operating *** from 2006 to 2008. Within the middle group, *** from 2006 to 2007, which led

to the decline overall in the group’s profitability during 2006-08; *** during 2006-08. The third group’s

results are led by *** (*** in each period); overall for the third group, sales declined and the operating

loss increased from 2006 to 2008. 
 4

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 20. Petitioners assert that domestic producers have cut prices to secure

enough business to keep their operations running continuously, leading to a cost-price squeeze, as well as cutting

production and adding more than usual downtime to rectify a supply-demand imbalance. A list of the three plant

closures by Hilex and one by Europackaging is given in petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 33-34.

 5

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, responses to staff, p. 3.

 6

 The breakeven point is where both fixed and variable costs are covered and operating income is zero. The

equation can be rearranged as unit selling price times quantity minus unit variable cost times quantity equals fixed

costs. Therefore, at the break even point, the quantity needed to be sold to break even equals fixed costs in dollars

divided by unit contribution margin (which is the unit selling price minus unit variable costs). The validity of this

calculation depends upon a number of crucial assumptions. See, Charles T. Horngren, George Foster, Srikant M.

Datar, Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 9th Ed, 1997), p. 60.

 7

 Hilex’s reported production capacity in 2008 was ***, down from *** in 2006. Hilex’s U.S. producers’

questionnaire response, question II-9. Hilex closed ***. Hilex’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question

II-2. Hilex also underwent financial restructuring in 2008, as noted earlier.

 8

 In the 2003-2004 investigations on PRCBs, producers and respondents commented on changes in product mix. 

See note 4, p. VI-4 in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA1043-1045 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3618 (August 2003), for producer and respondent comments received

in the preliminary phase of those investigations with regard to changes in product mix. In addition, the per-unit sales

and costs (tables VI-2 and VI-3) appear to be relatively consistent for each reporting firm in each period, which may

offset changes in product mix within a single producer. 

 9

 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 variance (in the case of

the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance) and a volume variance. The sales or cost variance is calculated as the

change in unit price times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times

(continued...)

VI-5

Table VI-3

PRCBs: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by industry group, fiscal years 2006-2008

* * * * * * *

As noted by petitioners, domestic producers require a certain baseload of business to enable them

to operate as efficiently as possible.4

 At the request of staff, petitioners provided a breakdown between

fixed costs and variable costs for three firms, Hilex, Command, and Superbag. These firms together

accounted for *** percent of total sales, *** percent of total COGS, and *** percent of total SG&A

expenses reported by the 15 reporting firms in 2008. For the three firms together, fixed costs account for

about *** percent of COGS and *** percent of SG&A expenses in 2008.5

 While the fixed cost portion

of COGS seems very low, it should be noted that raw materials costs accounted for over *** percent of

total COGS in 2008. Based on the breakdown between fixed and variable costs, the break even point,

which is the quantity sold where total revenues and total costs are equal,6

 can be calculated for the three

firms. That point, in number of bags, is *** bags versus the *** bags that the three firms actually sold in

2008; the break even point for Hilex by itself is *** bags compared with *** bags that the firm sold in

2008.7

A variance analysis for U.S. producers is presented in table VI-4, and is derived from the

information presented in table VI-1. The variance analysis provides an assessment of changes in

profitability as related to changes in pricing, cost, and volume. This analysis is more effective when the

product involved is a homogeneous product with no variation in product mix.8

 In table VI-4, between

2006 and 2008, the unfavorable operating income variance of $42.5 million was attributable primarily to

a unfavorable net cost/expense variance (unit costs increased) that overwhelmed a favorable variance on

price (unit prices increased); there was a small unfavorable net volume variance.9

 The mix of favorable
 9

 (...continued)

the old unit price. 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

lines under price and cost/expense variance. The volume component of price variance is nearly always negative

because of the way in which the spreadsheet is constructed.

VI-6

and unfavorable variances changed during the period and the price variance was unfavorable between

2006 and 2007 (unit prices fell) while the net cost/expense variance was favorable (unit costs declined) in

that period. Between 2007 and 2008, the favorable price variance was again overwhelmed by an

unfavorable net cost/expense variance.
VI-7

Table VI-4

PRCBs: Variance analysis on results of operations of domestic producers, fiscal years 2006-2008

Item

Between fiscal years

2006-2008 2006-2007 2007-2008

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales:

 Price variance 49,894 (86,335) 128,988

 Volume variance (38,443) 51,117 (82,319)

 Total net sales variance1 11,451 (35,218) 46,669

Cost of goods sold:

 Cost variance (66,472) 76,459 (136,518)

 Volume variance 34,706 (46,149) 74,442

 Total cost of goods variance (31,766) 30,310 (62,076)

Gross profit variance (20,315) (4,908) (15,407)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (25,687) 9,579 (34,462)

 Volume variance 3,551 (4,722) 7,469

 Total SG&A variance (22,136) 4,857 (26,993)

Operating income variance (42,451) (51) (42,400)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 49,894 (86,335) 128,988

 Net cost/expense variance (92,159) 86,038 (170,981)

 Net volume variance (185) 247 (407)

Note.--Unfavorable variances are shown in parenthesis; all others are favorable. The data are comparable to

changes in operating income as presented in table VI-1.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES,

AND INVESTMENT IN PRODUCTIVE FACILITIES

The responding firms’ data on capital expenditures, research and development (“R&D”)

expenses, and the value of their property, plant, and equipment used in the production of PRCBs are

shown in table VI-5. 
VI-8

Table VI-5

PRCBs: Value of capital expenditures and R&D expenses of U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years

2006-2008

Item

Fiscal year

2006 2007 2008

Value ($1,000)

Capital expenditures:

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 *** *** *** ***

 Total 38,820 17,186 15,268

R&D expenses:

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

 Total 1,693 1,690 1,230

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

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 VI-1 (adjusted to ***). Operating income was divided by total assets, resulting in

the asset turnover ratio. ROI fell from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. These data and

calculations are shown in table VI-6.
VI-9

Table VI-6

PRCBs: The value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006–2008

Item 2006 2007 2008

Value ($1,000)

Current assets:

Cash and equivalents 16,533 15,353 5,277

Accounts receivable, net 127,039 134,688 115,064

Finished goods inventories 47,732 56,660 33,950

Raw materials and work-in-process inventories 41,561 74,570 34,959

Other current assets1 16,622 17,189 48,013

Subtotal current assets 249,487 298,460 237,263

Noncurrent assets:

Original cost of property, plant, and equipment 428,974 470,367 474,059

Accumulated depreciation 232,861 276,933 311,865

Book value of property, plant, and equipment 196,113 193,434 162,194

Other noncurrent assets2 116,084 110,255 75,768

Total assets 561,684 602,149 475,225

Operating income, as adjusted *** *** ***

Ratio of operating income to total assets

(percent)

Return on investment *** *** ***

1

 Includes such items as other receivables, prepaid expenses, company loans, and short-term investments. 2

 Includes such items as goodwill, patents, or intangible assets, investments, life insurance, or other non-current

assets.

Note: ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The original cost of fixed assets increased between 2006 and 2008 in response to both capital

expenditures and acquisitions. However, depreciation expenses rose at a greater rate than did investment,

and book value declined. Book value also was lower in 2008 than in earlier periods because of the ***. 

Other noncurrent assets declined from 2007 to 2008 because of ***.

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or potential negative effects of

imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam on their firms’ growth, investment, and ability

to raise capital or development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the product). Their responses are shown in appendix E.
 
 1 One of the five responding firms ***, did not provide useable data in response to questions on the percentage of

production and exports represented by its PRCB operations. 

 2 According to this company’s foreign producer questionnaire response, the decreases in capacity and production

are due to “commercial consideration and also the need to diversify the product as a result of the environmental

issue.”

 3 In 2008, *** reported devoting 80 and 99 percent of production, respectively, to PRCBs.

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(i)). Information on the nature of the alleged subsidies was presented earlier in this report;

information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and

V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing

development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject

merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other

threat indicators, if applicable; and any antidumping or countervailing duty investigations in third-country

markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information obtained for consideration by

the Commission on nonsubject countries and the global market.

THE INDUSTRY IN INDONESIA

The Commission requested data from 10 firms in Indonesia believed to be possible producers of

PRCBs. Of these firms, five provided questionnaire responses containing useable data, one certified that

it had not produced or exported PRCBs since January 1, 2006, and four did not provide responses. The

five responding firms estimated that in 2008 they accounted for 10.1 percent of production of PRCBs in

Indonesia and 32.3 percent of exports of PRCBs from Indonesia to the United States.1

 Reported exports

of PRCBs to the United States by these firms in 2008 were equivalent to 42.8 percent of the quantity of

U.S. imports of PRCBs from Indonesia in that year based on official Commerce statistics.

During the period for which data were collected, reported capacity, production, and total

shipments made by Indonesian producers decreased. Reported exports to the United States also decreased

during this period, which was due in large part to a decrease in capacity and production by ***.2

 One

Indonesian producer, ***, reported that it will be adding capacity in order to service the domestic,

European, African, and American markets. Another producer, ***, stated that new capacity will be used

to increase exports to Japan and Europe. Two producers, ***, reported producing other products on the

same equipment as PRCBs. These products were mainly garbage bags and other non-PRCB plastic bags.3

Table VII-1 presents data for reported production and shipments of PRCBs in Indonesia. 
VII-2

Table VII-1

PRCBs: Indonesia’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-

2008, and projections for 2009 and 2010

Item

Actual experience Projections

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Capacity 4,507,096 4,710,061 4,431,083 4,375,512 4,304,689

Production 3,705,512 4,087,783 3,247,146 3,275,573 3,349,775

End-of-period inventories 60,600 100,798 72,867 34,625 37,625

Shipments:

 Internal consumption *** *** 0 0 0

 Home market *** *** 365,893 388,000 438,000

 Exports to--

 The United States *** *** 1,993,060 1,885,013 1,805,513

 All other markets *** *** 924,800 1,060,802 1,133,262

 Total exports *** *** 2,917,860 2,945,815 2,938,775

Total shipments *** *** 3,283,753 3,333,815 3,376,775

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 82.2 86.8 73.3 74.9 77.8

Inventories to production 1.6 2.5 2.2 1.1 1.1

Inventories to total shipments *** *** 2.2 1.0 1.1

Shares of total quantity of

shipments:

 Internal consumption *** *** 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Home market *** *** 11.1 11.6 13.0

 Exports to--

 The United States *** *** 60.7 56.5 53.5

 All other markets *** *** 28.2 31.8 33.6

 Total exports *** *** 88.9 88.4 87.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 4 This exporter, ***, reported that Taiwanese producers only export through trading companies and thus the

production that *** represents would not be represented by another responding firm. Staff has requested the name

of the Taiwanese producer. 

 5 Out of the four respondent firms, only *** provided useable data in response to questions on the percentage of

production and only *** reported on the percentage of exports represented by its PRCB operations. 

 6 Both *** and *** are affiliated with *** and each included tolling for *** in production and shipment data. 

 7 Out of the ten respondent firms, only *** provided useable data in response to questions on both the percentage

of production and the percentage of exports represented by the companies’ PRCB operations. ***, an exporter, did

not provide production data but did provide export data. 

 8 Only *** and *** reported existing PRCB production or capacity in 2006.

 9 *** is building a new factory set to complete phase 1 installation in September 2009. This factory is expected

to increase the company’s PRCB production by ***. *** is expanding capacity by 26 percent in 2009 in order to

accommodate demand from the Japanese market. *** plans to increase production capacity in the next few months

in order to export more PRCBs to the European Union and Japan. *** plans to increase capacity by 50 percent by

(continued...)

VII-3

THE INDUSTRY IN TAIWAN

The Commission requested data from 12 firms in Taiwan believed to be possible producers or

exporters of PRCBs. Of these firms, three producers and one exporter4

 provided questionnaire responses

containing useable production or export data and the remaining eight did not provide responses. The four

responding firms estimated that in 2008 they accounted for 0.5 percent of production of PRCBs in Taiwan

and 1.1 percent of exports of PRCBs from Taiwan to the United States.5

 Reported exports of PRCBs to

the United States by these firms in 2008 were equivalent to 28.2 percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of

PRCBs from Taiwan in that year based on official Commerce statistics.

During the 2006-2008 period, production, capacity, exports, and total shipments all increased by

large amounts. These increases are due to the arrival of two new producers, *** and ***, which brought

capacity online during this period.6

 Table VII-2 presents data for reported production and shipments of

PRCBs in Taiwan. 

Table VII-2

PRCBs: Taiwan’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-

2008, and projections for 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN VIETNAM

The Commission requested data from 29 firms in Vietnam believed to be possible producers or

exporters of PRCBs. Of these firms, 10 producers provided questionnaire responses containing useable

production data and the remaining 19 did not provide responses. The 10 responding firms estimated that

in 2008 they accounted for 28.8 percent of production of PRCBs in Vietnam and 28.3 percent of exports

of PRCBs from Vietnam to the United States.7

 Reported exports of PRCBs to the United States by these

firms in 2008 were equivalent to 41.1 percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Vietnam in

that year based on official Commerce statistics.

During the period for which data were collected, capacity, production, inventories, and shipments

all increased by large amounts. The main reason for this expansion has been the large number of

companies that began producing PRCBs at some point after the beginning of 2006.8

 Projected increases

in production during 2009 and 2010 reflect planned expansions by four Vietnamese producers, ***.9
 9

 (...continued)

2010 in order to serve the European, Japanese, and United States markets.

 10 Products other than PRCBs produced by *** represented 20 percent, .05 percent, and 35 percent of their

production in 2008, respectively.

VII-4

Three of the firms, ***, reported producing other products in addition to PRCBs using the same

resources.10 Table VII-3 presents data for reported production and shipments of PRCBs in Vietnam.

Table VII-3

PRCBs: Vietnam’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-2008, and

projections for 2009 and 2010

Item

Actual experience Projections

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Capacity *** 3,790,851 5,661,767 6,202,796 6,768,952

Production *** 3,594,026 4,746,091 4,735,244 5,404,784

End-of-period inventories *** 172,381 222,492 166,890 166,668

Shipments:

 Internal consumption *** 0 4 0 0

 Home market *** 0 8,869 0 8,000

 Exports to--

 The United States *** 2,693,798 2,953,030 1,928,453 1,979,537

 All other markets *** 980,619 1,943,892 2,751,099 3,366,732

 Total exports *** 3,674,417 4,896,922 4,679,552 5,346,269

Total shipments *** 3,674,417 4,905,795 4,679,552 5,354,269

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization *** 94.8 83.8 76.3 79.8

Inventories to production *** 4.8 4.7 3.5 3.1

Inventories to total shipments *** 4.7 4.5 3.6 3.1

Shares of total quantity of shipments:

 Internal consumption *** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Home market *** 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1

 Exports to--

 The United States *** 73.3 60.2 41.2 37.0

 All other markets *** 26.7 39.6 58.8 62.9

 Total exports *** 100.0 99.8 100.0 99.9

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 11 E-mail from ***, April 29, 2009.

 12 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008), quoting

from Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52;

see also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

VII-5

THE INDUSTRIES IN THE SUBJECT COUNTRIES COMBINED

Table VII-4 presents aggregate data for the reporting producers of PRCBs in Indonesia, Taiwan,

and Vietnam.

Table VII-4

PRCBs: Subject countries' combined reported production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, 2006-2008, and projections for 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Reported inventories held by U.S. importers of subject merchandise from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam are shown in table VII-5.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission asked importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and/or Vietnam after December 31, 2008. As data

provided by importers were not always in a common unit of measure, a combined tally of imports cannot

be provided as part of this report. However, it is evident that large quantities of PRCBs continue to be

imported based upon information provided by individual responding firms, including ***. Importer

responses can be found at appendix F. 

ANTIDUMPING INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There are no known antidumping or countervailing duty investigations on PRCBs from

Indonesia, Taiwan, or Vietnam reported 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 2005-2006. 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. These duty orders are still in place.11

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”12

There is no publicly available information regarding international production or exports of

PRCBs during the period for which data were collected. Countries other than Indonesia, Taiwan, and
 13 Conference transcript, pp. 51-52 (Dorn).

VII-6

Vietnam known to be large producers of PRCBs include China, Malaysia, and Thailand. Other countries

believed to be producing PRCBs on a smaller scale include Canada, Korea, Japan, and Turkey.13

Table VII-5

PRCBs: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of all imports, by source, 2006-2008

Source

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Imports from Indonesia:

 Inventories (1,000 bags) *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) *** *** ***

Imports from Taiwan:

 Inventories (1,000 bags) 425,033 504,626 614,971

 Ratio to imports (percent) 15.4 12.2 18.5

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 18.0 13.9 20.8

Imports from Vietnam:

 Inventories (1,000 bags) 41,650 429,890 745,066

 Ratio to imports (percent) 5.1 8.5 17.3

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 5.8 15.6 20.3

Imports from subject sources:

 Inventories (1,000 bags) *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) *** *** ***

Imports from all other sources:

 Inventories (1,000 bags) *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) *** *** ***

Imports from all sources:

 Inventories (1,000 bags) 1,502,819 2,877,031 3,324,231

 Ratio to imports (percent) 11.1 14.7 19.5

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 12.1 18.6 22.2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 16009 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Work Group (AMWG) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Adaptive Management 

Program (AMP) was implemented as a 

result of the Record of Decision on the 

Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final 

Environmental Impact Statement to 

comply with consultation requirements 

of the Grand Canyon Protection Act 

(Pub. L. 102–575) of 1992. The AMP 

includes a federal advisory committee 

(AMWG), a technical work group 

(TWG), a monitoring and research 

center, and independent review panels. 

The AMWG makes recommendations to 

the Secretary of the Interior concerning 

Glen Canyon Dam operations and other 

management actions to protect resources 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam 

consistent with the Grand Canyon 

Protection Act. The TWG is a 

subcommittee of the AMWG and 

provides technical advice and 

recommendations to the AMWG. 

DATES AND ADDRESSES: The AMWG will 

conduct the following meeting: 

Date: Wednesday–Thursday, April 

29–30, 2009. The meeting will begin at 

9:30 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. the first day 

and will begin at 8 a.m. and conclude 

at approximately 12:30 p.m. on the 

second day. The meeting will be held at 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2 Arizona 

Center, 400 N. 5th Street, 12th Floor, 

Conference Rooms A & B, Phoenix, 

Arizona. 

Agenda: The purpose of the meeting 

will be for the AMWG to receive 

updates and discuss the following 

items: (1) Final Fiscal Year 2008 

expenditures, (2) Review of Fiscal Year 

2010–11 priorities and preliminary 

budget, workplan, and hydrograph, (3) 

Status of Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center projects, (4) Species 

extirpated from Grand Canyon, (5) 

Biological opinion conservation 

measures, (6) Basin hydrology, as well 

as other administrative and resource 

issues pertaining to the AMP. To view 

a copy of the agenda and documents 

related to the above meeting, please visit 

Reclamation’s Web site at: http:// 

www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/ 

09apr29/index.html. Time will be 

allowed for any individual or 

organization wishing to make formal 

oral comments on the call. To allow for 

full consideration of information by the 

AMWG members, written notice must 

be provided to Dennis Kubly, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional 

Office, 125 South State Street, Room 

6107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138; 

telephone 801–524–3715; facsimile 

801–524–3858; e-mail at 

dkubly@uc.usbr.gov at least five (5) days 

prior to the call. Any written comments 

received will be provided to the AMWG 

members. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis Kubly, Bureau of Reclamation, 

telephone (801) 524–3715; facsimile 

(801) 524–3858; e-mail at 

dkubly@uc.usbr.gov. 

Dated: March 19, 2009. 

Dennis Kubly, 

Chief, Adaptive Management Group, 

Environmental Resources Division, Upper 

Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, 

Utah. 

[FR Doc. E9–7949 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731– 

TA–1156–1158 (Preliminary)] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations and 

scheduling of preliminary phase 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 

and commencement of preliminary 

phase antidumping and countervailing 

duty investigations Nos. 701–TA–462 

and 731–TA–1156–1158 (Preliminary) 

under sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) 

and 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and 

Vietnam of polyethylene retail carrier 

bags, provided for in subheading 

3923.21.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be sold in the United States 

at less than fair value and alleged to be 

subsidized by the Government of 

Vietnam. Unless the Department of 

Commerce extends the time for 

initiation pursuant to sections 

702(c)(1)(B) or 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act 

(19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B) or 

1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must 

reach a preliminary determination in 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations in 45 days, or in this case 

by May 15, 2009. The Commission’s 

views are due at Commerce within five 

business days thereafter, or by May 22, 

2009. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these investigations and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 31, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Kaplan (202–205–3184), 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 investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—These investigations 

are being instituted in response to a 

petition filed on March 31, 2009, by 

Hilex Poly Co., Hartsville, SC and 

Superbag Corporation, Houston, TX. 

Participation in the Investigations and 

Public Service List.—Persons (other than 

petitioners) wishing to participate in the 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the 

Commission’s rules, not later than seven 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. 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 these investigations 

upon the expiration of the period for 

filing entries of appearance. 

Limited Disclosure of Business 

Proprietary Information (BPI) Under an 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

and BPI Service List.—Pursuant to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
16010 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in these investigations 

available to authorized applicants 

representing interested parties (as 

defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are 

parties to the investigations under the 

APO issued in the investigations, 

provided that the application is made 

not later than seven days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Conference.—The Commission’s 

Director of Operations has scheduled a 

conference in connection with these 

investigations for 9:30 a.m. on April 21, 

2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Joshua Kaplan (202–205–3184) 

not later than April 16, 2009, to arrange 

for their appearance. Parties in support 

of the imposition of antidumping and 

countervailing duties in these 

investigations and parties in opposition 

to the imposition of such duties will 

each be collectively allocated one hour 

within which to make an oral 

presentation at the conference. A 

nonparty who has testimony that may 

aid the Commission’s deliberations may 

request permission to present a short 

statement at the conference. 

Written Submissions.—As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

April 24, 2009, a written brief 

containing information and arguments 

pertinent to the subject matter of the 

investigations. Parties may file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the conference no later 

than three days before the conference. If 

briefs or written testimony contain BPI, 

they must conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, 

and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. 

The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigations 

must be served on all other parties to 

the investigations (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: April 1, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–7967 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS) will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The information 

collection is published to obtain 

comments from the public and affected 

agencies. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for 30 days for public comment until 

May 8, 2009. This process is conducted 

in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact Rebekah Dorr, 

Department of Justice Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 

1100 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Proposed collection; comments 

requested. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Community Policing Self-Assessment 

(CP–SAT). 

(3) Agency Form Number, If Any, and 

the Applicable Component of the 

Department Sponsoring the Collection: 

None. U.S. Department of Justice Office 

of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. 

(4) Affected Public Who Will Be Asked 

or Required to Respond, as Well as a 

Brief Abstract: Primary: Law 

Enforcement Agencies and community 

partners. The purpose of this project is 

to improve the practice of community 

policing throughout the United States 

by supporting the development of a 

series of tools that will allow law 

enforcement agencies to gain better 

insight into the depth and breadth of 

their community policing activities. 

(5) An Estimate of the Total Number 

of Respondents and the Amount of Time 

Estimated for an Average Respondent to 

Respond/Reply: It is estimated that 

approximately 800 respondents will 

respond with an average of 1 hour per 

response. 

(6) An Estimate of the Total Public 

Burden (In Hours) Associated With the 

Collection: The total estimated burden is 

800 hours across 103 agencies. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Bryant, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, 

Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20530.


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19049 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–816] 

Corrosion–resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From the Republic of Korea: 

Extension of Time Limits for the 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chris Hargett, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Ave, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–5973. 

Background 

On September 30, 2008, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat 

products from the Republic of Korea, 

covering the period August 1, 2007 to 

July 31, 2008. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 56795 

(September 30, 2008). The preliminary 

results of this review are currently due 

no later than May 3, 2009. 

Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires that the Department make a 

preliminary determination within 245 

days after the last day of the anniversary 

month of an order for which a review 

is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act further states that if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period specified, the 

administering authority may extend the 

245–day period to issue its preliminary 

results to up to 365 days. 

We determine that completion of the 

preliminary results of this review within 

the 245–day period is not practicable. 

Additional time is needed to gather and 

analyze a significant amount of 

information pertaining to sales 

practices, manufacturing costs and 

corporate relationships pertaining to 

each company participating in the 

review. Given the number and 

complexity of issues in this case, and in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act, we are fully extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results of review. Therefore, the 

preliminary results are now due no later 

than August 31, 2009. The final results 

continue to be due 120 days after 

publication of the preliminary results. 

This notice is published pursuant to 

sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: April 21, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–9528 Filed 4–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–560–822, A–583–843, A–552–804] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dmitry Vladimirov at (202) 482–0665 or 

Minoo Hatten at (202) 482–1690 

(Indonesia and Taiwan), AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 5; Maisha Cryor at 

(202) 482–5831 or Robert Bolling at 

(202) 482–3434 (Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam), AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On March 31, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received 

petitions concerning imports of 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) 

filed in proper form by Hilex Poly Co., 

LLC, and Superbag Corporation (the 

petitioners). See the Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, 

Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam submitted on March 31, 2009 

(the Petitions). On April 3, 2009, the 

Department issued a request for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petitions. Based 

on the Department’s requests, the 

petitioners filed additional information 

on April 8, 10, 15, and 16, 2009 

(hereinafter, Supplement to the 

Petitions, dated respectively). The 

period of investigation (POI) for 

Indonesia and Taiwan is January 1, 

2008, through December 31, 2008. The 

POI for Vietnam is July 1, 2008, through 

December 31, 2008. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), the petitioners allege that imports 

of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and 

Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value, within the meaning of section 

731 of the Act, and that such imports 

are materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed these Petitions on 

behalf of the domestic industry because 

the petitioners are interested parties as 

defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act 

and have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

antidumping duty investigations that 

the petitioners are requesting that the 

Department initiate (see ‘‘Determination 

of Industry Support for the Petitions’’ 

section below). 

Scope of Investigations 

The merchandise covered by these 

investigations is PRCBs. See Attachment 

I to this notice for a complete 

description of the merchandise covered 

by these investigations. 

Comments on Scope of Investigations 

During our review of the Petitions, we 

discussed the scope with the petitioners 

to ensure that it is an accurate reflection 

of the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

the date of publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Comments should 

be addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19050 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

PRCBs to be reported in response to our 

antidumping questionnaires. This 

information will be used to identify the 

key physical characteristics of the 

subject merchandise in order to report 

more accurately the relevant factors and 

costs of production as well as to develop 

appropriate product–comparison 

criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they feel 

are relevant to the development of an 

accurate list of physical characteristics. 

Specifically, they may provide 

comments as to which characteristics 

are appropriate to use as 1) general 

product characteristics and 2) the 

product–comparison criteria. We 

recognize that it is not always 

appropriate to use all product 

characteristics as product–comparison 

criteria. We base product–comparison 

criteria on meaningful commercial 

differences among products. In other 

words, while there may be some 

physical product characteristics used by 

manufacturers to describe PRCBs, it may 

be that only a select few product 

characteristics take into account 

commercially meaningful physical 

characteristics. In addition, interested 

parties may comment on the order in 

which the physical characteristics 

should be used in matching products. 

Generally, the Department attempts to 

list the most important physical 

characteristics first and the least 

important characteristics last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping duty 

questionnaires, we must receive 

comments at the above–referenced 

address by May 11, 2009. Additionally, 

we must receive rebuttal comments by 

May 21, 2009. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for (i) at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and (ii) more than 

50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method if there is a large 

number of producers in the industry. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission (ITC), 

which is responsible for determining 

whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has 

been injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See Algoma Steel Corp. 

Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 

644 (CIT 1988), affirmed 865 F.2d 240 

(Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 

919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

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 title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic–like-product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, the petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that PRCBs 

constitute a single domestic like product 

and we have analyzed industry support 

in terms of that domestic like product. 

For a discussion of the domestic–likeproduct analysis in this case, see 

Antidumping Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: PRCBs from Indonesia 

(Indonesia Initiation Checklist) at 

Attachment II (Analysis of Industry 

Support), Antidumping Investigation 

Initiation Checklist: PRCBs from Taiwan 

(Taiwan Initiation Checklist) at 

Attachment II (Analysis of Industry 

Support), and Antidumping 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: PRCBs 

from Vietnam (Vietnam Initiation 

Checklist) at Attachment II (Analysis of 

Industry Support) which are on file in 

the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 

1117 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. 

With regard to section 732(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, in determining whether the 

petitioners have standing (i.e., the 

domestic workers and producer 

supporting the Petitions account for (1) 

at least 25 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product 

and (2) more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petitions), we considered the 

industry–support data contained in the 

Petitions with reference to the domestic 

like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigations’’ section above and 

Attachment I. To establish industry 

support, the petitioners provided their 

shipments of the domestic like product 

for the year 2008 and compared them to 

an estimate of shipments of the 

domestic like product for the entire 

industry. See Volume II of the Petitions 

at Exhibit 3 and Supplement to the 

Petitions dated April 10, 2009. The 

petitioners argue that U.S. shipments of 

PRCBs are a reasonable proxy for U.S. 

production of PRCBs as most PRCBs are 

produced to order for specific retail 

customers and that inventories that are 

maintained are typically small. See 

Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit 3. 

Based on the fact that total industry– 

production data for the domestic like 

product for 2008 are not reasonably 

available and that the petitioners have 

established that shipments are a 

reasonable proxy for production data, 

we have relied upon shipment data for 

purposes of measuring industry support. 

For further discussion see Indonesia 

Initiation Checklist, Taiwan Initiation 

Checklist, and Vietnam Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of 

Industry Support). 

On April 15, 2009, the Government of 

Vietnam (GOV), an interested party to 

this proceeding as defined in section 

771(9)(B) of the Act, provided the 

Department with a written statement to 

accompany its remarks during 

consultations with the Department 

regarding the countervailing duty (CVD) 

petition involving imports of PRCBs 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19051 

from Vietnam. The first issue raised in 

this statement addresses the GOV’s 

concerns that the petitioners may not 

meet the required threshold for 

standing. Because this information 

pertains to industry support and, thus, 

is an acceptable form of pre–initiation 

communication under section 

732(c)(4)(E) of the Act, the Department 

placed the GOV’s written statement on 

the record of all three antidumping 

petitions. See Memorandum to the File 

from Mark Hoadley, Program Manager 

through Barbara E. Tillman, Director 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6: 

‘‘Antidumping Petitions on 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 

(PRCBs) from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam (Vietnam), Indonesia, and 

Taiwan: Information Provided by the 

Government of Vietnam (GOV) 

Regarding Industry Support,’’ dated 

April 16, 2009. Also, on April 17, 2009, 

we received submissions on behalf of 

Vietnamese producers of PRCBs, 

interested parties to this proceeding as 

defined in section 771(9)(A) of the Act, 

questioning the industry–support 

calculation. See Indonesia Initiation 

Checklist, Taiwan Initiation Checklist, 

and Vietnam Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II (Analysis of Industry 

Support). On April 20, 2009, the 

petitioners filed their reply to these 

challenges. For further discussion of 

these submissions see Indonesia 

Initiation Checklist, Taiwan Initiation 

Checklist, and Vietnam Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of 

Industry Support). 

The Department’s review of the data 

provided in the Petitions, supplemental 

submissions, other information on the 

record, and other information readily 

available to the Department indicates 

that the petitioners have established 

industry support. Because the Petitions 

establish support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling). See 

section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act and 

Indonesia Initiation Checklist, Taiwan 

Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

Nonetheless, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 

domestic producers (or workers) who 

support the Petitions account for at least 

25 percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product. See Indonesia 

Initiation Checklist, Taiwan Initiation 

Checklist, and Vietnam Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petitions 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petitions. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the 

Petitions were filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See 

Indonesia Initiation Checklist, Taiwan 

Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 

of the domestic industry in accordance 

with section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act. The 

petitioners are an interested party as 

defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act 

and they have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

antidumping investigations that they are 

requesting that the Department initiate. 

See Indonesia Initiation Checklist, 

Taiwan Initiation Checklist, and 

Vietnam Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (NV). In addition, the petitioners 

allege that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

The petitioners contend that the 

industry’s injured condition is 

illustrated by reduced market share, 

underselling and price depressing and 

suppressing effects, lost sales and 

revenue, reduced production and 

capacity utilization, reduced shipments, 

reduced employment, and an overall 

decline in financial performance. We 

have assessed the allegations and 

supporting evidence regarding material 

injury, threat of material injury, and 

causation, and we have determined that 

these allegations are properly supported 

by adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation. See 

Indonesia Initiation Checklist, Taiwan 

Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III 

(Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of 

Material Injury and Causation for the 

Petition). 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate these investigations 

of imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, 

Taiwan, and Vietnam. The sources of 

data for the deductions and adjustments 

relating to the U.S. price, constructed 

value (CV) (for Indonesia and Taiwan), 

and the factors of production (for 

Vietnam) are also discussed in the 

country–specific initiation checklists. 

See Indonesia Initiation Checklist, 

Taiwan Initiation Checklist, and 

Vietnam Initiation Checklist. Should the 

need arise to use any of this information 

as facts available under section 776 of 

the Act in our preliminary or final 

determinations, we will reexamine the 

information and revise the margin 

calculations, if appropriate. 

Export Price 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam 

The petitioners calculated three 

versions of export price (EP) for each 

country using the average per–unit 

customs values (AUV) of imports of 

subject merchandise from Indonesia, 

Taiwan, and Vietnam during the 

country–specific POI derived from U.S. 

Census Bureau import statistics. See 

Volume I of the Petitions at pages 22– 

26, 33, 35, 41, Volume II of the Petitions 

at Exhibit 13, Supplement to the 

Petitions, dated April 8, 2009, at pages 

7–11 and Exhibits CI–6, CI–9, CI–11, CI– 

14, and Supplement to the Petitions, 

dated April 15, 2009, at pages 2–7 and 

Exhibit 1. The petitioners used a single 

reporting number of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under which subject 

merchandise is imported 

(3923.21.0085). The first method of 

calculating EP uses total import 

quantities and values for the respective 

POI. The petitioners calculated EP 

under this scenario by weight–averaging 

the per–unit AUVs during the country– 

specific POI using the entry–specific 

gross packed shipment weight in 

kilograms. Id. 

The second method of calculating EP 

relies on the lowest monthly port– 

specific per–unit AUVs during the 

country–specific POI. The petitioners 

calculated EP under this method by 

simple–averaging the monthly per–unit 

AUVs during the POI. Id. The 

petitioners claim that the second 

method of estimating EP is likely to 

produce a more representative estimate 

of actual margins of dumping. The 

petitioners assert that it is reasonable to 

assume that the lowest monthly port– 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19052 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

1With respect to masterbatch colorants, because 

Indonesian import statistics do not report any 

imports during the POI under the applicable HTS 

number for this product, the petitioners valued this 

input using the simple average of Taiwanese and 

Indian average import values during the POI. 

specific per–unit AUVs appear to 

represent sales of t–shirt bags (the type 

of product which the ITC has 

acknowledged is at the low end of 

PRCBs price and cost continuum (see 

footnote 9 of the Supplement to the 

Petitions, dated April 15, 2009)) which 

are the same type of PRCBs on which 

the petitioners based their cost model in 

calculating normal value. Id. See 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated April 

8, 2009, at pages 9–11 and Exhibit CI– 

6. At the Department’s request to 

substantiate their claims, the petitioners 

used Automated Manifest System data 

to determine which particular imports 

were of t–shirt bags. This resulted in 

complete information from manifests for 

one month of the POI for Indonesia and 

Taiwan, partial information for certain 

other POI months for Indonesia and 

Taiwan, and partial information for one 

month of the POI for Vietnam. As a 

result of this information, the 

petitioners provided a third method of 

calculating EPs for all countries using 

the lowest port–specific per–unit AUVs 

for a single month of the POI for which 

the petitioners substantiated their 

assertion (fully for Indonesia and 

Taiwan and partially for Vietnam) that 

the corresponding shipments are of t– 

shirt bags. See Supplement to the 

Petitions, dated April 15, 2009, at pages 

2 through 7 and Exhibits 1 and 3. 

We have relied on the petitioners’ first 

and third methods of calculating EPs. 

We did not rely, however, on the 

petitioners’ second method of 

calculating EPs because the petitioners 

did not substantiate their assertion with 

respect to all POI months for all three 

countries that the lowest monthly port– 

specific per–unit AUVs were shipments 

of t–shirt bags. 

Because the petitioners’ derivation of 

the per–unit AUVs for both EP– 

calculation scenarios relied on the 

gross–weight basis (i.e., packed weight 

of subject merchandise), the petitioners 

converted the per–unit AUVs for both 

EP–calculation scenarios from the 

gross–weight basis to net–weight basis 

using an adjustment which estimates 

the weight of packing materials required 

to pack one metric ton of subject 

merchandise. See Volume I of the 

Petitions at pages 22–26, 33, 35, 41, 

Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit 13, 

and Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

April 15, 2009, at Exhibit 3. The 

petitioners made an adjustment for 

foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses and foreign inland–freight 

expenses because the AUVs are based 

on free–on-board (FOB) foreign port 

prices. See Indonesia Initiation 

Checklist, Taiwan Initiation Checklist, 

Vietnam Initiation Checklist, and ‘‘Fair– 

Value Comparisons’’ section below for 

EP–to-NV margins. 

NV Based on CV 

With respect to NV, the petitioners 

state that neither home–market prices 

nor third–country POI prices of PRCBs 

produced in Indonesia or Taiwan were 

reasonably available. According to the 

petitioners, they were unsuccessful in 

obtaining Indonesian or Taiwanese POI 

pricing information despite their best 

efforts. See Volume I of the Petitions at 

pages 26–27. Further, the petitioners 

claim that they were unable to base NV 

on publicly available information 

covering Indonesian or Taiwanese 

third–country export prices because the 

underlying statistics for Indonesian or 

Taiwanese HTS numbers cover a far 

broader group of products than those 

covered by the scope of the petitions 

(i.e., HTSUS number 3923.21.0085). The 

petitioners claim that the World Trade 

Atlas (WTA) data indicate that there is 

no additional disaggregation beyond the 

six–digit HTS level (i.e., 3923.21) 

allowable with either Indonesian or 

Taiwanese tariff classification numbers. 

Id. Therefore, the petitioners based NV 

on CV. 

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, 

CV consists of the cost of manufacturing 

(COM) selling, general, and 

administrative (SG&A) expenses, 

packing expenses, and profit. In 

calculating COM and packing, the 

petitioners based the quantity of each of 

the inputs used to manufacture and 

pack PRCBs in Indonesia or Taiwan 

based on its own production experience 

during the POI. The petitioners claim 

that the actual usage rates of the foreign 

manufacturers of PRCBs are not 

reasonably attainable because such 

information is closely guarded by 

foreign producers and is not otherwise 

publicly available. The petitioners claim 

that the major foreign exporters of 

PRCBs use production machinery, raw– 

material inputs, and production 

processes similar to those of U.S. 

producers. See Volume I of the Petitions 

at pages 27–30 and Volume II of the 

Petitions at Exhibits 20, 21, 23, and 24. 

The petitioners then multiplied the 

usage quantities of the inputs used to 

manufacture and pack PRCBs by the 

Indonesian or Taiwanese values based 

on publicly available data or, where 

appropriate, data from a surrogate 

foreign country.1 See Volume I of the 

Petitions at pages 30, 32, and 34 and 

Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits 20, 

21, 24, 25, and 26. 

Raw materials (e.g., polyethylene 

resin) are the most significant inputs 

used in the production of PRCBs. The 

petitioners determined the consumption 

of all raw materials and packing 

materials based on the quantities they 

used to produce a metric ton of PRCBs 

(i.e., t–shirt bags). 

Indonesia 

The petitioners valued all raw 

materials and packing materials using 

the Indonesian import statistics as 

reflected in the WTA data for the most 

recent twelve–month period available, 

December 2007 through November 

2008. The petitioners excluded from 

these import statistics imports from 

countries previously determined by the 

Department to be non–market-economy 

(NME) countries and from Indonesia, 

the Republic of Korea, and Thailand 

because the Department has previously 

excluded prices from these countries 

because they maintain broadly 

available, non–industry-specific export 

subsidies. Because Indonesian import 

statistics report import values in U.S. 

dollars, the petitioners did not make 

currency conversions. The petitioners 

did not adjust the import values using 

the producer–price inflation index (PPI) 

for the United States to make it 

contemporaneous with the POI. See 

Volume I of the Petitions at pages 30– 

32 and Volume II of the Petitions at 

Exhibits 20 and 24. 

The petitioners determined labor 

costs using the labor consumption in 

hours derived from their own 

experience. The petitioners valued labor 

inputs using Indonesian wage rates 

obtained from the International Labour 

Organization’s ‘‘Laborsta’’ database at 

http://laborsta.ilo.org. The petitioners 

adjusted Indonesian labor rates to make 

them contemporaneous with the POI 

using Indonesian Wholesale Price 

Indices as published by International 

Financial Statistics of the International 

Monetary Fund (IFS). The petitioners 

converted the Indonesian labor rates 

into U.S. dollars using the Department’s 

POI exchange rates at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. See 

Volume I of the Petitions at page 32 and 

Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits 20 

and 25. 

The petitioners determined electricity 

costs using the electricity consumption 

in kilowatt hours derived from their 

own experience. The petitioners valued 

electricity using the Indonesian 

electricity rate for the industry reported 

by the International Energy Agency. 

Because Indonesian electricity rates are 

reported in U.S. dollars, the petitioners 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19053 

did not make currency conversions. The 

petitioners adjusted Indonesian 

electricity rate to make it 

contemporaneous with the POI using 

the PPI for the United States as 

published by IFS. See Volume I of the 

Petitions at page 32 and Volume II of the 

Petitions at Exhibits 20 and 26. 

To calculate factory overhead, SG&A, 

financial expenses and a profit rate, the 

petitioners relied on financial 

statements of an Indonesian producer of 

plastic packaging products, PT. 

Dynaplast Tbk., for the period most 

contemporaneous with the POI for 

which the petitioners were able to 

obtain such information. See Volume I 

of the Petitions at pages 32–33, Volume 

II of the Petitions at Exhibits 20 and 27, 

and Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

April 8, 2009, at Exhibit CI–9. See also 

Indonesia Initiation Checklist. 

Taiwan 

The petitioners valued all raw 

materials and packing materials using 

the Taiwanese import statistics as 

reflected in the WTA data for the POI. 

The petitioners excluded from these 

import statistics imports from countries 

previously determined by the 

Department to be NME countries and 

from Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, 

and Thailand because the Department 

has previously excluded prices from 

these countries because they maintain 

broadly available, non–industry-specific 

export subsidies. Because Taiwanese 

import statistics report import values in 

Taiwanese dollars, the petitioners 

converted the import values into U.S. 

dollars using the Department’s POI 

exchange rates. See Volume I of the 

Petitions at pages 30–31 and 34 and 

Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits 21 

and 24. 

The petitioners determined labor 

costs using the labor consumption in 

hours derived from their own 

experience. The petitioners valued labor 

inputs using Taiwanese wage rates 

obtained from the International Labour 

Organization’s ‘‘Laborsta’’ database at 

http://laborsta.ilo.org. The petitioners 

adjusted Taiwanese labor rates to make 

them contemporaneous with the POI 

using Taiwanese Wholesale Price 

Indices as published by IFS. The 

petitioners converted the Taiwanese 

labor rates into U.S. dollars using the 

Department’s POI exchange rates. See 

Volume I of the Petitions at page 34 and 

Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits 21 

and 25. 

The petitioners determined electricity 

costs using the electricity consumption 

in kilowatt hours derived from their 

own experience. The petitioners valued 

electricity using the Taiwanese 

electricity rate for the industry reported 

by the International Energy Agency. 

Because Taiwanese electricity rates are 

reported in U.S. dollars, the petitioners 

did not make currency conversions. The 

petitioners adjusted the electricity rate 

for Taiwan to make it contemporaneous 

with the POI using the PPI for the 

United States as published by the IFS. 

See Volume I of the Petitions at page 34 

and Volume II of the Petitions at 

Exhibits 21 and 26. 

To calculate factory overhead, SG&A, 

and a profit rate, the petitioners relied 

on financial statements of a Taiwanese 

producer of plastic packaging products, 

Formosa Taffeta Corporation, Ltd. 

(Formosa Taffeta), for the period most 

contemporaneous with the POI for 

which the petitioners were able to 

obtain such information. For the 

calculation of the financial expense, the 

petitioners relied on the financial 

statements of Formosa Taffeta’s parent 

company, Formosa Plastics Corporation. 

See Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit 

21 and Supplement to the Petitions, 

dated April 8, 2009, at Exhibits CI–11, 

CI–12, and CI–13. We revised the 

petitioners’ calculation of the SG&A rate 

to exclude foreign–exchange gains and 

interest expenses that were also 

accounted for in the financial–expense 

rate as well as other income and 

expenses related to investments. We 

then revised the petitioners’ profit 

calculation to account for the revised 

SG&A expenses. See Taiwan Initiation 

Checklist. 

Vietnam 

The petitioners state that Vietnam is 

an NME country and no determination 

to the contrary has been made by the 

Department. See Volume I of the 

Petitions at 36. The petitioners state 

that, in each of the three antidumping 

duty investigations the Department has 

conducted on imports from Vietnam, 

the Department determined that 

Vietnam is an NME country, citing 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 73 FR 62479 (October 

21, 2008), Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004), and Notice of 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

37116 (June 23, 2003). 

In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 

presumption of NME status remains in 

effect until revoked by the Department. 

The presumption of NME status for 

Vietnam has not been revoked by the 

Department and, therefore, remains in 

effect for purposes of the initiation of 

this investigation. Accordingly, the NV 

of the product is appropriately based on 

factors of production valued in a 

surrogate market–economy country in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act. In the course of this investigation, 

all parties, including the public, will 

have the opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issues of 

Vietnam’s NME status and the granting 

of separate rates to individual exporters. 

Citing section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the 

petitioners contend that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for 

Vietnam because 1) it is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of Vietnam, 2) it is a significant 

producer of PRCBs, and 3) the 

Department has previously found India 

to be a ready source for reliable 

surrogate values for Vietnam 

proceedings. See Volume I of the 

Petitions at 36–39. Based on the 

information provided by the petitioners, 

we believe that it is appropriate to use 

India as a surrogate country for 

initiation purposes. After initiation of 

the investigation, interested parties will 

have the opportunity to submit 

comments regarding surrogate–country 

selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an 

opportunity to submit publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production within 40 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

The petitioners calculated NV and 

dumping margins for the U.S. price, 

discussed above, using the Department’s 

NME methodology as required by 19 

CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 

351.408. The petitioners calculated NV 

based on their own consumption rates 

for producing PRCBs in 2008. See 

Vietnam Initiation Checklist. The 

petitioners state that their production 

experience is representative of the 

production process used in Vietnam 

because all of the material inputs and 

processing are unlikely to be materially 

different for a Vietnam producer of 

PRCBs. See Volume I of the Petitions at 

page 28. 

The petitioners valued the factors of 

production based on reasonably 

available, public surrogate–country 

data, including India statistics from the 

WTA and the Central Electric Authority 

of the Government of India. See 

Vietnam Initiation Checklist. Where the 

petitioners were unable to find input 

prices contemporaneous with the POI, 

the petitioners adjusted for inflation 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19054 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

using the Indian Wholesale Price Index 

from the IFS. See Supplement to the 

Petition, dated April 8, 2009, at page 21. 

In addition, the petitioners made 

currency conversions, where necessary, 

based on the POI–average rupee/U.S. 

dollar exchange rate, as reported on the 

Department’s website. See Supplement 

to the Petitions, dated April 15, 2009, at 

pages 9–12 and Exhibit 7. The 

petitioners determined labor costs using 

the labor consumption, in hours, 

derived from their own experience. See 

Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit 23. 

The labor cost was then determined 

using the Department’s NME Wage Rate 

for Vietnam at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages/index.html. See Volume I of the 

Petitions at page 40 and Volume II of the 

Petitions at Exhibit 29. For purposes of 

initiation, the Department determines 

that the surrogate values used by the 

petitioners are reasonably available and, 

thus, acceptable for purposes of 

initiation. 

The petitioners determined electricity 

costs using the electricity consumption, 

in kilowatt hours, derived from their 

own experience. The petitioners valued 

electricity using the Indian electricity 

rate reported by the Central Electric 

Authority of the Government of India. 

The petitioners inflated the electricity 

rate to the POI using the Indian 

Wholesale Price Index as published by 

the IFS and converted it from Indian 

rupees to U.S. dollars using the 

Department’s POI exchange rates. See 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated April 

8, 2009, at page 21 and Exhibit CI–16. 

The petitioners based factory 

overhead, SG&A, and profit on data 

from Synthetic Packers Pvt. Ltd. for the 

fiscal year April 1, 2007, through March 

31, 2008. See Volume I of the Petitions 

at page 40 and Volume II of the Petitions 

at Exhibit 31. For purposes of initiation, 

the Department finds the petitioners’ 

use of Synthetic’s financial ratios 

appropriate. 

Fair–Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by the 

petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, 

Taiwan, and Vietnam are being, or are 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value. Based on a 

comparison of EPs (using methods one 

and three presented by the petitioners) 

and CV calculated in accordance with 

section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the 

estimated dumping margins for PRCBs 

from Indonesia range from 35.47 to 

60.24 percent. See Indonesia Initiation 

Checklist. Based on a comparison of EPs 

(methods one and three) and CV 

calculated in accordance with section 

773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated 

revised dumping margins for PRCBs 

from Taiwan range from 76.25 to 95.81 

percent. See Taiwan Initiation 

Checklist. Based on a comparison of EPs 

(methods one and three) and NV 

calculated in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act, the estimated 

dumping margins for PRCBs from 

Vietnam range from 28.49 to 76.11 

percent. See Vietnam Initiation 

Checklist. 

Initiation of Antidumping 

Investigations 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petitions on PRCBs from Indonesia, 

Taiwan, and Vietnam the Department 

finds that the Petitions meet the 

requirements of section 732 of the Act. 

Therefore, we are initiating 

antidumping duty investigations to 

determine whether imports of PRCBs 

from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. In 

accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), 

unless postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determinations no later 

than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Targeted–Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeteddumping analysis in antidumping duty 

investigations, and the corresponding 

regulation governing the deadline for 

targeted–dumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the 

Regulatory Provisions Governing 

Targeted Dumping in Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 

(December 10, 2008). The Department 

stated that ‘‘{w}ithdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ Id. at 

74931. 

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted- dumping allegation in any of 

these investigations pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such 

allegations are due no later than 45 days 

before the scheduled date of the 

country–specific preliminary 

determination. 

Respondent Selection 

Indonesia and Taiwan 

For these investigations, the 

Department intends to select 

respondents based on U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. 

imports under HTSUS number 

3923.21.0085 during the POI. We intend 

to release the CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

to all parties with access to information 

protected by APO within five days of 

publication of this Federal Register 

notice and make our decision regarding 

respondent selection within 20 days of 

publication of this notice. The 

Department invites comments regarding 

the CBP data and respondent selection 

within 10 days of publication of this 

Federal Register notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s 

website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Vietnam 

For this investigation, the Department 

will request quantity and value 

information from all known exporters 

and producers identified with complete 

contact information in the Petition. The 

quantity and value data received from 

NME exporters/producers will be used 

as the basis to select the mandatory 

respondents. 

The Department requires that the 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate–rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate–rate status. 

See Circular Welded Austenitic 

Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008), and 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 

FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). 

Attachment II of this notice contains the 

quantity and value questionnaire that 

must be submitted by all NME 

exporters/producers no later than May 

11, 2009. In addition, the Department 

will post the quantity and value 

questionnaire along with the filing 

instructions on the Import 

Administration website at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and– 

news.html. Also, the Department will 

send the quantity and value 

questionnaire to those Vietnam 

companies identified in the Supplement 

to the Petitions, dated April 16, 2009, at 

Exhibits II–6, III–12. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate–rate status 

in NME investigations, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate–rate 

status application. See Policy Bulletin 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19055 

1 If you believe that another date besides the 

invoice date would provide a more accurate 

representation of your company’s sales during the 

designated period, please provide a full 

explanation. 

05.1: Separate–Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving 

Non–Market Economy Countries (April 

5, 2005) (Separate Rates and 

Combination Rates Bulletin), available 

on the Department’s website at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–1.pdf. 

Based on our experience in processing 

the separate–rate applications in 

previous antidumping duty 

investigations, we have modified the 

application for this investigation to 

make it more administrable and easier 

for applicants to complete. See, e.g., 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic 

Off–the-Road Tires From the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 43591, 43594– 

95 (August 6, 2007). The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate–rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, which will be 

available on the Department’s website at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme–seprate.html on the date of publication of 

this initiation notice in the Federal 

Register. The separate–rate application 

will be due 60 days after publication of 

this initiation notice. As noted in the 

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section above, 

the Department requires that 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate–rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate–rate status. 

Use of Combination Rates in an NME 

Investigation 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

Separate Rates and Combination Rates 

Bulletin states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its 

NME investigations will be specific 

to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that 

one rate is calculated for the 

exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period 

of investigation. This practice 

applies both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate 

rate as well as the pool of non– 

investigated firms receiving the 

weighted–average of the 

individually calculated rates. This 

practice is referred to as the 

application of ‘‘combination rates’’ 

because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one 

or more producers. The cash– 

deposit rate assigned to an exporter 

will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm 

that supplied the exporter during 

the period of investigation. 

See Separate Rates and Combination 

Rates Bulletin, at page 6 (emphasis 

added). 

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), copies of the public versions 

of the Petitions have been provided to 

the representatives of the Governments 

of Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam. We 

will attempt to provide a copy of the 

public version of the Petitions to the 

foreign producers/exporters, consistent 

with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiations, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the 

International Trade Commission 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than May 15, 2009, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, 

Taiwan, and Vietnam are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC 

determination with respect to any 

country will result in the investigation 

being terminated for that country; 

otherwise, these investigations will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: April 20, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Attachment I 

Scope of the Investigations 

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. 

Imports of merchandise included 

within the scope of these investigations 

are currently classifiable under 

statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). This 

subheading may also cover products 

that are outside the scope of these 

investigations. Furthermore, although 

the HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of these 

investigations is dispositive. 

Attachment II 

Format For Reporting Quantity and 

Value of Sales 

In providing the information in the 

chart below, please provide the total 

quantity in both pieces (1,000 units) and 

kilograms (kg) (net weight) and total 

value (in U.S. dollars) of all your sales 

to the United States during the period 

July 1, 2008, through December 31, 

2008, covered by the scope of this 

investigation (see Attachment II), 

produced in the Vietnam, i.e. PRCBs. 

Please provide the conversion factor 

used to convert pieces (1,000 units) to 

kg (net weight). 

Please use the invoice date when 

determining which sales to include 

within the period noted above.1

Additionally, if you believe that you 

should be treated as a single entity along 

with other named exporters, please 

complete the chart, below, both in the 

aggregate for all named parties in your 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19056 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

group and, in separate charts, 

individually for each named entity. 

Please label each chart accordingly. 

Please state whether you exported 

PRCBs to the United States during the 

POI. 

If you did export PRCBs to the United 

States during the POI, please state 

whether you produced 100 percent of 

the PRCBs that you exported to the 

United States during the POI. 

If you did produce 100 percent of the 

PRCBs that you exported to the United 

States during the POI, please provide 

the following: 

Market: United States Total Quantity (kg) 

(Net Weight) 

Total Quantity 

Pieces (1,000 units) Terms of Sale2 Total Value3

($U.S.) 

1. Export Price4.

2. Constructed Export Price5.

3. Further Manufactured6.

Total.

2To the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB). 3Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. 

4Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before the goods are imported 

into the United States. 5Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs after importation. 

However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. Do not report the sale to the affiliated party in the United States, rather report the 

sale made by the affiliated party to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. 6 ‘‘Further manufactured’’ refers to merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before sale to the first 

unaffiliated customer. 

If you did not produce 100 percent of 

the PRCBs that you exported to the 

United States during the POI, please 

provide the following information: 

1) Identify each company which 

produced the PRCBs (Company A) 

that you (Company B) exported to 

the United States; 

2) Provide the physical address of 

each company which produced the 

PRCBs (Company A) that you 

(Company B) exported to the United 

States during the POI; 

3) For each company (Company/ 

Companies A) which produced the 

PRCBs that you (Company B) 

exported, provide the quantity (in 

kg and pieces) and value of the 

PRCBs that you (Company B) 

exported to the United Sates during 

the POI; 

4) Provide the quantity (in kg and 

pieces) and the value of the PRCBs 

that you (Company B) exported to 

the United Sates during the POI that 

was produced by your company 

(Company B); 

5) Use the chart below to provide the 

information requested above: 

Market: United 

States 

Name of 

Company 

A 

Country of 

Company 

A 

Name of 

Company 

B 

Quantity in Both (kg 

)(Net Weight) and 

Pieces (1,000 

units)Produced By 

Company A and 

Exported by Company B 

Quantity (kg)(Net 

Weight) and Pieces 

(1,000 units) Produced By Company 

B and Exported by 

Company B 

Value of Quantity 

Produced By Company A and Exported by Company 

B 

Value of Quantity 

Produced By Company B and Exported by Company 

B 

Export Price.

Constructed 

Export Price.

Further Manufactured.

Total.

[FR Doc. E9–9567 Filed 4–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475–801, A–588– 

804, A–412–801] 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the 

United Kingdom: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Intent To Revoke Order In 

Part 

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 administrative reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on ball 

bearings and parts thereof from France, 

Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom. The reviews cover 15 

manufacturers/exporters. The period of 

review is May 1, 2007, through April 30, 

2008. We have preliminarily determined 

that sales have been made below normal 

value by certain companies subject to 

these reviews. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of administrative reviews, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit comments in these 

reviews are requested to submit with 

each argument (1) a statement of the 

issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 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: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19064 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

described below. We intend to issue 

liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

these reviews. 

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 

will apply to entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review produced by companies selected 

for individual examination in these 

preliminary results of reviews for which 

the reviewed companies did not know 

their merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the country-specific 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 the responsive companies which 

were not selected for individual 

examination, we will instruct CBP to 

apply the rates listed above to all entries 

of subject merchandise produced and/or 

exported by such firms. 

For companies for which we are 

relying on total AFA to establish a 

dumping margin, we will instruct CBP 

to apply the assigned AFA rate to all 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the period of review produced and/or 

exported by the companies. 

Export-Price Sales 

With respect to EP sales, for these 

preliminary results, we divided the total 

dumping margins (calculated as the 

difference between normal value and 

EP) for each exporter’s importer or 

customer 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 under the relevant order during 

the review period. 

Constructed Export-Price Sales 

For CEP sales (sampled and nonsampled), we divided the total dumping 

margins for the reviewed sales by the 

total entered value of those reviewed 

sales for each importer. We will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting percentage 

margin against the entered customs 

values for the subject merchandise on 

each of that importer’s entries under the 

relevant order during the review period. 

See 19 CFR 351.212(b). 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

In order to derive a single weightedaverage margin for each respondent, we 

weight-averaged the EP and CEP 

weighted-average deposit rates (using 

the EP and CEP, respectively, as the 

weighting factors). To accomplish this 

when we sampled CEP sales, we first 

calculated the total dumping margins 

for all CEP sales during the review 

period by multiplying the sample CEP 

margins by the ratio of total days in the 

review period to days in the sample 

weeks. We then calculated a total net 

value for all CEP sales during the review 

period by multiplying the sample CEP 

total net value by the same ratio. 

Finally, we divided the combined total 

dumping margins for both EP and CEP 

sales by the combined total value for 

both EP and CEP sales to obtain the 

deposit rate. 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

reviews for all shipments of subject 

merchandise 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) The 

cash-deposit rates for the reviewed 

companies will be the rates established 

in the final results of the reviews; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cashdeposit 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 these reviews, a 

prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 

investigations 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) the cash-deposit rate 

for all other manufacturers or exporters 

will continue to be the all-others rate for 

the relevant order made effective by the 

final results of reviews published on 

July 26, 1993. See Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Revocation in Part of an 

Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729 

(July 26, 1993). For ball bearings from 

Italy, see Antifriction Bearings (Other 

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 

Parts Thereof From France, et al.; Final 

Results of Antidumping Administrative 

Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 66472, 

66521 (December 17, 1996). These rates 

are the all-others rates from the relevant 

less-than-fair-value investigations. 

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) 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 reviews and intent to 

revoke in part are issued and published 

in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) 

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

Dated: April 21, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–9588 Filed 4–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–552–805] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation and Request for Public 

Comment on the Application of the 

Countervailing Duty Law to Imports 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun 

Jack Zhao or Gene Calvert, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1396 and (202) 

482–3586, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On March 31, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received a 

petition concerning imports of 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(Vietnam) filed in proper form by Hilex 

Poly Co., LLC and Superbag Corporation 

(collectively, the petitioners), domestic 

producers of PRCBs. On April 6, 2009, 

the Department issued requests for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petition involving 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19065 

countervailable subsidy allegations. See 

Letter from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, to the 

petitioners, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition 

of Antidumping Duties on Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags (PRCBs) from 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

PRCBs from Vietnam: Supplemental 

Questions on the Countervailing Duty 

Allegations, April 6, 2009.’’ Based on 

the Department’s request, the petitioners 

timely filed additional information 

concerning the Petition on April 8, 

2009. The petitioners submitted a 

revised exhibit concerning domestic 

company shipments on April 10, 2009, 

and a revised list of all known 

Vietnamese producers and exporters of 

PRCBs that are believed to be benefitting 

from countervailable subsidies on April 

16, 2009. During the consultations with 

the Government of Vietnam (GOV), see 

‘‘Consultations’’ section below, the GOV 

presented a written statement and 

government publications in opposition 

of the countervailing duty Petition. On 

April 17, 2009, Bin Tay Import Export 

Production Services Joint Stock 

Company, Loc Cuong Trading 

Producing Co., Ltd., Ontrue Plastics Co., 

Ltd., (Vietnam) and Alta Company 

(collectively, Vietnamese producers) 

submitted comments on the level of 

industry support expressed in the 

Petition. On April 20, 2009, the 

petitioners submitted rebuttal comments 

to the GOV and Vietnamese producers 

concerning industry support. The GOV 

submitted additional government 

publications on April 16 and April 20, 

2009. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), the petitioners allege that 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of PRCBs in Vietnam received 

countervailable subsidies within the 

meaning of section 701 of the Act, and 

that imports materially injure, or 

threaten material injury to, an industry 

in the United States. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed this Petition on behalf 

of the domestic industry because they 

are interested parties as defined in 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and the 

petitioners have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

countervailing duty investigation that 

they are requesting the Department to 

initiate (see, infra, ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’). 

Period of Investigation 

The anticipated period of 

investigation (POI) is calendar year 

2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is polyethylene retail 

carrier bags. See Attachment to this 

notice for a complete description of the 

merchandise covered by this 

investigation. 

Comments on Scope of the Investigation 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations, we are setting aside a 

period for interested parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19, 1997). The Department 

encourages all interested parties to 

submit such comments within 20 

calendar days of the publication of this 

notice. Comments should be addressed 

to Import Administration’s Central 

Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, the Department invited 

representatives of the Government of 

Vietnam (the GOV) for consultations 

with respect to the countervailing duty 

Petition. The Department held these 

consultations on April 15, 2009. See 

Memorandum to the File, Petition on 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 

(PRCBs) from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam (Vietnam): Consultations with 

the Government of Vietnam (GOV), 

April 16, 2009 (Consultations Memo), 

on file in the CRU. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by section 

702(c)(4)(A), or (ii) determine industry 

support using a statistically valid 

sampling method. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission (ITC), 

which is responsible for determining 

whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has 

been injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 

2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. 

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 

(CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

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.’’ Thus, 

the reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, the petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that PRCBs 

constitute a single domestic like product 

and we have analyzed industry support 

in terms of that domestic like product. 

For a discussion of the domestic like 

product analysis in this case, see 

Countervailing Duty Investigation 

Initiation Checklist: Countervailing Duty 

Petition on Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam (Initiation Checklist), at 

Attachment II (Analysis of Industry 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19066 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

Support for the Petition), on file in the 

CRU. 

With regard to section 702(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, in determining whether the 

petitioners have standing, (i.e., those 

domestic workers and producers 

supporting the Petition account for: (1) 

at least 25 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product; 

and (2) more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition), we considered the 

industry support data contained in the 

Petition with reference to the domestic 

like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

the Investigation’’ section above. To 

establish industry support, the 

petitioners provided their shipments of 

the domestic like product for the year 

2008, and compared them to an estimate 

of shipments of the domestic like 

product for the entire industry. See 

Volume II of the Petition at Exhibit 3, 

and Supplement to the Petition, dated 

April 10, 2009. The petitioners argue 

that U.S. shipments of PRCBs are a 

reasonable proxy for U.S. production of 

PRCBs as most PRCBs are produced to 

order for specific retail customers, and 

that inventories that are maintained are 

typically small. See Volume II of the 

Petition at Exhibit 3. Based on the fact 

that total industry production data for 

the domestic like product for 2008 are 

not reasonably available, and that the 

petitioners have established that 

shipments are a reasonable proxy for 

production, we have relied upon 

shipment data for purposes of 

measuring industry support. For further 

discussion, see Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

On April 15, 2009, the GOV, an 

interested party to this proceeding as 

defined in section 771(9)(B) of the Act, 

provided the Department with a written 

statement to accompany its remarks 

during consultations with the 

Department regarding the Petition. The 

first issue raised in this statement 

addresses the GOV’s concerns that the 

petitioners may not meet the required 

threshold for standing. The Department 

placed the GOV’s written statement on 

the record of the Petition. See 

Consultations Memo. Also, on April 17, 

2009, we received submissions on 

behalf of Vietnamese producers of 

PRCBs, interested parties to this 

proceeding as defined in section 

771(9)(A) of the Act, questioning the 

industry support calculation. See 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II 

(Analysis of Industry Support for the 

Petition). On April 20, 2009, the 

petitioners filed their reply to these 

challenges. For further discussion of all 

of these submissions see Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of 

Industry Support for the Petition). 

The Department’s review of the data 

provided in the Petition, supplemental 

submissions, other information on the 

record, and other information readily 

available to the Department, indicates 

that the petitioners have established 

industry support. Because the Petition 

establishes support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling). See 

Section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

Nonetheless, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 

domestic producers (or workers) who 

support the Petition account for at least 

25 percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

702(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the 

countervailing duty investigation that 

they are requesting the Department 

initiate. See Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

Injury Test 

Because Vietnam is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from Vietnam 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The petitioners allege that imports of 

PRCBs from Vietnam are benefitting 

from countervailable subsidies and that 

such imports are causing, or threatening 

to cause, material injury to the domestic 

industries producing PRCBs. In 

addition, the petitioners allege that 

subsidized imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act, as 

required by section 701(a)(1) of the Act. 

The petitioners contend that the 

industries’ injured condition is 

illustrated by reduced market share, 

underselling and price depressing and 

suppressing effects, lost sales and 

revenue, reduced production, reduced 

shipments, reduced employment, and 

an overall decline in financial 

performance. See the Petition at pages 

13 and 17. We have assessed the 

allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 

have determined that these allegations 

are properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III 

(Injury). 

Subsidy Allegations 

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the 

Department to initiate a countervailing 

duty proceeding whenever an interested 

party files a petition on behalf of an 

industry that: (1) alleges the elements 

necessary for an imposition of a duty 

under section 701(a) of the Act, and (2) 

is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to the petitioners 

supporting the allegations. The 

Department has examined the 

countervailing duty Petition on PRCBs 

from Vietnam and finds that it complies 

with the requirements of section 702(b) 

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 702(b) of the Act, we are 

initiating a countervailing duty 

investigation to determine whether 

producers and exporters of PRCBs from 

Vietnam receive countervailable 

subsidies. For a discussion of evidence 

supporting our initiation determination, 

see Initiation Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

Petition to provide countervailable 

subsidies to producers and exporters of 

the subject merchandise: 

A. Policy Lending Programs 

1. Preferential Lending for Exporters 

2. Preferential Lending for the Plastics 

Industry 

B. Grant Programs 

1. Export Promotion Program 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19067 

2. Export Bonus Program 

3. New Product Development Program 

C. Income Tax Programs 

1. Income Tax Preferences for 

Exporters 

2. Income Tax Preferences for Foreign 

Invested Enterprises (FIEs) 

3. Income Tax Preferences for FIEs 

Operating In Encouraged Industries 

D. Import Tax and Value Added Tax 

(VAT) Exemption Programs 

1. Import Tax Exemptions for FIEs 

Using Imported Goods to Create 

Fixed Assets 

2. Import Tax Exemptions for FIEs 

Importing Raw Materials 

3. VAT Exemptions for FIEs Using 

Imported Goods to Create Fixed 

Assets 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is investigating 

these programs, see Initiation Checklist. 

Application of the Countervailing Duty 

Law to Vietnam 

This is the first countervailing duty 

Petition filed involving Vietnam. 

Vietnam has been treated as a non– 

market economy (NME) country in all 

past antidumping duty investigations 

and administrative reviews. See, e.g., 

Memorandum from Office of Policy, to 

Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary, 

Import Administration, Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam - Determination of Market 

Economy Status, November 8, 2002 (this 

document is available online at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/download/vietnam–nmestatus/vietnam–market-status– 

determination.pdf); see also Uncovered 

Innerspring Units from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 45738, 

45739 (August, 6, 2008), unchanged in 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 73 FR 62479 (October 

21, 2008). In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and 

Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of 2001–2002 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 

(February 14, 2003), unchanged in 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 

2003). 

The petitioners contend that there is 

no statutory bar to applying 

countervailing duties to imports from 

non–market economy countries like 

Vietnam. Citing Georgetown Steel Corp. 

v. United States, 801 F.2d 1308 (Fed. 

Cir. 1986) (Georgetown Steel), the 

petitioners argue that the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed 

the Department’s discretion regarding 

application of the countervailing duty 

law to NME countries. 

Following its assessment of another 

NME country, the People’s Republic of 

China (China), the Department, in its 

final affirmative countervailing duty 

determination on coated free sheet 

paper from China, determined that the 

current nature of the Chinese economy 

does not create obstacles to applying the 

necessary criteria in the countervailing 

duty law. See Memorandum to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from the Office of 

Policy, Import Administration, 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China: Whether the 

Analytical Elements of the Georgetown 

Steel Holding are Applicable to the 

PRC’s Present-day Economy, March 29, 

2007 (Georgetown Memo); Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 

FR 60645 (October 25, 2007), and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1; see also 

Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Final 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

The petitioners argue that the 

Vietnamese economy, like China’s 

economy, is substantially different from 

the Soviet–style economy investigated 

in Georgetown Steel and that the 

Department should not have any special 

difficulties in the identification and 

valuation of subsidies involving a non– 

market economy like Vietnam. Finally, 

the petitioners contend that Vietnam’s 

economy significantly mirrors China’s 

present-day economy and is at least as 

different from the Soviet–style economy 

at issue in Georgetown Steel, as China’s 

economy was found to be in 2007. The 

petitioners also argue that Vietnam’s 

accession to the World Trade 

Organization (WTO) allows the 

Department to apply countervailing 

duties on imports from that country. 

The WTO Subsidies and Countervailing 

Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement), 

similar to U.S. law, permits the 

imposition of countervailing duties on 

subsidized imports from member 

countries and nowhere exempts non– 

market economy imports from being 

subject to the provisions of the SCM 

Agreement. As Vietnam agreed to the 

SCM Agreement and other WTO 

provisions on the use of subsidies, the 

petitioners argue Vietnam should be 

subject to the same disciplines as all 

other WTO members. 

Request for Public Comment on the 

Application of the Countervailing Duty 

Law to Imports From Vietnam 

Because the petitioners have provided 

sufficient information to support their 

allegations, meeting the statutory 

criteria for initiating a countervailing 

duty investigation of PRCBs from 

Vietnam, initiation of a countervailing 

duty investigation is warranted in this 

case. However, the Department intends 

to determine whether the countervailing 

duty law should be applied to imports 

from Vietnam. Given the complex legal 

and policy issues involved, the 

Department, therefore, invites public 

comment on this matter. 

Any person wishing to comment 

should file a signed original and eight 

copies of each set of comments which 

must be submitted no later than thirty 

days after publication of this Notice. 

Comments should be limited to thirty 

pages, double spaced. The Department 

will not accept comments accompanied 

by a request that a part or all of the 

material be treated confidentially 

because of its business proprietary 

nature or for any other reason. All 

comments responding to this notice of 

request for public comment will be a 

matter of public record and will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying at Import Administration’s 

CRU. The Department requires that 

comments be submitted in written form, 

but also recommends submission of 

comments in electronic form to 

accompany the required paper copies. 

Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted either by e–mail to 

the webmaster below, or on CD–ROM, 

as comments submitted on diskettes are 

likely to be damaged by postal radiation 

treatment. Comments received in 

electronic form will be made available 

to the public in Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

Import Administration Web site at the 

following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. 

Any questions concerning file 

formatting, document conversion, 

access on the Internet, or other 

electronic filing issues should be 

addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19068 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

Administration Webmaster, at (202) 

482–0866, e–mail address: webmaster– 

support@ita.doc.gov. 

All comments and submissions 

should be submitted to Barbara E. 

Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6; Subject: Application of the 

Countervailing Duty Law to Imports 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Request for Comment; Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

intends to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) data for U.S. imports under 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) number 

3923.21.0085 during the POI (i.e., 

calendar year 2008). We intend to 

release the CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

to all parties with access to information 

protected by APO within five days of 

the announcement of the initiation of 

this investigation. Interested parties may 

submit comments regarding the CBP 

data and respondent selection within 

seven calendar days of publication of 

this notice. We intend to make our 

decision regarding respondent selection 

within 20 days of publication of this 

notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s 

website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, copies of the 

public versions of the Petition and 

amendments thereto have been 

provided to the GOV. To the extent 

practicable, we will attempt to provide 

a copy of the public version of the 

Petition to each exporter named in the 

Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

by no later than May 15, 2009, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of subsidized PRCBs from 

Vietnam materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. See 

section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative 

ITC determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated; see 

section 703(a)(1) of the Act. Otherwise, 

the investigation will proceed according 

to statutory and regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: April 20, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

ATTACHMENT 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation 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 this investigation 

excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are 

not printed with logos or store names 

and that are closeable with drawstrings 

made of polyethylene film and (2) 

polyethylene bags that are packed in 

consumer packaging with printing that 

refers to specific end–uses other than 

packaging and carrying merchandise 

from retail establishments, e.g., garbage 

bags, lawn bags, trash–can liners. 

Imports of merchandise included 

within the scope of this investigation 

are currently classifiable under 

statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). This 

subheading may also cover products 

that are outside the scope of this 

investigation. Furthermore, although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–9565 Filed 4–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XO86 

Marine Mammals; File No. 14497 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

The Mirage Casino-Hotel, 3400 Las 

Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, Nevada 

89109, has applied in due form for a 

permit to import two bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) for the 

purposes of public display. 

DATES: Written or telefaxed comments 

must be received on or before May 27, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species (APPS) home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting 

File No. 14497 from the list of available 

applications. 

The application and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following offices: 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301) 713–2289; fax (301) 427–2521; and 

Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West 

Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, 

CA 90802–4213; phone (562)980–4001; 

fax (562)980–4018. 

Written comments or requests for a 

public hearing on this application 

should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those 

individuals requesting a hearing should 

set forth the specific reasons why a 

hearing on this particular request would 

be appropriate. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile at (301)427–2521, provided 

the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy 

submitted by mail and postmarked no 

later than the closing date of the 

comment period. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

e-mail. The mailbox address for 

providing e-mail comments is 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Include 

in the subject line of the e-mail


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES

B-1

APPENDIX B

CALENDAR OF THE COMMISSION’S APRIL 21, 2009 CONFERENCE

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC CONFERENCE

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

conference:

Subject: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Preliminary)

Date and Time: April 21, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

The conference in connection with these investigations was held in Courtroom A, 500 E Street, SW,

Washington, DC.

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners

Joseph W. Dorn, King & Spalding LLP

Respondents

William E. Perry, Garvey Schubert Barer

In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties:

King & Spalding LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Hilex Poly Co., LLC

Superbag Corporation

Isaac Bazbaz, Director, Superbag Corporation

Mark Daniels, Vice President of Marketing & Environmental Affairs, 

Hilex Poly Co., LLC

Anthony Rizzo, Vice President - Sales, Hilex Poly Co., LLC

Albert Halimi, Chief Operating Officer, Command Packaging

Joseph W. Dorn, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL Stephen J. Narkin, Esq. )

Continued on the following page.
B-4

In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties:

Garvey Schubert Barer

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Ampac Packaging Vietnam Ltd.

Ampac Plastics LLC

The Cannon Group, Inc.

Chung Va (Vietnam) Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.

Elkay Plastics Co., Inc.

Glopack, Inc.

Glopack Packaging PT

Industrias Chung Va (Holdings) Limitada

MHI Inc.

Packaging Concepts International

PT Super Exim Sari

PT Super Makmur

Faye Lin, Marketing Executive, PT Super Exim Sari

Steven Gitlin, Sales Manager, Glopack, Inc.

Lizbeth R. Levinson, Esq. )

William E. Perry, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL

Ronald M. Wisla, Esq. )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners

Joseph W. Dorn, King & Spalding LLP

Respondents

Lizbeth R. Levinson, Garvey Schubert Barer
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-2008

(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 2006 2007 2008 2006-2008 2006-2007 2007-2008

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109,830,627 106,197,917 102,105,637 -7.0 -3.3 -3.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 66.5 64.4 2.2 4.3 -2.2

 Importers' share (1):

 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 3.2 2.8 1.3 1.7 -0.4

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 3.8 4.5 2.5 1.8 0.7

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 6.9 7.0 4.3 4.1 0.2

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 13.8 14.3 8.1 7.6 0.5

 China, Malaysia and Thailand: 26.5 15.2 18.4 -8.0 -11.3 3.3

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 4.5 2.9 -2.2 -0.6 -1.6

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 33.5 35.6 -2.2 -4.3 2.2

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,319,044 1,404,474 1,501,709 13.8 6.5 6.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . 74.5 66.8 66.4 -8.1 -7.7 -0.4

 Importers' share (1):

 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 3.3 2.7 0.8 1.3 -0.5

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 3.0 3.8 2.3 1.5 0.8

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 5.3 5.9 4.4 3.8 0.6

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 11.5 12.4 7.5 6.6 0.9

 China, Malaysia and Thailand: 16.7 16.2 17.0 0.3 -0.4 0.8

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 5.5 4.2 0.3 1.5 -1.2

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.5 33.2 33.6 8.1 7.7 0.4

U.S. imports from:

 Indonesia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,592,965 3,396,505 2,819,569 77.0 113.2 -17.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,400 45,808 40,948 61.2 80.3 -10.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.95 $13.49 $14.52 -8.9 -15.4 7.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,171,587 3,988,867 4,575,499 110.7 83.7 14.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,454 42,318 56,848 192.2 117.5 34.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.96 $10.61 $12.42 38.7 18.4 17.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . 425,033 504,626 614,971 44.7 18.7 21.9

 Vietnam:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,061,998 7,288,037 7,192,325 134.9 138.0 -1.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,734 73,757 88,189 346.9 273.8 19.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.44 $10.12 $12.26 90.3 57.0 21.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . 41,650 429,890 745,066 1688.9 932.1 73.3

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,826,550 14,673,409 14,587,393 113.7 114.9 -0.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,588 161,884 185,986 188.0 150.6 14.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.46 $11.03 $12.75 34.8 16.6 15.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China, Malaysia and Thailand:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,079,228 16,114,332 18,833,894 -35.2 -44.6 16.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219,763 228,082 255,232 16.1 3.8 11.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.56 $14.15 $13.55 79.3 87.3 -4.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,575,003 4,748,210 2,942,934 -47.2 -14.8 -38.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,774 76,586 63,180 22.0 47.9 -17.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.29 $16.13 $21.47 131.2 73.7 33.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,480,781 35,535,951 36,364,221 -12.3 -14.3 2.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336,125 466,552 504,398 50.1 38.8 8.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.10 $13.13 $13.87 71.2 62.0 5.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . 1,502,817 2,877,031 3,324,231 121.2 91.4 15.5

Table continued on following page.

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-2008

(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 2006 2007 2008 2006-2008 2006-2007 2007-2008

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . 84,338,496 84,788,204 81,372,448 -3.5 0.5 -4.0

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,574,007 73,259,361 67,090,935 -6.3 2.4 -8.4

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . . 84.9 86.4 82.4 -2.4 1.5 -4.0

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,349,846 70,661,966 65,741,416 -3.8 3.4 -7.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982,919 937,922 997,311 1.5 -4.6 6.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.38 $13.27 $15.17 5.5 -7.7 14.3

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204,285 2,367,291 2,204,742 0.0 7.4 -6.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,913 38,829 36,188 -4.5 2.4 -6.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.20 $16.40 $16.41 -4.6 -4.6 0.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . 3,820,279 4,042,763 3,187,540 -16.6 5.8 -21.2

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . . 5.4 5.5 4.7 -0.7 0.1 -0.8

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,348 3,213 3,030 -9.5 -4.0 -5.7

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . . 7,536 7,328 7,140 -5.3 -2.8 -2.6

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . 102,313 108,425 108,566 6.1 6.0 0.1

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.58 $14.80 $15.21 12.0 9.0 2.8

 Productivity (bags/hour) . . . . . . . . 9,498 9,998 9,397 -1.1 5.3 -6.0

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.43 $1.48 $1.62 13.2 3.5 9.3

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,282,963 73,816,808 67,625,342 -3.8 5.0 -8.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,016,647 981,429 1,028,098 1.1 -3.5 4.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.47 $13.30 $15.20 5.1 -8.1 14.3

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . 917,833 887,523 949,599 3.5 -3.3 7.0

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . 98,814 93,906 78,499 -20.6 -5.0 -16.4

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,910 89,053 116,047 23.6 -5.2 30.3

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . 4,904 4,853 (37,548) (3) -1.0 (3)

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . 38,820 17,186 15,268 -60.7 -55.7 -11.2

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.06 $12.02 $14.04 7.5 -7.9 16.8

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . $1.34 $1.21 $1.72 28.4 -9.7 42.2

 Unit operating income or (loss) . . $0.07 $0.07 ($0.56) (3) -5.8 (3)

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.3 90.4 92.4 2.1 0.2 1.9

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.5 -3.7 -4.1 0.0 -4.1

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not available. Included in "all other" category.

 (3) Undefined.

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.

Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce and from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaire

C-4
D-1

APPENDIX D

NONSUBJECT-COUNTRY QUARTERLY PRICE DATA

D-3

Table D-1

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 from

nonsubject countries, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January

2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Table D-2

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 from

nonsubject countries, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January

2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Table D-3

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 from

nonsubject countries, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January

2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Table D-4

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 from

nonsubject countries, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January

2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *
 
E-1

APPENDIX E

ALLEGED EFFECTS OF SUBJECT IMPORTS ON 

PRODUCERS’ EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND 

PRODUCTION EFFORTS, GROWTH, INVESTMENT, 

AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL
E-2
E-3

Presented below are the responses of U.S. producers to the following question: Since January 1,

2006, has your firm experienced any actual negative effects on its return on investment or its growth,

investment, ability to raise capital, existing development and production efforts (including efforts to

develop a derivative or more advanced version of the product), or the scale of capital investments as a

result of imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and/or Vietnam?

***

“Yes. The cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects. Other–extreme

pressure on prices and inability to raise credit line amount.”

***

“Yes. The cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects; denial or rejection of

investment proposal; a reduction in the size of capital investments. Other–price erosion, lower

profits, and reduced growth.” 

***

“Yes. Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects; the denial or rejection of

investment proposal; reduction in the size of capital investments.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. Other–impaired growth/loss of margin/reduced income and ROIC.”

***

“Yes. The cancellation or rejection of expansion projects; denial or rejection of investment

proposals; and reduction in the size of capital investments. Other–The plant was originally set up

*** to supply PRCBs. As a result of the surge in imports of PRCBs from Asia which started in

the mid 1990s, we have switched capacity as far as possible to industrial products. It is not

possible to convert some 40% - 50% of capacity from PRCBs since the equipment on which it is

made is specialized. The flood of imported PRCBs from Asia was stemmed after the antidumping action versus China but the PRCBs are now reappearing from neighboring countries.”

***

“Yes. Other–other parts of *** have performed better than the US PRCB production division. 

As such, most capital investment has been diverted to the higher growth divisions.”
E-4

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. A reduction in the size of capital investments. Other–suffered lost sales, price

compression, and a sharp decline in profits specifically due to imports from Vietnam, Taiwan,

and Indonesia. These imports also forced ***.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. Cancellation, postponement or rejection of expansion projects; reduction in the size of

capital investment.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. The cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects; denial or rejection of

investment proposal; reduction in the size of capital investments. Other–As previously indicated,

imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam have grabbed market share from domestic

producers. To compete with these dumped imports, U.S. producers have had to drop prices

substantially, yet we have still lost a large volume of sales. Consequently, U.S. producers have

run at lower capacity utilization rates which has increased unit costs. The combination of lower

prices and higher unit costs has caused profits to decrease. Certain of these lost sales have been

especially damaging. For example, we lost business at *** beginning at the end of the 2nd quarter

of 2008 and the beginning of the 3rd quarter. This resulted in a drop in production ***, and we

were, therefore, forced to lay off workers. Our payroll records show that the number of

employees dropped significantly in late May and early June with a continual decline through midSeptember with approximately *** employees being laid off.”

Presented below are the responses of U.S. producers to the following question: Does your firm

anticipate any negative impact of imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, or Thailand?

***

“No.”

***
E-5

“Yes. If unfair trading of imports from Vietnam, Taiwan, and Indonesia were to continue, ***

will suffer more lost sales, its prices will remain under severe pressure, and our profitability will

continue to deteriorate. Under such circumstances, *** may well be forced to close ***

facilities.” 

***

“Yes. Price erosion, loss of business, lower profits, reduced growth, reduction of U.S.A.

employee base, cancellation of expansion projects, reduction in the size of manufacturing facility

or possible plant closure.”

***

“Yes. Due to antidumping duties imposed on China and others, the factories had moved to these

countries and make cheap bags to compete in the United States. They also manage to tranship

from China to these nations to export to the United States.”

***

“Yes. Continued pricing pressures and loss of customers to lower priced imports from these

areas. Limits our ability to grow the business and long-term planning. Results in the loss of

American manufacturing jobs.”

***

“None.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. Revenue loss/margin erosion/reduced income/inability to grow.”

***

“Yes. Imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam are priced so low that if dumping of these

products continues unabated we simply will not be able to stay in this business.”

***

“No.”
E-6

***

“No. Our firm does not anticipate any negative impact of imports of PRCBs from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and/or Vietnam. We actually anticipate positive impacts from imports. In the past,

imports of PRCBs from China had a negative impact in the U.S. market due to unfair

competition. At the time, the selling price was lower than variable cost (PE resin plus conversion

plus ocean freight plus inland freight), and ***. These same issues are not present for imports

from Taiwan and Vietnam. We *** and fulfill customer demand. Furthermore, imports help ***

in fulfilling customers’ contracts in almost all of the special design carry out bags such as soft

loop handle, patched handle, rigid handle round die cut handle, rope handle, square bottom, etc.,

as well as bags with complicated printing (more than 4 color print) and process print for which

U.S. producers cannot meet demand. Therefore, *** Taiwan and Vietnam. However, ***.” 

***

“Yes.”

***

“Yes. If unfair trade is not stopped by this case, we will certainly suffer even more price erosion

and lost sales due to growth of imports from these countries. This will also reduce investment

and employment at ***.”

***

“Yes. An even greater reduction in margins, lost sales, inability to pass cost of raw material

increases, reduction in production including shutting down lines and/or shutting down equipment

with substantial layoffs.”
F-1

APPENDIX F

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE IMPORTATION OF

PRCBs AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2008

F-3

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE IMPORTATION OF PRCBs AFTER

DECEMBER 31, 2008

The Commission requested producers to provide information on whether they had imported or arranged

for the importation of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and/or Vietnam for delivery after December 31,

2008 (Question II-3). Their responses are found below. In some instances, responses have been

excerpted or summarized. 

***:

“We will have one container of PRCB from Vietnam by April 20. The quantity will be around ***.” 

(***)

***:

“We have budgeted for an annual total of approximately *** bags in 2009 from our sister plant in ***.”

***:

Imported or arranged to import *** bags from Vietnam from January-April, 2009.

***:

Currently purchases 4 containers of PRCBs per month from an importer from Vietnam. 

***:

Has already had *** bags delivered from Taiwan with an additional *** bags to be delivered from

Taiwan in June 2009. Plans to have *** bags from Vietnam delivered in May 2009 and *** bags from

Vietnam to be delivered in June 2009. 

***:

Through June 1st, 2009, imported or arranged to import *** bags from Indonesia.

***:

Imported *** bags valued at *** dollars from Vietnam in February 2009.

***:

Through August 2009, imported or arranged to import *** bags from Indonesia.

Through February 2009, imported *** bags from Vietnam.

***:

Through April 2009, arranged to import *** bags from Taiwan.

***:
F-4

Through April 2009, received *** bags from Taiwan and *** bags from Vietnam. Through April 2009,

ordered but not have yet received *** bags from Taiwan and *** bags from Vietnam.

***:

Through May, imported or arranged to import *** bags from Indonesia.

***:

Through March, imported *** bags from Vietnam.

***:

Imported *** bags from Taiwan in January 2009.

***:

“About *** 40' containers from Indonesia through August, 2009.”

***:

Through June 2009, imported or arranged to import approximately *** bags from Vietnam.

***:

Through May 2009, imported or arranged to import *** bags from Indonesia.

***:

Through June 2009, imported or arranged to import *** bags from Indonesia. 

***:

Through March, imported approximately *** bags from Vietnam.

***:

Through March, imported *** bags from Vietnam.

***:

Through March 2009, imports of *** bags from Indonesia.

Through March 2009, imports of *** bags from Taiwan.

Through March 2009, imports of *** bags from Vietnam.

Plans to import through July 2009, imports of *** bags from Taiwan.

Plans to import through May 2009, imports of *** bags from Vietnam.

***:
F-5

Through June 2009, order of *** “case of product” from Vietnam. 

***:

$*** worth of outstanding orders from Vietnam “all to them to be delivered within the next 4 months.”

***:

*** bags imported from Taiwan in January 2009.

***:

Through May 31, 2009, *** cases from Taiwan and *** cases from Vietnam.

***:

Through September 2009, *** bags to be delivered from Taiwan.