U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4099 August 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Narrow Woven Ribbons with 

Woven Selvedge from China and Taiwan

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-467 and 731-1164-1165 
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Nathanael Comly, Investigator 

Andrea Boron, Industry Analyst 

Nancy Bryan, Economist 

Mary Klir, Accountant 

Mary Jane Alves, Attorney 

Lemuel Shields, Statistician 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

C. Marie DuMond, Investigative Intern
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4099 August 2009

Narrow Woven Ribbons with 

Woven Selvedge from China and Taiwan

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-467 and 731-1164-1165 

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged subsidies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

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

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

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

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

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Physical characteristics and uses . . ............................................. I-11

Manufacturing facilities and production employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

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

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

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

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-6

Comparisons of domestic product and subject imports .............................. II-6

Other country comparisons ................................................... II-9

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-4

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

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

Imports from subject sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Imports from nonsubject sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Subject imports by U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

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

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Fungibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

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

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

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

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

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

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

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

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

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on narrow woven ribbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2

Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

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

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-2

Global trade in narrow woven fabrics of man-made fibers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-2

Bilateral and multilateral trade restrictions ....................................... VII-5

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-6

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-6

Narrow woven ribbon operations .............................................. VII-6

The industry in Taiwan ......................................................... VII-6

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-6

Narrow woven ribbon operations .............................................. VII-7
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries–Continued

U.S. inventories of narrow woven ribbons .......................................... VII-8

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-10

Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in third-country markets .............. VII-10

Appendixes

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

B. Conference witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. Pricing data reported by purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Alleged effects of subject imports on U.S. producers’ existing development and production 

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

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

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

 1

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

1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-467 and 731-TA-1164-1165 (Preliminary)

NARROW WOVEN RIBBONS WITH 

WOVEN SELVEDGE FROM CHINA AND TAIWAN

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 threatened with material injury by reason of imports from China of

narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge, primarily provided for in subheading 5806.32 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be subsidized by the Government of

China, and by imports of such merchandise from China and Taiwan that are alleged to be sold in the

United States at less than fair value (LTFV).

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 these 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 July 9, 2009, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by Berwick Offray

LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary Lion Ribbon Company, Inc., Berwick, PA, alleging that an

industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of

subsidized imports of narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China and by imports of such

merchandise from China and Taiwan sold in the United States at less than fair value. Accordingly,

effective July 9, 2009, the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-467 and

antidumping duty investigations Nos. 731-TA-1164-1165 (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 July 15, 2009 (74 FR 34362). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on July 30, 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, 785 F.2d at 1001-04; 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 Co., 785 F.2d at 1001; see also Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535, 1543

(Fed. Cir. 1994).

 3

 See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 7; Amendment II to Petition at Exh. A at 9-10.

 4

 (***). See, e.g., Confidential Staff Report, Memorandum INV-GG-071 (Aug. 17, 2009), as modified by

Memorandum INV-GG-073 (Aug. 20, 2009) (“CR”) at III-1 nn.4-5; Public Version of Staff Report, Narrow Woven

Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from China and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-467 and 731-TA-1164 to 1165 (Prelim.),

USITC Pub. 4099 (“PR”) at III-1 nn.4-5 (Aug. 2009).

 5

 (*** and ***). See, e.g., CR at III-1 nn.2-3; PR at III-1 nn.2-3; see also, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 4.

 6

 (***; ***; ***; ***; ***; ***; ***; and ***). Compare, e.g., CR at III-1; PR at III-1 with, e.g., Petition, Vol. I

at 7; Amendment II to Petition at Exh. A at 9-10.

3

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 threatened with material injury by reason of

imports of certain narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (“narrow woven ribbons”) from China and

Taiwan that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of narrow woven

ribbons from China that are allegedly subsidized by the Government of China. Due to a lack of reliable

information in these investigations on specific issues discussed below, we cannot conclude that the record

as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that there is no threat of material injury and no

likelihood exists that contrary evidence will arise in any final phase investigations. See American Lamb

Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-04 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

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

determinations, 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 July 9, 2009, by domestic producer Berwick

Offray LLC and its wholly owned subsidiary Lion Ribbon Company, Inc. (“petitioner” or “Berwick

Offray”). Petitioner appeared at the staff conference and filed a postconference brief. Although

petitioner identified fifteen possible domestic producers,3

 three do not produce narrow woven ribbons,4

two provided incomplete data,5 and eight did not respond to the Commission’s domestic producer’s

questionnaire.6

 The two companies providing useable data on their U.S. production operations, Berwick

Offray and Lawrence Schiff Silk Mills, Inc. (“Schiff”), are believed to account for the vast majority of
 7

 See, e.g., CR at I-3; PR at I-2; CR/PR at Table III-1.

 8

 The Commission’s period of investigation for these investigations includes 2006, 2007, 2008, and the first three

months of 2009 (“interim 2009”).

 9

 Petitioner reports that Wm. Wright’s equipment was not sold until January 2007. See, e.g., Petitioner’s

Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 3, Exh. 14. Wm. Wright ceased U.S. narrow woven ribbons production in ***, after which

it was *** an importer of subject merchandise. See, e.g., CR at III-1; PR at III-1. Petitioner asserts that Wm. Wright

now produces narrow woven ribbons in Shanghai, China and exports them to the United States. See, e.g., Petition,

Vol. I at 7, Exh. 5.

 10 See, e.g., CR at I-3 to I-4; PR at I-3.

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 13 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

4

U.S. production of narrow woven ribbons in 2008.7

 Wm. Wright Company (“Wm. Wright”), a domestic

producer of narrow woven ribbons early in the period of investigation8

 and a current importer of subject

merchandise, entered an appearance through counsel, but did not participate in the staff conference or

submit a brief.9

Several respondents appeared at the preliminary staff conference and submitted postconference

briefs. A group of importers/retailers of subject merchandise, Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”),

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (“Hobby Lobby”), Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. (“Jo-Ann’s”), and Michaels Stores, Inc.

(“Michaels”), participated in the staff conference through company officials and/or counsel. Together

with Target Corporation (“Target”) (collectively, the “Ribbon Retailers”), they submitted a joint

postconference brief. Representatives from Liberty Ribbon and Packaging, LLC (“Liberty Ribbon”),

Papillon Ribbons & Bow, Inc. (“Papillon”), MNC Stribbons, Inc. (“MNC Stribbons”), and Compass

Designs, LLC also participated in the staff conference through company officials and counsel. Liberty

Ribbon, Papillon, and MNC Stribbons filed a joint postconference brief along with Fabric Barn, M&J

Trimming Company, Inc., and Papermart (collectively “Respondent Importers”). As explained herein,

U.S. import data in these investigations are based on responses to the Commission’s U.S. importer

questionnaires by 74 companies, including virtually all of those believed to be leading importers.10

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

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

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”12 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 ... .”13

B. Product Description

The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce’s”) notices of initiation defined the imported

merchandise within the scope of these investigations thusly:
 14 Narrow woven ribbons subject to these investigations may be as follows:

* of natural or other non-man-made fibers;

* of any color, style, pattern, or weave construction, including but not limited to single-faced satin,

double-faced satin, grosgrain, sheer, taffeta, twill, jacquard, or a combination of two or more

colors, styles, patterns and/or weave constructions;

* subjected to, or composed of materials that have been subjected to, various treatments, including

but not limited to dyeing, printing, foil stamping, embossing, flocking, coating and/or sizing;

* with embellishments, including but not limited to appliqué, fringes, embroidery, buttons, glitter,

sequins, laminates, and/or adhesive backing;

* with wire and/or monofilament in, on, or along the longitudinal edges of the ribbon;

* with ends of any shape or dimension, including but not limited to straight ends that are

perpendicular to the longitudinal edges of the ribbon, tapered ends, flared ends or shaped ends, and

the ends of such woven ribbons may or may not be hemmed;

* with longitudinal edges that are straight or of any shape, and the longitudinal edges of such woven

ribbon may or may not be parallel to each other;

* comprised of such ribbons adhered to the like ribbon and/or cut-edge woven ribbon, a

configuration also known as an “ornamental trimming;”

* wound on spools; attached to a card; hanked (i.e., coiled or bundled); packaged in boxes, trays or

bags; or configured as skeins, balls, bateaus or folds; and/or

* included within a kit or set such as when packaged with other products, including but not limited

to gift bags, gift boxes and/or other types of ribbon.

See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. 329291, 39297-98 (Aug. 6, 2009) (initiation of antidumping duty investigations) and 74 Fed.

Reg. 39298, 39301-02 (Aug. 6, 2009) (initiation of countervailing duty investigation).

 15 Excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following: (1) formed bows composed of narrow woven

ribbons with woven selvedge; (2) “pull bows” (i.e., an assemblage of ribbons connected to one another, folded flat

and equipped with a means to form such ribbons into the shape of a bow by pulling on a length of material affixed to

such assemblage) composed of woven ribbons; (3) narrow woven ribbons comprised at least 20 percent by weight of

elastomeric yarn (i.e., filament yarn, including monofilament, of synthetic textile material, other than textured yarn,

which does not break on being extended to three times its original length and which returns, after being extended to

twice its original length, within a period of five minutes, to a length not greater than one and a half times its original

length as defined in the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”), Section XI, Note 13) or rubber thread;

(4) narrow woven ribbons of a kind used for the manufacture of typewriter or printer ribbons; (5) narrow woven

labels and apparel tapes, cut-to-length or cut-to-shape, having a length (when measured across the longest edge-toedge span) not exceeding 8 centimeters; (6) narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge attached to and forming the

handle of a gift bag; (7) cut-edge narrow woven ribbons formed by cutting broad woven fabric into strips of ribbon,

with or without treatments to prevent the longitudinal edges of the ribbon from fraying (such as by merrowing,

lamination, sono-bonding, fusing, gumming, or waxing), and with or without wire running lengthwise along the

longitudinal edges of the ribbon; (8) narrow woven ribbons comprised of at least 85 percent by weight of threads

having a denier of 225 or higher; (9) narrow woven ribbons constructed from pile fabrics (i.e., fabrics with a surface

effect formed by tufts or loops of yarn that stand up from the body of the fabric); (10) narrow woven ribbon affixed

(including by tying) as a decorative detail to non-subject merchandise, such as a gift bag, gift box, gift tin, greeting

card or plush toy, or affixed (including by tying) as a decorative detail to packaging containing non-subject

merchandise; (11) narrow woven ribbon affixed to non-subject merchandise as a working component of such nonsubject merchandise, such as where narrow woven ribbon comprises an apparel trimming book marker, bag cinch, or

(continued...)

5

narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge, in any length, but with a width (measured at the

narrowest span of the ribbon) less than or equal to 12 centimeters, composed of, in whole or in

part, man-made fibers (whether artificial or synthetic, including but not limited to nylon,

polyester, rayon, polypropylene, and polyethylene teraphthalate), metal threads and/or metalized

yarns, or any combination thereof.14 Narrow woven ribbons subject to {these investigations}

include all narrow woven fabrics, tapes, and labels that fall within this written description of the

scope of these investigations.15
 15 (...continued)

part of an identity card holder; and (12) narrow woven ribbon(s) comprising a belt attached to and imported with an

item of wearing apparel, whether or not such belt is removable from such item of wearing apparel. See, e.g., 74 Fed.

Reg. at 39297-98; 74 Fed. Reg. at 39301-02.

 16 See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. 39291, 39297-98 (Aug. 6, 2009) (initiation of antidumping duty investigations) and 74

Fed. Reg. 39298, 39301-02 (Aug. 6, 2009) (initiation of countervailing duty investigation).

 17 See, e.g., CR at I-4; PR at I-3.

 18 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-7.

 19 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-7.

 20 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-7.

 21 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-7.

 22 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-7.

 23 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-7.

 24 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-7.

 25 See, e.g., CR at I-8 to I-9; PR at I-7.

 26 For example, single-faced satin is often used to embroider apparel because the face of the ribbon is a smooth

satin, while the reverse side is dull, can be sewn down, and will not slip or be visible in final use. Double-faced satin

is preferable for applications where both sides of the ribbon will be visible, such as for sashes, hair bows, or home

decor. Sheer ribbons, which are frequently used in floral applications, are often woven with wire in the selvedge to

impart body to the ribbon and to help the ribbon maintain its shape when fashioned into packaging bows. Grosgrain

ribbons are bulkier and have a textured feel (or hand) desirable for applications such as hair bows or in home decor

where a shiny ribbon or slippage is undesirable. See, e.g., CR at I-9; PR at I-7.

6

Commerce also explained that the merchandise under investigation is currently classifiable under

statistical reporting numbers 5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050; and 5806.32.1060 of the

HTSUS. Subject merchandise also may enter under subheadings 5806.31.00; 5806.32.20; 5806.39.20;

5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 5810.91.00; 5810.99.90; 5903.90.10; 5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80

and under statistical categories 5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 5903.90.3090; and 6307.90.9889. The

written description of the merchandise under investigation, however, is dispositive.16 The Commission

has not conducted any prior investigations of narrow woven ribbons.17

Narrow woven ribbons are fabrics with widths equal to or less than 12 centimeters that typically

are used to adorn or embellish apparel, footwear, home furnishings, crafts, or floral arrangements. They

may also be used for functional reasons such as to create hair bows and sashes and to wrap packages.18

Because they are constructed with a durable woven selvedge (or longitudinal edge) and are colorfast by

nature of their fiber content and dyeing process, narrow woven ribbons do not fray easily and are

washable. Consequently, they are often used in apparel and keepsake items such as scrapbooks.19

Narrow woven ribbons come in a variety of designs, widths, colors, and patterns20. ***.21

Manufacturers create different varieties by changing the weave pattern, color, fiber type, or

embellishment.22 Manufacturers may weave the ribbons from yarn-dyed yarn or from greige (unfinished

yarn) that is piece-dyed in woven form.23 In yarn-dyed ribbons, manufacturers can create woven patterns

such as stripes, jacquards, plaids, and embroidered designs.24 Common types of narrow woven ribbons

include single- and double-faced satin, grosgrain, picot, and sheer.25 These different forms of narrow

woven ribbons sometimes have different uses.26

To manufacture narrow woven ribbons, in a process called “warping,” producers typically wind

textured or flat greige yarn onto a beam that will vary in thread-count composition according to ribbon
 27 See, e.g., CR at I-9 to I-10; PR at I-8. Yarn-dyed ribbons, which represent approximately *** percent of total

U.S. production, undergo an additional step prior to warping where the monofilament yarn is dyed. See, e.g., CR at

I-10; PR at I-8.

 28 See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 4; CR at I-11; PR at I-8. Shuttle looms form the selvedge by using the outer warp

thread to lock the weft in place at the turns whereas needle looms form one or both of the selvedges by other

methods such as interlocking the weft threads or by using an independent thread that is not a warp thread to lock the

weft thread in place at the turns. See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 4-5. Petitioner asserts that the resulting ribbons from

shuttle and needle looms are “indistinguishable to the naked eye.” See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 5.

 29 See, e.g., CR at I-11; PR at I-9.

 30 See, e.g., CR at I-11 to I-12; PR at I-9.

 31 See, e.g., CR at I-12 to I-13; PR at I-9.

 32 See, e.g., CR at I-13; PR at I-9.

 33 See, e.g., CR at I-13 to I-14; PR at I-10.

 34 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).

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

7

design.27 The beams are then placed on a loom for weaving. In the United States, manufacturers

primarily use faster specialized needle looms rather than shuttle looms.28

During weaving, one or more warp beams is fed into the loom. Cards on the loom separate the

warp beam according to a programmed pattern. Then, a needle hooks through the warp beam carrying a

filling yarn through to a latch hook that catches the filling yarn. After insertion, the filling yarn is “beat”

into the fabric to keep the filling yarns parallel. Narrow woven ribbons are produced using ***.29 Prior

to final spooling, narrow woven ribbons are then rolled directly from the loom onto a bulk spool for

dyeing, in the case of ribbons made from greige yarns, or, in the case of yarn-dyed yarns finishing

(washing, de-sizing, drying, and ironing). During the dyeing process, the greige ribbons are pre-scoured,

dried, dyed, heated to absorb the color pigment, and then washed and dyed again30. ***.31 Before final

spooling, narrow woven ribbons can be embellished using flexoprinting, transfer printing, silkscreen

printing, lacquer printing, or hot stamping.32

Dyed, finished, and embellished ribbons are typically spooled (blocked) once an order is

received. Spooling can be done automatically or manually, and the length of ribbon on a spool varies by

customer and distribution method. Narrow woven ribbons are spun to a specific length onto a cardboard

spool, flanges are glued to both sides of the spool, the package is labeled, and a plastic film is wrapped

around the exposed ribbon to form a finished product.33

C. Analysis

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.34 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.35 The
 36 See, e.g., 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.”).

 37 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).

 38 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).

 39 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).

 40 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-10.

 41 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 2-3; Transcript of Staff Conference held on July 30, 2009, as revised on

Aug. 19, 2009 (“Confer. Tr.”) at 31-34 (Pajic), 76-77 (Shea); Amendment II to the Petition at Exh. A, at 7-9;

Petition, Vol. I at 61-64.

 42 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 165 (Jacobs, Perry).

 43 See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 3-4; CR at I-15; PR at I-11.

 44 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-11.

8

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.36

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

merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair value,37 the Commission determines what domestic

product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.38 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.39

For purposes of these determinations, we considered whether to define the domestic like product

broader than the scope of these investigations to include cut-edge ribbons. Manufacturers produce cutedge ribbons by cutting broad woven fabric longitudinally into long strips using a hot knife to heat-seal

the edges. Alternatively, cut-edge producers may merrow (sew using a tight-looped continuous thread),

laminate, fuse, or wax the edges to prevent fraying.40

Petitioner asks the Commission to define a single domestic like product, comprised of all narrow

woven ribbons, that is coextensive with the scope of these investigations.41 Respondents do not contest

the domestic like product proposed by petitioner.42 Based on the record in these investigations and

consideration of the six factors identified above, we do not define a domestic like product broader than

the scope of these investigations and thus do not include cut-edge ribbons in the domestic like product.

Physical characteristics. Due to differences in their manufacturing processes, narrow woven

ribbons and cut-edge ribbons have different physical characteristics. In the United States, narrow woven

ribbons are produced on narrow needle or shuttle looms that weave yarns into ribbons of the desired

width (typically less than 2 inches (5.08 centimeters)).43 In contrast, cut-edge ribbons are typically cut

from broad woven fabric into strips of 2.5 inches (6.35 centimeters) in width or wider.44 The woven

longitudinal edges of narrow woven ribbons are generally less susceptible to fraying than the edges of
 45 See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 3; CR at I-8; PR at I-7.

 46 See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 3; CR at I-8; PR at I-7.

 47 To produce narrow woven ribbons, manufacturers generally use flat or textured polyester or nylon

monofilament greige yarn that is dyed after weaving, although some narrow woven ribbons use yarn-dyed yarns. 

Polyester typically has a smoother hand compared to acetate or nylon and is better suited for use in *** whereas

nylon is good for use in *** but is ***. See, e.g., CR at I-9 to I-10; PR at I-8. By comparison, cut-edge ribbons are

often manufactured from acetate or polyester broad woven fabric. Acetate ***. See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-11. 

Cut-edge ribbons are often treated with a finish that gives them a stiff hand, whereas narrow woven ribbons

generally have a soft and flexible hand. See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-11.

 48 See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 3; CR at I-8, I-10 to I-11; PR at I-7, I-8.

 49 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-11.

 50 See, e.g., CR at I-15 to I-16; PR at I-11.

 51 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-7.

 52 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-7.

 53 U.S. producers of narrow woven ribbons reported that *** percent of their U.S. shipments went to

wholesalers/distributors, *** percent went to retailers, and *** percent went to industrial end-users. See, e.g., CR at

I-17; PR at I-12. Domestic cut-edge ribbons producer Liberty Ribbon reported that *** percent of its U.S. shipments

in 2008 were to wholesalers/distributors, *** percent went to retailers, and the remaining *** percent went to

industrial end users. See, e.g., CR at I-17; PR at I-12.

 54 See, e.g., CR at II-9; PR at II-6.

9

cut-edge ribbons.45 By using narrow looms, manufacturers of narrow woven ribbons are able to use

stronger yarns or tighter construction to yield finished selvedges (or woven edges that do not unravel) that

are stronger and even more wear-resistant for use in later processing by the manufacturer or downstream

users.46 Other dissimilarities between narrow woven ribbons and cut-edge ribbons are related to

differences in yarns and/or finishes used to construct them.47

The narrow looms used to produce narrow woven ribbons enhance manufacturers’ ability to

construct the selvedge with yarns of different colors or with fancy effects to enhance the decorative

appearance of the ribbon.48 Whereas narrow woven ribbons are woven on one loom in one process, cutedge ribbons must be manufactured in multiple steps to achieve multi-thread effects or wired edges.49

End uses and interchangeability. Differences in their construction limit the interchangeability of

cut-edge and narrow woven ribbons. Because their seams are not as permanent as narrow woven ribbons,

cut-edge ribbons are often used in seasonal, floral, or single-use applications.50 Because of their fiber

content, dyeing process, and durable woven selvedge, narrow woven ribbons do not fray easily and are

colorfast and washable.51 Although they are used in some overlapping end uses, such as in floral

applications, to wrap packages, or to decorate a home or office, narrow woven ribbons are preferred for

more durable applications such as to adorn or embellish apparel, footwear, and home furnishings, for

functional purposes in keepsakes such as scrapbooks, and to create hair bows and sashes.52

Channels of distribution and producers/customers’ perceptions. Narrow woven ribbons and cutedge ribbons generally are sold in different channels of distribution.53 In terms of producers’ and

customers’ perceptions, none of the witnesses at the staff conference contradicted petitioner’s assertion

that narrow woven ribbons are different from cut-edge ribbons. Some questionnaire respondents reported

that cut-edge ribbons can be substituted for narrow woven ribbons, but when asked about the degree of

interchangeability, 24 importers reported limited interchangeability, 11 reported no interchangeability,

and 6 reported that they are fully interchangeable.54
 55 See, e.g., CR at I-16; PR at I-11; Petition, Vol. I at 4. Petitioner asserts that broad-fabric looms produce

“broad-fabric goods having widths many times the width of narrow ribbons,” such that it would be “highly

inefficient and commercially impracticable to utilize a broad-fabric loom to produce narrow woven ribbons.” 

According to petitioner, the converse is also true – narrow looms (which ***) are not capable of producing wide

widths and thus are not used to produce cut-edge ribbons. See, e.g., CR at I-16; PR at I-11; Petition, Vol. I at 4.

 56 To produce cut-edge ribbons, manufacturers typically weave yarns into a broad fabric, cut the broad fabric

longitudinally to form narrow fabric, and perform additional processing operations. See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 3. 

To prevent the longitudinal edges from fraying, manufacturers either use a “hot knife” to cut the broad fabric and

heat seal it into narrow fabric ribbon strips or they subject the longitudinal edges of the cut-edge ribbons to

merrowing, lamination, sono-bonding, fusing, waxing, or gumming. See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 3; CR at I-15; PR at

I-10. In contrast, manufacturers of narrow woven ribbons use narrow looms that weave yarns into ribbons of a

desired width, negating the need for any longitudinal cutting since the longitudinal edges of the ribbons are “woven”

as part of the same weaving process that produces the ribbons itself. See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 3; CR at I-11, I-16;

PR at I-8, I-11.

 57 Petitioner identified ***. See, e.g., CR at I-14, I-16; PR at I-10, I-11. The two U.S. producers of narrow

woven ribbons that submitted useable questionnaire responses manufacture *** cut-edge ribbons in the United

States. See, e.g., CR at I-16; PR at I-11.

 58 See, e.g., CR at I-17; PR at I-12.

 59 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 60 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 3.

 61 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 165 (Jacobs, Perry).

10

Manufacturing facilities, processes, and employees. Narrow woven ribbons are produced on

narrow looms that differ from the broad-fabric looms used to produce cut-edge ribbons.55 Different

manufacturing processes are used to produce cut-edge and narrow woven ribbons.56 Moreover, the record

does not reflect any meaningful overlap of production facilities or employees used to produce cut-edge

ribbons and narrow woven ribbons.57

Price. Finally, cut-edge ribbons are priced lower than narrow woven ribbons in retail outlets. 

Liberty Ribbon reported $*** per square yard as the average unit value for cut-edge ribbons in 2008

compared to $*** per square yard reported in questionnaire responses for domestically produced narrow

woven ribbons.58

Based on these differences and in the absence of any contrary party arguments, we find a clear

dividing line between narrow woven ribbons and cut-edge ribbons. We therefore define the domestic like

product as co-extensive with the scope of these investigations: narrow woven ribbons other than cut-edge

ribbons.

IV. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

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

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”59 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.

A. Sufficient Production-Related Activities

Petitioner asks the Commission to determine that there is one domestic industry comprised of the

U.S. producers that manufacture narrow woven ribbons, the scope merchandise.60 Respondents do not

ask for a different definition of the domestic industry.61
 62 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 63 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 7.

 64 See, e.g., CR at III-4; PR at III-3; Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 21-23, Exh. 1 at 7-9.

 65 See, e.g., CR at III-4; PR at III-3; Confer. Tr. at 63 (Shea).

 66 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 5-9; Confer. Tr. at 62-63 (Shea).

 67 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 165 (Jacobs, Perry).

 68 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 166-67 (Perry).

 69 See, e.g., Lightweight Thermal Paper from China, Germany, and Korea, Inv. No. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA1126 to 1128 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3964 at n.76 (Nov. 2007); Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from China

and Korea, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1092 to 1093 (Final), USITC Pub. 3862 at 8-11 (Jul. 2006) (assemblers included in

the industry); Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India,

Thailand, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1063-68 (Final), USITC Pub. 3748 at 12-14 (Jan. 2005) (breading,

marinating/saucing, and skewering not viewed as sufficient to constitute domestic production) (but cooking,

deheading, grading, machine peeling, and deveining all constituted domestic production as were “activities including

washing, sorting, grading, peeling, deveining, removing the tail, packaging, and freezing”); Greenhouse Tomatoes

from Canada, Inv. No. 731-TA-925 (Final), USITC Pub. 3499 at 10-11 (Apr. 2002) (packers included in the industry

along with growers); Honey from Argentina and China, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3470 (Nov. 2001) (honey packers included in the industry along with beekeepers); Pure Magnesium

from China and Israel, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-403 and 731-TA-895-96 (Final), USITC Pub. 3467 at 9-11 (Nov. 2001)

(Commission majority finding that grinding was sufficient production related activity to constitute “production” in

that case, although noting that the evidence was mixed).

11

To be included in the domestic industry, the statute requires that a company be a producer of a

domestic like product in the United States.62 Berwick Offray produces narrow woven ribbons in the

United States but asserts that it was forced to move some of its spooling operations (i.e., packaging the

narrow woven ribbons onto cardboard flanges and wrapping and labeling the spools) to Mexico in order

to compete with low-priced subject imports.63 In Mexico, the company ***.64 Petitioner also performs a

small amount of transfer printing in Mexico, an amount that it reports is less than 5 percent of its total

printing.65

Thus, a question that arises in these investigations is how to treat narrow woven ribbons that

petitioner Berwick Offray weaves and dyes in the United States but transfer prints and/or spools in its

facility in Mexico. The scope of these investigations includes narrow woven ribbons whether or not they

are spooled onto flanges, as indicated above. Petitioner contends the products spooled in Mexico and

sold in the U.S. market should be considered U.S. shipments of the domestic like product and not U.S.

shipments of non-subject imports from Mexico.66 Respondents do not ask for a different definition of the

domestic industry,67 although some of them ask the Commission to examine the nature of Berwick

Offray’s production-related operations in Mexico.68

When assessing the nature and extent of production-related activities associated with particular

operations, the Commission usually applies a six-factor framework:

(1) source and extent of the firm’s capital investment;

(2) technical expertise involved in the production activities;

(3) value added to the product;

(4) employment levels;

(5) quantity, type and source of parts; and

(6) any other costs and activities directly leading to production of the like product.69
 70 For example, the Commission used this framework in one investigation to assess whether U.S. slitters of

jumbo rolls imported from subject countries engaged in sufficient production-related activities to warrant treating the

resulting thermal transfer ribbon products as shipments of the domestic like product rather than as shipments of

subject merchandise. See, e.g., International Imaging Materials, Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT 1181, 1187-89 (2006)

(affirming the Commission’s finding in Certain Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons from France and

Japan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1039-1040 (Final), USITC Pub. 3683 (Apr. 2004), where the scope included jumbo (unslit) rolls of thermal transfer ribbons as well as slit thermal transfer ribbons, that “slitters” engaged in sufficient

product-related activities when transforming jumbo rolls imported from subject countries into finished thermal

transfer ribbons to constitute domestic production. The Court affirmed the Commission’s treatment of the resulting

products as shipments of the domestic like product). In a different investigation, the Commission assessed whether

U.S. firms that assembled (cased) uncased dynamic random access memory semiconductors (“DRAMs”) that were

fabbed in third countries engaged in sufficient production-related activities to warrant treating the resulting products

as shipments of the domestic like product rather than as shipments of non-subject imports. See, e.g., DRAMs and

DRAM Modules from Korea, Inv. No. 701-TA-431 (Final), USITC Pub. 3616 at 11 (Aug. 2003) (In an investigation

where the scope included cased and uncased DRAMs, the Commission found that fabbing uncased DRAMs and

casing DRAMs each were individually significant production operations. The Commission rejected respondent

Hynix’s request to treat uncased DRAMs fabbed in third countries but cased in the United States as shipments of

non-subject imports. Instead, based on its finding that casing operations constituted significant production-related

activities, the Commission treated DRAMs fabbed in third countries but cased in the United States as shipments of

the domestic like product).

 71 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 7.

 72 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 7-8; CR at III-4; PR at III-3.

 73 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

12

Given the sui generis nature of this inquiry, no single factor is determinative and the Commission may

consider any other factors it deems relevant in light of the specific facts of any investigation.70

Examining the facts on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations using the six

factors, we find that the finishing operations conducted by Berwick Offray in Mexico are relatively

limited. According to petitioner, Berwick Offray’s facility in Mexico is staffed largely by unskilled

laborers, uses equipment manufactured in the United States and provided by petitioner, finishes

unfinished products that are sourced 100 percent from the United States, and holds no inventories of

finished product other than staging for transfer to petitioner’s U.S. distribution facilities. Because it

makes no sales, the facility in Mexico has no separate profitability.71 Berwick Offray reports that the only

real “production-type” activities performed in Mexico (limited amounts of transfer printing) contribute

only *** percent of the value of the finished product and account for only *** percent of the cost of good

sold (“COGS”) for its domestic production of narrow woven ribbons.72 Thus, the operations in Mexico

mostly involve just packaging and only in limited circumstances transfer printing the narrow woven

ribbons. Based on the limited nature of the production operations conducted in Mexico and the fact that

un-spooled narrow woven ribbons are in the scope of these investigations, for purposes of the preliminary

phase of these investigations, we treat any narrow woven ribbons that Berwick Offray weaves and dyes in

the United States, spools and/or transfer prints in Mexico, and sells in the U.S. market, as U.S. shipments

of the domestic like product.

B. Related Parties

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

the domestic industry pursuant to section 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.73 Exclusion
 74 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude a related party are as follows: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing

producer; (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether

the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue

production and compete in the U.S. market, and (3) the position of the related producer vis-a-vis the rest of the

industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See,

e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d mem., 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir.

1993). The Commission has also considered the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for related producers

and whether the primary interest of the related producer lies in domestic production or importation. These latter two

considerations were cited as appropriate factors in Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT 1861, 1864

(2004) (“The most significant factor considered by the Commission in making the ‘appropriate circumstances’

determination is whether the domestic producer accrued a substantial benefit from its importation of the subject

merchandise.”); USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001) (“the provision’s purpose

is to exclude from the industry headcount domestic producers substantially benefitting from their relationships with

foreign exporters.”), aff’d, 34 Fed. Appx. 725 (Fed. Cir. April 22, 2002); S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. at 83

(1979) (“where a U.S. producer is related to a foreign exporter and the foreign exporter directs his exports to the

United States so as not to compete with his related U.S. producer, this should be a case where the ITC would not

consider the related U.S. producer to be a part of the domestic industry”).

 75 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 3.

 76 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 165-66.

 77 For that reason, we do not analyze whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude *** importers of subject

merchandise, from the domestic industry. See, e.g., CR at III-1 at n.3; PR at III-1 at n.3; CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 78 See, e.g., CR at III-2; PR at III-2; CR/PR at Table III-1, Table IV-1.

 79 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-1.

 80 Calculated from CR/PR at Table III-6.

 81 See, e.g., Ribbon Retailers’ Postconf. Br. at 10-14.

13

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

investigation.74

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

producers of the domestic like product, i.e., all U.S. manufacturers of narrow woven ribbons. Petitioner

argues that there is no reason at this time to exclude any producer from the domestic industry based on the

statutory related-party provision.75 Respondents do not make any arguments concerning related party

issues.76

As a practical matter, although we include all domestic producers of narrow woven ribbons in the

domestic industry, only two producers submitted useable data. On that basis, we examine related party

issues only with respect to those two companies. The issue of whether to exclude other domestic

producers from the domestic industry as related parties is moot.77

Berwick Offray qualifies as a related party because it was an importer of subject merchandise

from Taiwan and, ***, China, and it is related to ***.78 Berwick Offray is *** producer of narrow woven

ribbons in the United States, accounting for *** percent of reported U.S. production in 2008, and it is the

sole petitioner in this investigation.79 Its imports of the subject merchandise from China and Taiwan were

equivalent to *** percent of its domestic production in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008,

and were equivalent to *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.80 In addition,

Berwick Offray facilitated the importation of subject merchandise by other importers of record, providing

assistance with arrangements and paperwork.81 The volume of imports represented by these transactions
 82 See, e.g., CR at III-11; PR at III-5.

 83 Berwick Offray describes the transactions it arranges for others as “one-off seasonal buys, primarily for the

December holidays, that typically are trays of ribbon composed in large part of {non-subject} cut-edge ribbon rather

than narrow woven ribbons.” See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 17.

 84 In any final phase investigations, we intend to examine more closely Berwick Offray’s importing activities as

well as the imports it arranges for third parties and will seek ***.

 85 See, e.g., CR at III-10; PR at III-5.

 86 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.

 87 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. 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.

 88 See, e.g., CR at VI-4; PR at VI-1.

 89 See, e.g., CR at VI-4; PR at VI-1.

 90 See, e.g., CR at III-2; PR at III-2; CR/PR at Table III-6.

 91 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-1. Schiff is the only other producer of narrow woven ribbons in the United States

that submitted a useable questionnaire response. See, e.g., CR at III-2; PR at III-2; CR/PR at III-1.

 92 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-1.

 93 Calculated from CR/PR at Table III-6.

14

was relatively ***, equivalent to only *** percent of Berwick Offray’s total narrow woven ribbons’ sales

volume in 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.82 83

Although Berwick Offray’s imports of subject merchandise and its arranged imports of subject

merchandise collectively are ***,84 we find that the company’s primary interest lies in domestic

production rather than the importation of subject merchandise. As noted, it is the *** domestic producer,

it is the sole petitioner, and the volume of its domestic production was substantially *** than its

importation of subject merchandise. Berwick Offray asserts that it is capable of making virtually any

narrow woven ribbons in the United States. The company explained that it only imported narrow woven

ribbons from producers in subject countries because prices of imported ribbons are often below its cost of

production – competitive pressures necessitated providing narrow woven ribbons at the lower price.85

It is not clear whether Berwick Offray derives a significant benefit from its importation of the

subject merchandise.86 87 The two domestic producers providing useable questionnaire responses reported

*** financial data, with *** reporting *** financial results than *** during the period for which data

were collected.88 Although *** reported *** per-unit COGS, the firm’s reported per-unit selling, general,

and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses were *** than such expenses as reported by *** and resulted in

***.89

Based on the considerations explained above, we do not exclude Berwick Offray from the

domestic industry as a related party.

Schiff also qualifies as a related party because it was an importer of subject merchandise from

***.90 The company is the *** domestic producer, accounting for *** percent of reported U.S.

production in 2008.91 ***.92 Schiff’s imports of the subject merchandise from ***.93 

We find that Schiff’s primary interest lies in domestic production rather than in importing subject

merchandise. Schiff’s subject imports ***. Schiff *** and reported that it imports narrow woven ribbons
 94 See, e.g., CR at III-11; PR at III-5.

 95 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) is not an issue in these investigations, and no party made any

arguments concerning this issue. Based on importer questionnaire responses, subject imports from China accounted

for 37.3 percent and subject imports from Taiwan accounted for 55.9 percent of total U.S. imports of narrow woven

ribbons, by value, for the period April 2008 to March 2009, the most recent 12-month period preceding the filing of

the petition for which questionnaire data are available. Based on official Commerce statistics, subject imports from

China accounted for 32.9 percent of total U.S. imports of narrow woven ribbons, by value, and 28.2 percent of total

U.S. imports of narrow woven ribbons, by quantity, whereas subject imports from Taiwan accounted for 64.2 and

67.6 percent, respectively, for the period July 2008 to June 2009, the most recent 12-month period preceding the

filing of the petition for which official statistics are available. See, e.g., CR at IV-11; PR at IV-6. Thus, whether

measured by importer questionnaire responses, by value, or by official Commerce statistics, by value or quantity,

subject imports of narrow woven ribbons from China and Taiwan as a share of total imports of narrow woven

ribbons into the United States each clearly exceeded the statute’s three percent negligiblity level.

 96 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i).

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

products that a perfectly symmetrical fungibility is required, and she notes that this factor would be better described

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

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

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

2007).

15

because it is “***.”94 It is unclear whether Schiff benefitted from its imports of subject merchandise for

the same reasons discussed above with respect to Berwick Offray. The company reported ***, and any

benefit that it derived from importing the subject merchandise is unlikely to skew the data for the industry

overall.

For all of these reasons, we do not exclude Schiff from the domestic industry as a related party.

C. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above and in the absence of contrary party arguments, we define the

domestic industry to include all domestic producers, including Berwick Offray and Schiff, the only two

producers that submitted useable data.

V. CUMULATION95

A. Legal Framework

For purposes of evaluating the volume and price effects for a determination 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 the domestic like product in the

U.S. market.96 In assessing whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like

product, the Commission has generally considered four factors, including:

(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;97

(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;
 98 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-278 to

280 (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).

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

 100 The SAA 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 also, e.g.,

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.”).

 101 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H).

 102 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1172 (affirming Commission’s determination not to

cumulate for purposes of threat analysis when pricing and volume trends among subject countries were not uniform

and import penetration was extremely low for most of the subject countries); Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United

States, 728 F. Supp. 730, 741-42 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United

States, 704 F. Supp. 1068, 1072 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988).

 103 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 5-6.

 104 See, e.g., Ribbon Retailers’ Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 5; Confer. Tr. at 167 (Jacobs, Perry).

 105 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 6-8.

 106 See, e.g., Ribbon Retailers’ Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 5.

16

(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.98

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.99 Only a “reasonable overlap” of

competition is required.100

By contrast, for purposes of determining if a threat of material injury exists, cumulation is

discretionary. Under section 771(7)(H) of the Tariff Act, the Commission may “to the extent practicable”

cumulatively assess the volume and price effects of subject imports from all countries as to which

petitions were filed on the same day if the requirements for cumulation for material injury analysis are

satisfied.101 In addition to considering the four cumulation factors described above, the Commission has

considered other factors such as the similarity of the volume trends and pricing data of subject imports

from the countries under investigation.102

B. Discussion

Petitioner argues that the four factors that the Commission ordinarily considers favor

cumulation.103 The Ribbon Retailers take no position regarding the issue of cumulation for purposes of

any present material injury analysis.104 Petitioner asks the Commission to exercise its discretion to

cumulate subject imports from China and Taiwan for purposes of any threat of material injury analysis

based on its assertion that there is little or no disparity in the volume and price trends of subject imports

from China and Taiwan.105 The Ribbon Retailers take no position regarding the issue of cumulation for

purposes of any threat of material injury analysis.106

The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in these investigations, because the petitions

concerning subject imports from China and Taiwan were filed on July 9, 2009, and these investigations

were instituted on the same day (July 9, 2009). None of the statutory exceptions to cumulation applies.
 107 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 5.

 108 See, e.g., CR at IV-12; PR at IV-6.

 109 The greatest share of domestically produced product and product imported from Taiwan was polyester

without wire in selvedge, whereas the greatest share of products imported from China was polyester with wire in

selvedge. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-6; CR at IV-12; PR at IV-6.

 110 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 177-80 (Icsman for Jo-Ann’s, Mitchell for Michaels)

 111 When asked to compare imports of subject merchandise from China with subject imports from Taiwan, ***

U.S. producers and 33 of 34 responding importers reported that they are at least sometimes interchangeable with one

another. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-2.

 112 Questionnaire respondents reported that the majority of the domestic industry’s sales were to ***, as were

subject imports from China. Although questionnaire respondents reported that subject imports from Taiwan were

mostly sold to ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-1; CR at II-2 n.7; PR at II-1 n.7.

 113 See, e.g., CR at IV-13; PR at IV-7.

 114 See, e.g., CR at II-1 to II-2; PR at II-1.

 115 See, e.g., CR at IV-13; PR at IV-7.

17

Fungibility. Petitioner argues that narrow woven ribbons produced in the United States, China,

and Taiwan are fungible and compete directly with one another for the same business in the U.S.

market.107 The Commission asked questionnaire respondents to report the percentage of their U.S.

shipments of narrow woven ribbons that consisted of polyester with wire in selvedge; polyester without

wire in selvedge; nylon with wire in selvedge; nylon without wire in selvedge; other fabric with wire in

selvedge; and other fabric without wire in selvedge.108 There were domestic shipments and imports from

each of the subject countries in each of the identified categories.109 Moreover, during the staff conference,

two industry witnesses representing purchasers that accounted for *** of narrow woven ribbons

purchases during the period of investigation reported that they did not know, did not need to know, and

did not even track the country of origin for their narrow woven ribbons purchases.110 Questionnaire

responses also indicate that market participants perceive narrow woven ribbons from various sources to

be interchangeable. *** U.S. producers and a majority of importers that compared narrow woven ribbons

from China and Taiwan with those from the United States reported that they are always or frequently

interchangeable.111

Channels of Distribution. During the period of investigation, narrow woven ribbons produced in

the United States, China, and Taiwan were sold in overlapping channels of distribution to industrial end

users, wholesalers/distributors, and retailers.112

Geographic Overlap. Approximately two-thirds of the imports of narrow woven ribbons from

China and Taiwan entered the United States in Los Angeles, CA, New York, NY, and New Orleans, LA

and in Los Angeles, CA, New York, NY, Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, and San Francisco, CA, respectively.113

When asked to list the U.S. geographic regions where they sell narrow woven ribbons, *** of the U.S.

producers and nearly all of the importers reported that they serve a nationwide market.114

Simultaneous Presence in Market. Commerce statistics and pricing data submitted to the

Commission show that imports from China and Taiwan, like the domestic like product, were sold in the

U.S. market throughout the period of investigation.115

C. Analysis and Conclusions

Questionnaire responses indicate that the domestic like product and imports from each subject

source are at least moderately interchangeable, are sold in overlapping channels of distribution, and have

been sold in overlapping geographic markets throughout the period of investigation. We thus find a
 116 See, e.g., CR at IV-15; PR at IV-10; CR/PR at Table IV-9 (showing the value of U.S. imports from Taiwan

declined between 2006 and 2008 by 6.0 percent while the value of U.S. imports from China increased by 24.6

percent during this period; imports from Taiwan, by value, were higher in interim 2009 than in interim 2008,

whereas the inverse was true with respect to imports from China) (based on importer questionnaire responses);

CR/PR at Table IV-7 (showing somewhat more noticeable fluctuations in monthly data).

 117 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 118 See, e.g., CR/PR at Figures V-1 to V-6.

 119 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 120 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

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

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 121 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 122 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 123 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

18

reasonable overlap of competition between the domestic like product and imports from each subject

country and between subject imports from China and Taiwan.

We proceed to examine whether, for purposes of any threat of material injury determinations,

subject imports from China and Taiwan exhibited similar volume and price trends during the period of

investigation so as to justify a decision to cumulate these imports. By value, the volume of subject

imports from China increased from 2006 to 2008, while the volume of subject imports from Taiwan

declined somewhat (a relationship that was reversed in interim 2009).116 The difference in volume trends,

however, was not great in magnitude and served to narrow the difference in the volumes imported from

China and Taiwan from 2006 to 2008.117 In addition, the price trends of these imports are sufficiently

similar to support cumulation.118 Based on the volume and price trends, and in the absence of any

contrary argument, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from China and Taiwan for

purposes of determining whether there is a reasonable indication of a threat of material injury by reason

of subject imports from China and Taiwan.

VI. REASONABLE INDICATION OF A THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON

OF CUMULATED SUBJECT IMPORTS FROM CHINA AND TAWAIN

A. Legal Standards

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.119 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.120 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not

inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”121 In assessing whether there is a reasonable indication that

the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports,

we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.122 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.”123

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

indication that the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury “by reason
 124 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 125 See, e.g., 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).

 126 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(continued...)

19

of” unfairly traded imports,124 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.125 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.126

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 non-subject

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.127 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.128 Nor does the
 128 (...continued)

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.”).

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

 130 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.”).

 131 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.

 132 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, when considering

present material injury in certain circumstances to undertake a particular kind of analysis of non-subject 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.

 133 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.”).

20

“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 non-subject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.129 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.130

Assessment of whether material injury or threat of 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.”131 132 Indeed, the Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission

methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.”133

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 non-subject 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 non-subject
 134 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

 135 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).

 136 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.

 137 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 non-subject countries that

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

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 non-subject imports.

 138 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.”).

 139 We provide in the discussion of likely impact in section VI.E. below an analysis of other factors alleged to

cause any threat of material injury that likely would be experienced by the domestic industry.

 140 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

21

imports.134 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether non-subject 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 non-subject imports or other factors to subject imports.135 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 non-subject 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.136 137

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.138 139

Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S.

industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further

dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would

occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”140 The Commission may not make

such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as

a whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether
 141 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 142 These factors are as follows:

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering

authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy

described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement) and whether imports of the subject merchandise

are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the

exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional

exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise

indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to

produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

* * *

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material

injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). To organize our analysis, we discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the

same volume/price/impact framework that applies to our material injury analysis. Statutory threat factors (I), (II),

(III), (V), and (VI) are discussed in the analysis of subject import volume. Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in

the price effects analysis, and statutory threat factor (IX) is discussed in the impact analysis. Statutory threat factor

(VII) is inapplicable, as no imports of agricultural products are involved in these investigations. No argument was

made that the domestic industry is currently engaging or will imminently engage in any efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, which would implicate statutory threat factor

(VIII).

22

material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.141 In making our

determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations.142

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is a reasonable

indication of a threat of material injury by reason of cumulated subject imports from China and Taiwan.

1. Data Considerations

The collection, presentation, and analysis of data in these investigations posed particular

challenges. First, the universe of importers is both large and hard to document. In 2006 and 2007,

narrow woven ribbons were primarily, but not exclusively, classified under a broad HTSUS statistical
 143 See, e.g., CR at I-6, IV-3; PR at I-5, IV-1 to IV-2.

 144 See, e.g., CR at IV-3; PR at IV-2.

 145 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 212 (Lodge), 213 (Vaughn).

 146 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 212-14 (Lodge, Vaughn, Mitchell, and Icsman).

 147 See, e.g., CR at IV-4; PR at IV-2.

 148 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 213 (Mitchell for Michaels).

 149 See, e.g., CR at IV-4; PR at IV-2.

 150 See, e.g., CR at IV-4 to IV-5; PR at IV-2.

 151 Compare, e.g., Coated Free Sheet Paper from China, Indonesia, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-444 to 446 and

731-TA-1136 to 1137 (Final), USITC Pub. 3965 at 8 (Dec. 2007) (“the Commission generally avoids measuring

import volume on the basis of value.”); Certain Off-the-Road Tires from China, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA1117 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3943 at 12, n.58 (Aug. 2007) (deviating from the “normal practice” by considering both

value and unit measurements of volume due to “ large variations in unit values both among the subject merchandise

and among the articles in the domestic like product. Further, one of the issues presented in these investigations is

whether the domestic industry has begun producing and selling more of the higher-valued products within the

domestic like product, and, if so, the extent to which this is due to the effects of the subject imports or other

factors.”); Certain Off-the-Road Tires from China, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC Pub.

4031 at 15 (Aug. 2008); and Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India, and Indonesia, Invs. Nos. 701-

TA-442 to 443 and 731-TA-1095 to 1097(Final), USITC Pub. 3884 at 19 (Sept. 2006) (“We typically rely on

(continued...)

23

reporting number (5806.32.1090) that included not only the subject merchandise but also cut-edge

ribbons and wide ribbons, among others. Even after the establishment of four statistical reporting

numbers (5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050; and 5806.32.1060) designed to capture imports of

polyester and nylon narrow woven ribbons, effective as of January 2008, imports of other narrow woven

ribbons (such as metallic) entered under separate, mixed statistical reporting numbers.143

Second, a number of firms, many of them large, reportedly have only a limited sense of whether

the narrow woven ribbons that they source and sell are produced in the United States or in other countries,

in part because the primary U.S. producers of narrow woven ribbons also import the product. In

particular, ***.144

Third, the measure of quantity is problematic. U.S. producers use square yards to measure

production and certain other volume metrics, and the use of square yards is generally acknowledged as a

“fair” method to collect volume data in this industry.145 Official import statistics, to the extent that they

can be used, however, are collected in terms of weight (kilograms), and not area. Moreover, few if any

importers routinely maintain area-based quantity data, instead collecting data in terms of units (generally

spools, which themselves may contain varying yardage) and sometimes linear yards.146 Indeed, even after

best efforts, seven U.S. importers, representing approximately one-quarter of subject imports in 2008,

were unable to provide even carefully prepared estimates of their quantity data in square yards.147

Importer Michaels stated that the “ability to do it {report in square yards} for current sales would be

pretty much impossible, and it would be absolutely impossible to provide any historical context.148

Finally, for those companies that were able to provide carefully prepared estimates of quantity

data in square yards, all data had to be reviewed carefully because of differences in product mix. These

included not only size differences and differences in characteristics (such as the use of metallics and other

embellishments), but also the fact that ribbons in assortments or other highly processed combinations

carried much higher (allocated) average unit values.149

On the other hand, although several factors tend to undermine the reliability of volume data by

units, volume data by value were not subject to all of the same limitations and the data collected were

considerably more comprehensive.150 For these reasons, despite the fact that our normal practice is to

consider volume in terms of weight or units rather than value,151 we have relied on value rather than
 151 (...continued)

quantity-based measures of volume because value-based measures can be skewed by changes of product mix and the

fact that, for subject imports, the unit values are of merchandise sold at LTFV ... . Although the Commission has

relied principally on value-based measurements in rare instances, those investigations involved variations in value

among articles within the scope and/or domestic like product that were much larger than those present here. In those

instances, measuring volume by units was particularly problematic, because value variations for different articles

could differ by factors of as much as 100.”), aff’d on this point in Navneet Publications (India), Ltd. v, United States,

30 Int’l Trade Rep. 1430 (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb. 26, 2008) with, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp.

1161, 1172-73 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992) (noting the statute does not specify how volume is to be evaluated and the

Commission’s discretion in investigative methodology) (permissible to rely on value basis to evaluate import

volumes); American Bearing Manufacturers Association v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d. 1100, 1109 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2004) (“ITC’s use of value-based indicators to evaluate volume in the context of a ball bearing investigation is

consistent with its past practice.”), aff’g Ball Bearings from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-989 (Final), USITC Pub. 3593

(April 2003).

 152 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 66 (Shea for Berwick Offray).

 153 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 188-89 (Mitchell for Michaels).

 154 For example, in 2008, the largest importers of narrow woven ribbons from China were ***; from Taiwan were

***; and from all other sources were ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1. Likewise, Berwick Offray, which

accounted for *** percent of reported U.S. production of narrow woven ribbons in 2008, reported its top 10

customers since 2006 and estimated what share of its 2008 sales each accounted for as follows: ***. See, e.g.,

Berwick Offray’s Domestic Producer Questionnaire Response at Answer to Question IV-23.

 155 See, e.g., CR at II-7; PR at II-5.

 156 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 130 (Vaughn), 189-90 (Bucklin, Icsman); Respondent Importers’ Postconf. Br. at 20-

21.

 157 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 25; Confer. Tr. at 68 (Shea).

 158 See, e.g., CR at II-7; PR at II-5.

 159 See, e.g., CR at II-7; PR at II-5.

24

quantity measurements to measure volume in the preliminary phase of these investigations, unless

otherwise noted.

2. Demand Conditions

As indicated above, narrow woven ribbons are used in a variety of end-use applications. Berwick

Offray reports having well over 20,000 customers for its narrow woven ribbons products.152 Respondents

participating in the staff conference did not have a sense of the size of the U.S. narrow woven ribbons

market or their sector’s share of that market.153 Although the record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations reflects a large number of purchasers of narrow woven ribbons, a relatively limited number

of firms account for a sizeable portion of the largest purchases.154

According to questionnaire responses in the preliminary phase of these investigations, demand for

narrow woven ribbons is largely determined by the overall economy and fashion trends.155 Whereas

respondents assert that the domestic industry is facing a serious and extended recession,156 petitioner

disagrees.157 When asked how overall demand for narrow woven ribbons has changed since January

2006, *** reported that demand has slightly increased, citing an increase in craft and scrap-booking

projects and lower price points of narrow woven ribbons.158 Berwick Offray reported that demand for

narrow woven ribbons historically has not been affected by downturns in the economy because

consumers tend to increase their at-home activities, such as craft projects using narrow woven ribbons,

during economic recessions159. *** reported that demand decreased since 2006. Importers gave varying
 160 Twenty-three of 54 responding importers reported that demand decreased since 2006, with most citing the

recession and three citing a decrease in gift wrapping and scrap-booking trends that utilize narrow woven ribbons

and an increased use of alternative packaging that does not use narrow woven ribbons (such as bags, pouches, and

boxes). Ten importers reported that demand has increased, due to an increase in arts and crafts projects, design

innovation, and lower prices. Ten importers report that there has been no change in demand, and seven reported that

demand has fluctuated, following trends in the overall economy and fashion. Four importers reported that demand

had been increasing since 2006 but has decreased since the recession. See, e.g., CR at II-7 to II-8; PR at II-5.

 161 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 52 (Pajic).

 162 See, e.g., Ribbon Retailers’ Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 1-2; Respondent Importers’ Postconf. Br. at 21-24, Exh.

6; Confer. Tr. at 112 (Mitchell for Michaels), 128-29 (Vaughn for MNC Stribbons), 151-53 (Lodge for Liberty

Ribbons), 152 (Bucklin for Costco).

 163 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6 (showing fluctuations in quantities reported by quarter).

 164 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 165 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 166 See, e.g., CR at IV-15; PR at IV-10; CR/PR at Table IV-9.

25

responses about demand trends since 2006, with the largest portion of them reporting that demand

decreased since 2006.160

Whereas petitioner Berwick Offray asserts that demand for narrow woven ribbons is not

seasonal,161 the Ribbon Retailers and Respondent Importers contend that demand is very seasonal, as

reflected in trends in monthly import statistics. They assert that a large increase in narrow woven ribbons

trade begins in July and builds in August and September as retailers move their merchandise through the

supply chain in order to stock their shelves for Halloween, Thanksgiving, and the December holidays;

merchandise received in the third quarter, they assert, is primarily sold in the fourth quarter. They

acknowledge that there are other periods of increased narrow woven ribbons trade – with November,

December, and January imports probably related to Valentine’s Day; February imports attributable to St.

Patrick’s Day, Easter/Spring, and Mother’s Day; and a small build-up from April to May related to

weddings and the Fourth of July. Nevertheless, they argue that the third-quarter activity is mountainous

compared to the hills and valleys during the rest of the year. The Ribbon Retailers and Respondent

Importers further assert that imports play a greater role in holiday/seasonal narrow woven ribbons, which,

they contend, may explain why petitioner, who reports the majority of its business in “basic” ribbons,

does not view the holiday season as a greater “bump” compared to other periods.162 We find that the

pricing data reported in the preliminary phase of these investigations and *** reflect that seasonality does

play a role in the U.S. narrow woven ribbons market.163 We intend to explore this issue further in any

final phase investigations, including the extent to which seasonality may limit the utility of data on

interim periods, depending on the months involved.

Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, the value of apparent U.S.

consumption increased from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007 and then decreased to $*** in 2008; it was

$*** in interim 2008 and $*** in interim 2009.164 The value of apparent U.S. consumption declined

overall by *** percent between 2006 and 2008, and was *** percent lower in interim 2009 than in

interim 2008.165 The value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments declined by *** percent from 2006 to

2008, as did U.S. imports from Taiwan and all other sources, by 6.0 percent and 15.7 percent,

respectively. Over the same period, the value of U.S. imports from China increased by 24.6 percent. 

Whereas the domestic industry’s shipments and imports from Taiwan and all other sources declined each

year, imports from China increased each year.166
 167 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 168 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 169 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 170 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 171 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 53 (Shea), 219-20 (Wong). ***. See, e.g., CR at V-4 at n.5; PR at V-2 at n.5.

 172 See, e.g., CR at IV-9; PR at IV-5.

 173 Wm. Wright reported that it was a U.S. producer but ceased U.S. production in ***, after which it was *** an

importer of narrow woven ribbons. See, e.g., CR at III-1; PR at III-1. U.S. producer *** reported that ***. See,

e.g., CR at III-1 at n.2; PR at III-1 at n.2.

 174 See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 2.

 175 See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 1.

 176 See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 1.

 177 See, e.g., CR at III-4; PR at III-3.

26

3. Supply Conditions

The U.S. market is supplied by domestic producers, subject imports, and a small share of imports

from countries other than China and Taiwan. In terms of apparent U.S. consumption by value, the

domestic industry’s share of the U.S. market decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007,

and *** percent in 2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.167

In terms of subject imports, the market share for imports of subject merchandise from Taiwan, by

value, decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and then increased to *** percent in

2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.168 The market share for subject

imports from China, by value, increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and to ***

percent in 2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.169

The record compiled in the preliminary phase of these investigations indicates that no single nonsubject country accounts for a substantial share of either U.S. imports or of the U.S. market as a whole.

Indeed, the collective share of the U.S. market accounted for by non-subject imports, as measured by

value, decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and to *** percent in 2008; it was ***

percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.170 Both petitioner and respondents testified that

the only noticeable source of non-subject imports during the period of investigation was Mexico,

although they reported that imports from Mexico were considerably smaller than imports from either of

the subject countries.171 Official import statistics corroborate this point, with Mexico as the leading

source of non-subject imports (with less than 3 percent of total imports, by quantity and value, in 2008),

followed by India and Korea (with less than 0.5 percent of total imports, by quantity and value, in

2008).172

During the period of investigation, two producers accounted for the vast majority of domestic

production, Berwick Offray and Schiff.173 According to petitioner, the Offray brand was founded over

100 years ago. Petitioner asserts that Offray is one of the largest U.S.-produced lines and the broadest

line of narrow woven ribbons in the world.174 In March 2002, petitioner acquired substantially all of the

narrow woven ribbons sales and manufacturing business and assets of C.M. Offray & Son, Inc. and its

subsidiaries.175 Petitioner integrated these assets, including the Offray and Lion Ribbon brands of ribbon,

into a newly formed company, Lion Ribbon Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Berwick

Offray LLC.176 Berwick Offray reported that narrow woven ribbons are first woven in its facility in South

Carolina then sent in a jumbo roll to its facility in Mexico for spooling, or to its facility in Maryland to be

dyed, printed, or packaged, and then sent either to its Maryland distribution center or to Mexico in a

jumbo roll to be transfer printed and/or spooled then distributed from its distribution facility in El Paso,

Texas.177
 178 Compare, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 37-38 (Pajic) with, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 124-25 (Freebern for Hobby Lobby).

 179 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-2.

 180 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-3.

 181 See, e.g., Ribbon Retailers’ Postconf. Br. at 14-18.

 182 See, e.g., CR at II-11 at n.20; PR at II-7 at n.20; Confer. Tr. at 158 (Freebern), 160 (Vaughn), 161 and 183

(Mitchell and Icsman).

 183 See, e.g., Ribbon Retailers’ Postconf. Br. at 7-10, Exhs. 7, 10, 11; Respondent Importers’ Postconf. Br. at 6-

15, Exh. 1-2; Confer. Tr. at 12-13 (Jacobs), 114-17 (Mitchell for Michaels), 122 (Icsman for Jo-Ann’s), 126-27

(Freebern).

 184 See, e.g., CR at II-12, II-13; PR at II-8.

 185 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 1.

 186 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 14, 19-21; Confer. Tr. at 28-30 (Deese), 41 (Kerr), 46-49, 58 (Shea), 61,

81 (Kerr).

 187 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables II-2, II-3; CR at II-12 to II-13; PR at II-8.

27

4. Interchangeability

Participants in the preliminary staff conference disagreed about the level of interchangeability

among subject imports from China and Taiwan and narrow woven ribbons produced in the United States. 

Berwick Offray asserted that narrow woven ribbons are a commodity product, but witnesses for

respondents argued that narrow woven ribbons respond to changing style and fashion trends.178 In

response to the Commission’s questionnaires, *** of the domestic producers and a majority of the

importers that compared narrow woven ribbons from China and Taiwan with those from the United States

reported that they are always or frequently interchangeable. Moreover, a majority of importers and ***

of the domestic producers reported that subject imports from China are always or frequently

interchangeable with subject imports from Taiwan.179 In addition, *** of the responding U.S. producers

reported that differences other than price between subject imports and the domestic like product are only

sometimes a significant factor. Responses from importers, however, were more mixed, with slightly more

than half of responding importers reporting that differences other than price between U.S.-produced

narrow woven ribbons and subject imports are only sometimes or never a significant factor.180

Respondents argued that Berwick Offray is unable to provide U.S. retailers with attractive,

distinctive narrow woven ribbons with fresh, exciting, or cute styles, designs, texture, or fabrication

necessary to secure these discretionary purchases from what they contend are discerning and generally

female customers.181 Yet, when asked at the staff conference whether any of these firms had ever

requested Berwick Offray to meet their requirements on custom designs or small-volume orders and were

refused, none provided a specific example.182 Some respondents reported service problems with Berwick

Offray such as ***),183 and some importers reported experiencing product availability, product range,

service, and quality differences between subject imports and the domestic like product.184 Berwick Offray

is not aware of any situation in which it had to turn away an order for narrow woven ribbons because it

was unable to match a color or because it was unable to manufacture what the customer wanted.185 It

insists that the company has the capability to make any narrow woven product and claims that it uses

modern, efficient weaving machines, has up-to-date dyeing, printing, and converting technologies, has an

extensive and talented design group, and has relationships with other design studios.186 We find that the

current record indicates that subject imports from China and Taiwan are at least moderately

interchangeable with the domestic like product.187 We intend to explore this issue further in any final

phase investigations.
 188 Relevant to the likely volume of subject imports (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)(I)), Commerce initiated its

antidumping duty investigations based on estimated dumping margins ranging from 208.80 percent to 231.40 percent

for narrow woven ribbons from China and based on estimated dumping margins ranging from 116.60 percent to

137.20 percent for subject imports from Taiwan. See, e.g., CR at I-5; PR at I-4. Commerce initiated its

countervailing duty investigation on subject imports from China and indicated its intention to investigate one loan

program, five grant programs, nine income and other direct tax programs, and three indirect tax and tax exemption

programs. See, e.g., CR at I-4; PR at I-3 to I-4.

 189 See, e.g., Petition, Vol. I at 10.

 190 See Memorandum of Understanding Between the Governments of the United States of America and the

People’s Republic of China Concerning Trade in Textile and Apparel Products (entered on Nov. 8, 2005), cited in

Petition, Vol. I at 10, Exh. 6; CR at VII-5 to VII-6; PR at VII-5 to VII-6.

 191 See, e.g., Ribbon Retailers’ Postconf. Br. at 19-20, Exh. 1 at 5; Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 26. The Ribbon

Retailers assert that the Commission’s section 332 report on the status of the Textile report characterized the quota

on category 229 as not “binding” because the Commission uses a quota-fill rate of 90 percent to identify a “binding

quota” and the fill rates for category 229 were about 30 percent in 2006 and 2007 and less than 40 percent in 2008. 

See, e.g., Ribbon Retailers’ Postconf. Br. at 20.

 192 Compare, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 26-27 with, e.g., Ribbon Retailers’ Postconf. Br. at 19-21, Exh. 1

at 5-6.

 193 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 194 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 195 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 196 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-7.

28

C. Likely Volume of Cumulated Subject Imports from China and Taiwan188

In considering the likely volume of cumulated subject imports, we first examined volume trends

during the period of investigation. We note that imports of narrow woven ribbons from China and

Taiwan into the United States, like other textile products, were subject to various quotas until these two

countries acceded to the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) on December 11, 2001 and January 1, 2002,

respectively.189 In 2005, the United States and China concluded a bilateral textile agreement (“U.S./China

Bilateral Agreement”) that established new quotas for certain textiles produced or manufactured in China

and exported to the United States after January 1, 2006. Narrow woven ribbons were one of a variety of

products that were included as “Category 229” under the U.S./China Bilateral Agreement. These quotas

expired on December 31, 2008.190 Both petitioner and the Ribbon Retailers agree that China’s exports did

not fill the quantitative quota on “Category 229” goods during the pendency of the U.S./China Bilateral

Agreement.191 They disagree whether the volume of subject imports from China increased significantly

after the expiration of the agreement, although they agree that the elimination of the quotas reduced some

of the administrative burdens associated with exporting narrow woven ribbons from China.192 We find

based on the current record that subject imports from China and Taiwan each have been present in the

U.S. market in large volumes throughout the period of investigation, notwithstanding the changing status

of the U.S./China Bilateral Agreement over this period.193

In absolute terms, the volume of cumulated subject imports, by value, increased from $62.0

million in 2006 to $65.8 million in 2007, and then decreased to $65.0 million in 2008, an overall increase

of 4.7 percent.194 Cumulated subject imports were 7.9 percent higher in interim 2009, at $10.8 million,

than in interim 2008, at $10.0 million.195 Official import statistics on the more narrowly defined HTSUS

subcategories since 2008 also show increases in the cumulated volume of subject imports from China and

Taiwan.196 As noted earlier, however, domestic producers imported subject merchandise from China and

Taiwan throughout the period of investigation and arranged imports of subject merchandise for other

firms that acted as the importers of record, so at least a portion of these imports are related to the domestic
 197 See, e.g., Ribbon Retailers’ Postconf. Br. at 4-14.

 198 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 199 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 200 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 201 See, e.g., CR at VII-6; PR at VII-6.

 202 See, e.g., CR at VII-7; PR at VII-6.

 203 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-3.

 204 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-3.

 205 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-3.

 206 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-3.

 207 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 43-44 (Kerr).

29

industry’s own activities. In any final phase investigations, we intend to explore the role of the domestic

industry in importing or arranging for the importation of subject merchandise from China and Taiwan and

its reason for doing so. We also intend to explore what respondents claim to be a recent trend whereby

retailers are increasingly importing directly from the subject countries rather than sourcing their imports

through Berwick Offray for an additional fee.197

In terms of apparent U.S. consumption by value, the market share for cumulated imports of

subject merchandise from China and Taiwan increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007

and *** percent in 2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.198 The

domestic industry’s share of the U.S. market, by value, decreased from *** percent in 2006 to ***

percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim

2009.199 In terms of non-subject imports, their market share, by value, decreased from *** percent in

2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent

in interim 2009.200

In addition to examining trends during the period of investigation, we usually analyze the likely

future volume of cumulated imports in the context of expected demand in the imminent future. As noted

previously, however, the parties disagree about demand projections, particularly the role that current

economic conditions play on future consumption.

In terms of the foreign industries, although the Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires

to 82 firms that were identified as possible producers/exporters of narrow woven ribbons in China and for

which contact information was available, the Commission received completed questionnaires from only

two producers of subject in merchandise in China201. *** reported accounting for *** percent of total

narrow woven ribbons production in China, whereas *** reported that its production was *** to estimate

its share of production in China.202 Based on their reported data, weaving and spooling capacity in China

increased over the period of investigation and both measures of capacity were higher in interim 2009 than

in interim 2008.203 Combined data for these two foreign producers also projected increases in weaving

and spooling capacity.204 These producers collectively reported declining end-of-period inventories

during the period of investigation and projected further declines in the imminent future.205 Their reported

capacity utilization fell from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008, and

they project *** capacity utilization in 2009 (*** percent) *** capacity utilization in 2010 (***

percent).206

Petitioner asserts that since the lifting of the U.S./China Bilateral Agreement, there has been a

proliferation of producers and capacity in China.207 Petitioner provided information from company press

reports and the Internet that it asserts show the construction of new narrow woven ribbons plants in

China, purchases of new and improved equipment, new investments in subject facilities, and substantial
 208 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 32-33, Exh. 12; Confer. Tr. at 44, 50 (Kerr); Petition, Vol. I at 77-79,

Exhs. 12, 16-22.

 209 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 32-33, Exh. 12; Confer. Tr. at 44, 50 (Kerr); Petition, Vol. I at 77-79,

Exhs. 12, 16-22.

 210 See, e.g., CR at VII-9; PR at VII-7.

 211 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 212 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 213 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 214 Their reported capacity utilization fell from 94.0 percent in 2006 to 93.5 percent in 2007 and 85.0 percent in

2008; it was 56.6 percent in interim 2008 and 60.6 percent in interim 2009. Producers in Taiwan project capacity

utilization of 68.3 percent in 2009 and 73.1 percent in 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 215 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-4. There are no reported import barriers in third-country markets on narrow

woven ribbons produced in China and Taiwan. See, e.g., CR at VII-13; PR at VII-10.

 216 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 217 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-4. Producers in Taiwan projected that exports to the United States would

account for *** percent and *** percent of their total shipments of narrow woven ribbons in 2009 and 2010. See,

e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 218 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 219 See e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-5. U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of cumulated subject imports

increased from 6.1 million square yards in 2006 to 7.0 million square yards in 2007, and 7.2 million square yards in

2008, and were 7.2 million square yards in interim 2008 and 7.0 million square yards in interim 2009. Id.

 220 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-6.

30

existing capacity already in China.208 At this stage, it is difficult to draw conclusions from the fragments

of available data on operations in China. The data available from the participating producers in China

and submitted by petitioner indicate that capacity utilization in China has fallen during the period of

investigation and that reporting producers in China are highly export-oriented.209

In contrast to the sparse data reported on narrow woven ribbons production operations in China,

the Commission received questionnaire responses from 10 firms that reportedly collectively account for

the majority of subject narrow woven ribbons production in Taiwan.210 In terms of their weaving

capacity, reporting producers in Taiwan reported increasing their capacity from 21.1 million square yards

in 2006 to 22.1 million square yards in 2007 but decreasing their capacity to 20.1 million square yards in

2008, and they reported higher capacity levels in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.211 They collectively

project lower capacity levels in 2009 and 2010 of 17.0 million and 14.9 million square yards.212 Their

spooling capacity data were consistent with their weaving capacity data and followed similar trends.213 In

addition, producers in Taiwan reported declining capacity utilization levels that could be used to ship

additional volumes of subject imports to the U.S. market in the imminent future.214 Like their

counterparts in China, the record indicates that producers in Taiwan are export-oriented.215 Indeed, the

U.S. market is the single largest destination for narrow woven ribbons produced in Taiwan.216 As a ratio

of their total shipments of narrow woven ribbons, exports to the U.S. market increased from 61.6 percent

in 2006 to 62.8 percent in 2007 and 63.0 percent in 2008 and were 51.8 percent in both interim 2008 and

interim 2009.217 Producers in Taiwan *** also report some end-of-period inventories of narrow woven

ribbons in Taiwan, ***.218

According to questionnaire responses, U.S. importers held relatively large and increasing

inventories of subject merchandise during the period of investigation,219 and importers reported ordering

additional quantities from China and Taiwan for delivery after April 2009.220 On the other hand, data

reported in the preliminary phase of these investigations indicate that such inventory levels are relatively

common in this industry. Domestic producers reported that *** percent of their narrow woven ribbons
 221 See, e.g., CR at II-1; PR at II-1.

 222 See, e.g., CR at II-1; PR at II-1.

 223 See, e.g., CR at II-1; PR at II-1.

 224 See, e.g., CR at II-8 to II-9; PR at II-6.

 225 See, e.g., CR at II-9 to II-10; PR at II-6.

 226 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables II-2, II-3; CR at II-12 to II-13; PR at II-8.

 227 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-2; CR at V-2; PR at V-2.

 228 See, e.g., CR at V-3; PR at V-2.

 229 See, e.g., CR at V-3; PR at V-2.

 230 See, e.g., CR at V-4; PR at V-2 to V-3.

31

are sold from inventory, with lead times ranging from ***.221 A majority of importers of narrow woven

ribbons from China reported that most or all of their sales are from inventory, with most lead times

ranging from one day to two weeks.222 Nearly all of the importers of narrow woven ribbons from Taiwan

reported that most or all of their sales are from inventory, with most lead times ranging from one day to

two weeks.223

Based on the above discussion, we find for purposes of these preliminary determinations that

cumulated subject imports from China and Taiwan have had and will likely continue to have a substantial

presence in the U.S. market for narrow woven ribbons. We are unable to determine on this record,

however, whether a substantial increase in the volume of cumulated subject imports from China and

Taiwan is likely in the imminent future. Although it was asserted that the volume of subject imports

would likely increase due to the expiration of the U.S./China Bilateral Agreement and because certain ***

purchasers are likely to shift their purchases from domestic narrow woven ribbon to subject imports now

that the purchasers are making direct imports of subject merchandise without assistance from Berwick

Offray, the current record contains too little evidence to evaluate such arguments.

D. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In assessing the likely price effects of the subject imports, we consider pricing developments

during the period of investigation and likely developments in the imminent future in light of key

conditions of competition in the U.S. market.

Questionnaire respondents reported limited ability to substitute other products for narrow woven

ribbons, with cut-edge ribbons being substitutable only for limited applications.224 Narrow woven ribbons

account for approximately *** percent of the total cost of end uses such as crafts, home decor, and floral

arrangements and for *** percent of the total cost of packaging applications according to ***. Importers

reported that narrow woven ribbons can account for up to *** percent of the total cost of floral

arrangements and home decor, and can account for *** percent of the cost in apparel applications.225

The current record indicates that subject imports from China and Taiwan are at least moderately

interchangeable with the domestic like product, as discussed above.226 Prices for narrow woven ribbons

are determined using ***.227 Domestic producers’ sales are *** made through short-term contract sales

(*** percent of *** sales) or spot sales (*** percent of *** sales), whereas the vast majority of importers

of subject merchandise from China and Taiwan reported that all or nearly all of their sales are on a spot

basis.228 In this industry, discounts and some form of markdown support to retailers (i.e., incurring at

least some of the cost to clear out existing inventory on the shelves of retail space, including the

supplier’s own product) are not unusual.229

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for six narrow woven ribbons products.230

Usable pricing data provided by *** domestic producers accounted for *** percent of the value of
 231 See, e.g., CR at V-4 to V-5; PR at V-3.

 232 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-8.

 233 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6.

 234 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6.

 235 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6.

 236 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 237 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-9, Table V-10; CR at V-22, V-26 to V-28; PR at V-7 to V-8.

 238 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-4 to V-6.

32

domestic producers’ U.S. commercial shipments during the period of investigation. *** importers of

narrow woven ribbons from China provided pricing data that accounted for *** percent of the value of

U.S. shipments of subject imports from China during the period, and *** importers of narrow woven

ribbons from Taiwan provided pricing data that accounted for *** percent of the value of U.S. shipments

of subject imports from Taiwan during the period.231 Based on these data, subject imports undersold the

domestic like product in *** of *** possible quarterly pricing comparisons by margins ranging from ***

percent to *** percent and averaging *** percent.232

Notwithstanding this widespread underselling of the domestic like product by subject imports

from China and Taiwan, the current record does not support a finding of likely significant price

depression or suppression. For each of the six products, the prices of domestically produced narrow

woven ribbons fluctuated during the period investigation, with weighted-average sales prices for product

1 and product 2 produced in the United States decreasing overall between the first quarter of 2006 and the

first quarter of 2009, and with weighted-average sales prices for the other pricing products produced in

the United States remaining relatively flat or increasing overall between the first quarter of 2006 and the

first quarter of 2009.233 By comparison, the weighted-average sales prices for products 1, 3, and 5

imported from China fluctuated but increased overall during this period, whereas the weighted-average

sales prices for the other pricing products imported from China decreased overall.234 The weightedaverage sales prices for products 1 and 2 imported from Taiwan decreased overall during the period of

investigation whereas the weighted-average sales prices for the other pricing products imported from

Taiwan increased overall.235 Regarding possible suppression of prices, the domestic industry’s COGS as

a share of net sales declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 before increasing *** to

*** percent in 2008; the ratio was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.236 Based

on this record, we do not find that the domestic industry is experiencing a significant price/cost squeeze

or that prices are being significantly suppressed relative to costs.

The domestic producers submitted a number of lost sales and lost revenue allegations. Very few

of these allegations were confirmed, although a large number of purchasers failed to respond to these

allegations.237

Thus, although cumulated subject imports from China and Taiwan are likely to continue to

undersell the domestic like product, we cannot conclude based on the current record that subject imports

from China and Taiwan would enter at prices that are likely to have significant adverse effects on U.S.

prices and likely to increase demand for subject imports relative to domestic consumption and production

in the imminent future.

We understand that in the preliminary phase of these investigations, several firms had difficulty

reporting pricing data in square yards and data from many of the firms that staff deemed usable were

based on estimates. As noted in the staff report, unit prices for some of the pricing products ranged

widely by firm,238 and it is not clear on this record whether this is partly attributable to product-mix issues

(especially with regard to pricing products defined to include narrow woven ribbons both with and

without embellishments), firms’ inaccuracy in unit conversion, or firms’ estimation errors. Moreover,

*** were unable to report requested purchase prices from U.S. producers and direct import purchase
 239 See, e.g., CR at V-5 at n.9; PR at V-3 at n.9

 240 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 213 (Mitchell for Michaels).

 241 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1, Table III-1.

 242 See, e.g., CR at VI-4; PR at VI-1.

 243 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-2, Table C-1.

 244 The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments, by quantity, decreased from *** square yards in 2006 to *** square

yards in 2007 but increased to *** square yards in 2008; they were *** square yards in interim 2008 and *** square

yards in interim 2009. The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments, by value, decreased from $*** in 2006 to $*** in

2007 and $*** in 2008; they were $*** in interim 2008 and $*** in interim 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-4,

Table C-1.

 245 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 246 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 247 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-2. The domestic industry’s spooling capacity fluctuated during the period of

investigation, ending *** percent lower in 2008 than in 2006, although there were ***. See, e.g., CR at III-3 to III-

(continued...)

33

prices from each of the subject countries. They each stated that they do not always know the country of

origin of the products they purchase, even when the product is purchased from U.S. producer Berwick

Offray, which supplies the retailers with both domestically produced and imported narrow woven

ribbons.239 Michaels reported that it does not track inventory by the product categories as defined by the

Commission’s pricing products, but rather by spools described by limited product descriptions, which do

not necessarily include the width or length.240

In any final phase investigations, we intend to collect pricing data on some products measured in

square yards and on other products based on alternative units of measurement (such as “eaches” (or

spools) of a specific width and length, or linear yards). For those firms that reportedly do not track their

narrow woven ribbons purchases by country of origin, we intend to seek these retailers’ total quarterly

narrow woven ribbons purchases from each of their vendors over a specified period. We will also solicit

input from the parties at the time draft final phase questionnaires are circulated concerning other ways to

improve the utility of any pricing and trade data collected in the final phase of these investigations.

E. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry

During the period of investigation, performance indicators for the domestic narrow woven

ribbons industry fluctuated, registering mixed gains and losses. The ***.241 Whereas the overall industry

reported fairly stable operating margins between 2006 and 2008 and a higher operating margin in interim

2009 than in interim 2008, the record also reflected ***.242

The domestic industry’s production increased from *** square yards in 2006 to *** square yards

in 2007 but then decreased to *** square yards in 2008; it was *** square yards in interim 2008 and ***

square yards in interim 2009.243 The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments by quantity and by value

followed different trends, declining between 2006 and 2007 but increasing between 2007 and 2008; U.S.

shipments by quantity and value were higher in interim 2008 than in interim 2009.244

During this period, the domestic industry’s market share, by value, declined progressively, from

*** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008

and *** percent in interim 2009.245 Cumulated subject imports from China and Taiwan increased their

share of the U.S. market, by value, in each of these periods, from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in

2007 and *** percent in 2008; cumulated subject imports’ market share was *** percent in interim 2008

and *** percent in interim 2009.246

The domestic industry’s weaving capacity remained stable throughout the period of investigation,

at *** in 2006, 2007, and 2008 and *** in interim 2008 and interim 2009.247 The domestic industry’s
 247 (...continued)

4; PR at III-3; CR/PR at Table III-3.

 248 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 but

then declined to *** percent in 2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table C-1.

 249 Capacity utilization reported by Berwick Offray ranged from ***, while Schiff reported *** ranging from

***. Berwick Offray reported that it had approximately *** looms but was currently only running roughly ***

looms. See, e.g., CR at III-2 to III-3; PR at III-2; CR/PR at Table III-2.

 250 See, e.g., CR at II-4 at n.8; PR at II-3 at n.8.

 251 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-5 (showing the domestic industry’s end-of-period inventories increased from ***

square yards in 2006 to *** square yards in 2007 and *** square yards in 2008; they were *** square yards in

interim 2008 and *** square yards in interim 2009). As expressed as a ratio to production, U.S. shipments, and total

shipments, the domestic industry’s end-of-period inventories ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-5.

 252 See, e.g., CR at II-1, III-9; PR at II-1, III-4.

 253 See, e.g., CR at III-9; PR at III-4.

 254 See, e.g., CR at III-9; PR at III-4.

 255 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-7.

 256 See, e.g., CR at III-13 to III-14; PR at III-6.

 257 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-7.

 258 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-7.

 259 See, e.g., CR at III-14; PR at III-6.

 260 Net sales, by value, decreased from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007, and $*** in 2008 and were $*** in interim

2009 compared to $*** in interim 2008. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 261 See, e.g., Table C-1.

 262 The domestic industry reported operating profits of $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, and $*** in 2008, and its

operating profits were $*** in interim 2008 and $*** in interim 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VI-1. The

domestic industry’s operating income as a ratio to net sales was *** percent in 2006 and 2007 and then increased to

*** percent in 2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table

(continued...)

34

capacity utilization was relatively low throughout the period of investigation.248 Nevertheless, the ***,249

and the *** of unused capacity is attributable to ***.250

The domestic industry’s end-of-period inventories were *** relative to its production, U.S.

shipments, and total shipments, and increased between 2006 and 2007 and between 2007 and 2008; its

inventories were higher in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.251 On the other hand, *** of their sales are

from inventory,252 and ***.253 In addition, *** reported that ***.254

In terms of employment, the domestic industry employed fewer production and related workers

(“PRWs”) in 2008 than in 2006, and fewer in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.255 The majority of the

decline in PRWs was reported by ***. Berwick Offray reported reducing its employment levels due to a

variety of reasons including savings initiatives and targeted productivity improvements (*** PRWs),

production shifts to its facility in Mexico (*** PRWs), and reductions in production volumes (***

PRWs).256 Hours worked and wages paid to PRWs increased between 2006 and 2007 but decreased

between 2007 and 2008, whereas hourly wages declined between 2006 and 2007 and increased between

2007 and 2008.257 Productivity progressively increased between 2006 and 2008, whereas unit labor costs

progressively declined over this period258. ***.259

The domestic industry’s total net sales, by value, decreased throughout the period of

investigation.260 Due to ***,261 the domestic industry remained profitable throughout the period of

investigation.262
 262 (...continued)

C-1.

 263 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 138-39 (Lodge); Respondent Importers’ Postconf. Br. at 15-17.

 264 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 21-23.

 265 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 23; Confer. Tr. at 28-30 (Deese), 44 (Kerr). In any event, the statute

does not permit the Commission to decline to find a material adverse impact by subject imports simply because the

industry is not “good enough” to deserve relief – instead the inquiry centers on determining whether there is, or will

likely be, an adverse impact by subject imports that is material. As the Court of International Trade has

acknowledged, “{u}nderlying the vulnerability analysis is the principle that the foreign industry {and therefore the

Commission} must ‘take the industry as {it} finds it.’” Committee for Fair Beams Imports v. United States, 27 CIT

932, 961 (2003) (quoting Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs. of America, 85 F.3d 1561, 1569 (Fed. Cir.

1996)).

35

In addition to the factors already discussed above (such as the domestic industry’s imports and

arranged imports of subject merchandise and respondents’ allegations concerning the domestic industry’s

ability to supply innovative designs and meet service needs), we have considered whether there are other

factors that will likely have an imminent impact on the domestic industry. Although non-subject imports

were sold in the U.S. market throughout the period of investigation, their presence was very small and

declining, as discussed above. We also examined respondents’ contention that Berwick Offray’s

scattered design, production, and distribution facilities (in New Jersey, South Carolina, Maryland,

Mexico, and Texas) resulted in cost inefficiencies263. ***.264 Moreover, the domestic industry has

undertaken a number of steps to reduce its costs and increase its efficiency over the years.265

For purposes of these preliminary phase investigations and based on the current record, we do not

find that the domestic industry is vulnerable. We find, based on this record, only limited correlation

between subject import volumes and the condition of the domestic industry. We intend to examine

closely these causation issues and other issues identified in any final phase investigations. Given,

however, the limited information on the record regarding foreign production operations in China and

recent reports of actions by retailers to switch to direct imports of narrow woven ribbons, and that some

of the data deficiencies identified above could be remedied in any final phase investigations, we are

unable to conclude that the record establishes clear and convincing evidence that there is no reasonable

indication of a threat of material injury by reason of subject imports. Accordingly, we find for purposes

of these preliminary determinations a reasonable indication that the domestic narrow woven ribbons

industry is threatened with material injury by reason of cumulated subject imports from China and

Taiwan.

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, and based on the record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations, we find that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic industry producing narrow

woven ribbons is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China and Taiwan

that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value, and imports of narrow woven ribbons

from China that are allegedly subsidized by the Government of China. Due to a lack of reliable

information in these investigations on specific issues discussed above, we cannot conclude that the record

as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that there is no threat of material injury and no

likelihood exists that contrary evidence will arise in any final phase investigations. See American Lamb

Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d at 1001-04.

 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 Berwick

Offray LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary Lion Ribbon Company, Inc., Berwick, PA, on July 9, 2009,

alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by

reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of narrow woven ribbons with woven

selvedge (“narrow woven ribbons”)1

 from China and LTFV imports of narrow woven ribbons from 

Taiwan. Information relating to the background of the investigations is provided below.2

Effective date Action

July 9, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission’s

investigations (74 FR 34362, July 15, 2009)

July 30, 2009 Commission’s conference1

August 6, 2009

Commerce’s notice of antidumping duty investigations initiation (74 FR

39291); Commerce’s notice of countervailing duty investigation initiation (74

FR 39298)

August 21, 2009 Commission’s vote

August 24, 2009 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

August 31, 2009 Commission’s views transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses appearing 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--
 3

 Conference transcript, p. 218 (Vaughn).

I-2

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

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

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

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

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

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

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

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

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

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

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

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

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

. . . 

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

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

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

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

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

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

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

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Organization of the Report

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

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

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

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

Narrow woven ribbons are generally used as embellishments to apparel, home furnishings,

decorative packaging, and crafts. The leading U.S. producers of narrow woven ribbons that account for

the vast majority of U.S. production are Berwick Offray and Lawrence Schiff Silk Mills, Inc. (“Schiff”),

while leading producers of narrow woven ribbons outside the United States include Yama Ribbons &

Bows Co. and Sanding Ribbon Group of China and Roung Shu Industry Corp., Shienq Huong Enterprise

Co., Ltd., and King Young Enterprise, Co., Ltd. of Taiwan.3

 The leading U.S. importers of narrow woven

ribbons from China are ***, while the leading importers of narrow woven ribbons from Taiwan are ***. 
 4 Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of

Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 39298, August 6, 2009.

I-3

Leading importers of narrow woven ribbons from nonsubject sources (primarily Mexico and the

European Union) include ***.

Apparent U.S. consumption of narrow woven ribbons totaled approximately $*** in 2008. U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments of narrow woven ribbons totaled $*** (*** square yards) in 2008, and

accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by value. U.S. imports from subject sources

totaled $65.0 million in 2008 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by value. U.S.

imports from nonsubject sources totaled $5.2 million in 2008 and accounted for *** percent of apparent

U.S. consumption 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 questionnaire responses of two firms that accounted for virtually

all U.S. production of narrow woven ribbons during 2008. U.S. imports are based on responses to the

Commission’s U.S. importer questionnaires by 74 companies, including virtually all of those believed to

be leading importers.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Narrow woven ribbons have been the subject of no prior countervailing or antidumping duty

investigations in the United States. 

NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALLEGED SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Alleged Subsidies

On August 6, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

countervailing duty investigation on narrow woven ribbons from China.4

 The following government

programs in China were identified:

! Loan Programs

" Policy Loans to Narrow Woven Ribbon Producers From State-Owned Commercial Banks

! Grant Programs

" The State Key Technology Renovation Project Fund

" Famous Brands Program

" Export Assistance Grants

" Export Interest Subsidy Funds for Enterprises Located in Zhejiang Province

" Technology Grants for Enterprises Located in Zhejiang Province

! Income and Other Direct Tax Programs

" Preferential Tax Policies for Enterprises with Foreign Investment (‘‘Two Free Three Half”)

Program

" Tax Subsidies to FIEs in Specially Designated Areas

" Preferential Tax Policies for Export-Oriented FIEs

" Corporate Income Tax Refund Program for Reinvestment of FIE Profits in Export-Oriented

Enterprises

" Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for ‘‘Productive” FIEs

" Tax Program for High or New Technology FIEs

" Preferential Tax Policies for Township Enterprises

" Preferential Tax Policies for Research and Development for FIEs
 5 Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 39291, August 6, 2009.

 6 Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 39291, August 6, 2009, and Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge

From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 39298, August 6,

2009.

 7

 The subject narrow woven ribbons may: 

• Also include natural or other non-manmade fibers; 

• Be of any color, style, pattern, or weave construction, including but not limited to single-faced satin,

double-faced satin, grosgrain, sheer, taffeta, twill, jacquard, or a combination of two or more colors, styles,

patterns, and/or weave constructions; 

• Have been subjected to, or composed of materials that have been subjected to, various treatments, including but

not limited to dyeing, printing, foil stamping, embossing, flocking, coating, and/or sizing;

• Have embellishments, including but not limited to appliqué, fringes, embroidery, buttons, glitter, sequins,

laminates, and/or adhesive backing; 

• Have wire and/or monofilament in, on, or along the longitudinal edges of the ribbon; 

• Have ends of any shape or dimension, including but not limited to straight ends that are perpendicular to the

longitudinal edges of the ribbon, tapered ends, flared ends or shaped ends, and the ends of such woven ribbons

may or may not be hemmed; 

• Have longitudinal edges that are straight or of any shape, and the longitudinal edges of such woven ribbon may

or may not be parallel to each other;

• Consist of such ribbons affixed to like ribbon and/or cut-edge woven ribbon, a configuration also known as an

(continued...)

I-4

" Tax Benefits for FIEs in Encouraged Industries that Purchase Domestic Equipment

! Indirect Tax and Tariff Exemption Programs

" Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for FIEs Using Imported Technology and Equipment

" Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for Certain Domestic Enterprises Using Imported

Technology and Equipment

" VAT Rebate for FIE Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment

Alleged Sales at LTFV

On August 6, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

antidumping duty investigations on narrow woven ribbons from China and Taiwan.5

 Commerce has

initiated antidumping duty investigations based on estimated dumping margins ranging from 208.80

percent to 231.40 percent for narrow woven ribbons from China and 116.60 percent to 137.20 percent for

narrow woven ribbons from Taiwan.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of its investigations as follows:6

 The merchandise subject to the investigation is narrow woven ribbons with woven

selvedge, in any length, but with a width (measured at the narrowest span of the ribbon)

less than or equal to 12 centimeters, composed of, in whole or in part, man-made fibers

(whether artificial or synthetic, including but not limited to nylon, polyester, rayon,

polypropylene, and polyethylene teraphthalate), metal threads and/or metalized yarns, or

any combination thereof.7 8
 7

 (...continued)

“ornamental trimming;”

• Be wound on spools; attached to a card; hanked (i.e., coiled or bundled); packaged in boxes, trays or bags; or

configured as skeins, balls, bateaus or folds; and/or

• Be included within a kit or set such as when packaged with other products, including but not limited to gift bags,

gift boxes and/or other types of ribbon. 

Narrow woven ribbons subject to the investigation include all narrow woven fabrics, tapes, and labels that fall within

this written description of the scope of this investigation. 

 8

 Excluded from Commerce’s scope are the following: 

1. Formed bows composed of narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge; 

2. ‘‘Pull-bows'' (i.e., an assemblage of ribbons connected to one another, folded flat and equipped with a means to

form such ribbons into the shape of a bow by pulling on a length of material affixed to such assemblage)

composed of narrow woven ribbons; 

3. Narrow woven ribbons comprised at least 20 percent by weight of elastomeric yarn (i.e., filament yarn, including

monofilament, of synthetic textile material, other than textured yarn, which does not break on being extended to

three times its original length and which returns, after being extended to twice its original length, within a period

of five minutes, to a length not greater than one and a half times its original length as defined in the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), Section XI, Note 13) or rubber thread; 

4. Narrow woven ribbons of a kind used for the manufacture of typewriter or printer ribbons; 

5. Narrow woven labels and apparel tapes, cut-to-length or cut-to-shape, having a length (when measured across the

longest edge-toedge span) not exceeding 8 centimeters; 

6. Narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge attached to and forming the handle of a gift bag;

7. Cut-edge narrow woven ribbons formed by cutting broad woven fabric into strips of ribbon, with or without

treatments to prevent the longitudinal edges of the ribbon from fraying (such as by merrowing, lamination,

sono-bonding, fusing, gumming or waxing), and with or without wire running lengthwise along the longitudinal

edges of the ribbon; 

8. Narrow woven ribbons comprised at least 85 percent by weight of threads having a denier of 225 or higher;

9. Narrow woven ribbons constructed from pile fabrics (i.e., fabrics with a surface effect formed by tufts or loops of

yarn that stand up from the body of the fabric); 

10. Narrow woven ribbon affixed (including by tying) as a decorative detail to non-subject merchandise, such as a

gift bag, gift box, gift tin, greeting card or plush toy, or affixed (including by tying) as a decorative detail to

packaging containing non-subject merchandise; 

11. Narrow woven ribbon affixed to nonsubject merchandise as a working component of such non-subject

merchandise, such as where narrow woven ribbon comprises an apparel trimming, book marker, bag cinch, or

part of an identity card holder; and 

12. Narrow woven ribbon(s) comprising a belt attached to and imported with an item of wearing apparel, whether or

not such belt is removable from such item of wearing apparel. 

 9

 In addition to the four statistical reporting numbers noted above that exclusively cover the subject ribbons,

narrow woven ribbons are imported under statistical reporting numbers 5806.32.1080 (ribbons of manmade fibers

(not polyester or nylon), with or without woven selvedge), 5810.92.9080, 5903.90.3090, and 6307.90.9889, as well

as in several subheadings of the HTS including 5806.39.30 (narrow woven fabric, other fabric, of metalized yarn),

5806.31.00, 5806.32.20, 5806.39.20, 5808.90.00, 5810.91.00, 5810.99.90, 5903.90.10, 5903.90.25, and 5907.00.60. 

Narrow woven ribbons are covered by category 229 of the U.S. Textile and Apparel Category System by the U.S.

Department of Commerce, Office of Textile and Apparel.

I-5

Tariff Treatment

Narrow woven ribbons are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS) under subheading 5806.32.10 and reported for statistical purposes primarily, but not exclusively,

under statistical reporting numbers 5806.32.1020, 5806.32.1030, 5806.32.1050, and 5806.32.1060.9

 Prior

to 2008, narrow woven ribbons were included in a residual or “basket” reporting category, HTS number 

5806.32.1090, which included manmade fiber narrow woven fabrics of a width less than 30 centimeters,
 10 Petitioner requested statistical breakouts of ribbon imports by width, fiber, and type of edge in 2006. The HTS

classification applicable to subject narrow woven ribbons was modified in 2008. These changes in HTS

classification for narrow woven ribbons preclude a presentation of comparable annual import data for the period for

which data were collected (2006 through the first quarter of 2009).

I-6

excluding typewriter ribbons.10 Table I-1 presents current ad valorem tariff rates for narrow woven

ribbons.

Table I-1

Narrow woven ribbons: Tariff rates, 2009

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2

Column

23

Rates (percent ad valorem)

5806

5806.32

5806.32.10

5806.32.1020

5806.32.1030 

5806.32.1050

5806.32.1060

5806.32.1080

Narrow woven fabrics, other than goods of heading 5807;

narrow fabrics consisting of warp without weft assembled

by means of an adhesive (bolducs):

 Of man-made fibers

Ribbons:

 

Other (than typewriter ribbon) :

Of a width not exceeding 12 cm:

 Of polyester:

 With woven selvedge:

Containing wire in selvedge

Other

 Of nylon:

 With woven selvedge:

Containing wire in selvedge

Other

 Other

6% Free

(BH,CA,

CL,IL,JO,

MX,OM,

P,PE,SG)

1.2%

(MA)

5.5%

(AU) (4

)

76.5%

 1 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate. 

 2

 Special rates not applicable when General rate is free. Products of China and Taiwan are not eligible for special duty rates

and are thus dutied at the general rate.

 3

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

 4 General note 3(c)(i) defines the special duty program symbols enumerated for this provision. 

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009).
 11 Selvedge is the narrow edge of woven fabric that runs parallel to the warp. It is made with stronger yarns in a

tighter construction than the body of the fabric to prevent raveling. Textile terms, unless otherwise noted, are from

Hoechst Celanese. Dictionary of Fiber & Textile Technology. Charlotte, NC: Product/Technical Communications

Services, IZ 503, Hoechst Celanese Corporation, 1990.

 12 Staff telephone interview with ***.

 13 ***.

 14 ***.

 15 Greige refers to unfinished yarn or fabric.

 16 Information on different ribbon types and their respective uses from conference transcript, pp. 34-47 (Pajic).

 17 Conference transcript, p. 38 (Pajic).

 18 Conference transcript, p. 38 (Pajic).

I-7

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

Narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge11 are fabrics partially or wholly composed of

manmade fibers and measuring less than or equal to 12 centimeters in width. They typically are used to

adorn or embellish apparel, footwear, home furnishings, crafts, or floral arrangements; however, narrow

woven ribbons also have functional uses and can be used to create articles such as hair bows, sashes, and

to wrap packages.12 Narrow woven ribbons are constructed with a woven selvedge that provides a

durable, longitudinal seam, and are thus washable. They are often used in keepsake items such as

scrapbooks because they do not fray easily and are colorfast by nature of their fiber content and dyeing

process (discussed below). Industry sources indicate that narrow woven ribbons of manmade fiber are

primarily composed of polyester or nylon yarn;13 however, narrow woven ribbons of other manmade

yarn, such as acetate and rayon, are also included in the definition of this product. 

Narrow woven ribbons are available in a variety of designs, widths, colors, and patterns. 

Different varieties are created by changing the weave pattern, color, fiber type, or embellishment. ***.14

A ribbon may be woven from yarn-dyed yarn or it may be woven from greige15 yarn and piece-dyed in

woven form. In yarn-dyed ribbons, it is possible to create woven patterns such as stripes, jacquards,

plaids, and embroidered designs. Common types of narrow woven ribbon include single- and double-face

satin, grosgrain, picot, and sheer.16 In some instances, differing forms of narrow woven ribbons have

specific uses. For example, single-face satin is often used to embroider apparel because the face of the

ribbon is a smooth satin, while the reverse side is dull, can be sewn down, and will not slip or be visible in

final use. Double-face satin is preferable where both sides of the ribbon will be visible, such as for

sashes, hair bows, or home decor. Sheer ribbons are often woven with wire in the selvedge to impart

body to the ribbon and help the ribbon to maintain its shape when fashioned into packaging bows. Sheer

ribbons are frequently used in floral applications. Finally, grosgrain ribbons are bulkier and have a

textured hand desirable for applications such as hair bows or in home decor where a shiny ribbon or

slippage is undesirable. 

U.S. producers of narrow woven ribbons generally distribute their products through retailers,

sales to industrial end users (e.g., florists and confectioners), and distributors. Berwick Offray indicated

that it does not sell directly to consumers.17 Petitioner also indicated that domestically produced narrow

woven ribbons and imported narrow woven ribbons are used interchangeably by consumers, put up for

retail sale via similar distribution channels, and in some cases marketed and sold in the same retail

programs.18
 19 Information in this section, unless otherwise noted, is from conference transcript, pp. 20-31 (Deese).

 20 Warping is the operation of winding warp yarns onto a beam in preparation for weaving.

 21 ***.

 22 Hand refers to the tactile qualities of a fabric, e.g. softness, fineness, firmness, and other qualities perceived by

touch.

 23 In a woven fabric, the weft or filling is the yarn running from selvedge to selvedge, perpendicular to the warp.

 24 ***.

 25 ***.

 26 A warp beam is a large cylinder around which the warp yarns, or ends, are wound in a uniform and parallel

arrangement.

 27 ***.

 28 ***.

I-8

Manufacturing Processes19

The manufacture of narrow woven ribbons can be broken down into five processes, specifically

warping,20 weaving, dyeing, embellishment, and spooling. However, not all narrow woven ribbons are

necessarily embellished. 

Manufacture of narrow woven ribbons begins with purchased greige yarn (both flat and textured),

usually polyester or nylon monofilament. Reportedly, there is *** price differential in the U.S. market

between nylon and polyester, though *** in other markets.21 Polyester typically has a smoother hand22

(as compared with acetate or nylon) and is better suited for use in ***. However, nylon is good for ***;

it ***. Nylon is sometimes used in the ***23 or ***.24 In some instances, a manufacturer ***.

Yarn-dyed ribbons, which represent approximately ***25 percent of total U.S. production,

undergo an additional step prior to warping where the monofilament yarn is dyed, as opposed to greige

ribbons that are dyed after weaving. Monofilaments to be yarn-dyed must first be re-spooled onto a dye

tube containing holes that allow the dye bath to permeate the entire spool. Several dye tubes are placed

on a dye rack, which is placed into a dye vat where the yarn is dyed and washed. After dyeing, the yarn is

dried and transferred from the dye tubes to spools. During this transfer the yarn is coated with a lubricant

to reduce friction, and to minimize lint and shedding during the downstream warping and weaving

processes.

Before weaving, both greige and yarn-dyed yarn must be laid out on a warp beam.26 The warp

beam composition varies in thread count according to ribbon design. The warp forms the longitudinal

yarn of narrow woven ribbons. After warping, the beams are placed on the looms and are ready for

weaving. Depending on a ribbon's design, a loom can use several warp feeds to vary the texture and fiber

composition of a ribbon (e.g., when forming a ribbon including metalized yarn, the wire feeds into the

loom on a separate warp beam). Patterns, designs, and ribbon widths are created by varying warp

composition.

Narrow woven ribbons are produced on specialized needle looms ***.27 Narrow woven ribbons

are woven *** strips per machine, depending on ribbon width. They must be woven with expected

shrinkage of roughly *** percent between the loom and finishing. Production speed mainly depends on

the complexity of the pattern of the ribbon. For example, a more complex pattern would be produced at a

*** percent lower speed than a plain weave. Petitioner reports that all looms producing narrow woven

ribbons are ***.28
 29 The standard weaving process is summarized from, Collier, Billie J., and Phyllis G. Tortora. Understanding

Textiles. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1997, pp. 257-269.

 30 ***.

 31 ***.

 32 ***.

 33 ***.

I-9

During weaving29 one or more warp beams are fed into the loom. There are 3 basic operations of

the loom during weaving, namely shedding, filling insertion, and beat-up. During shedding, cards on the

loom separate the warp beam according to a programmed pattern. Then, a needle hooks through the warp

beam carrying a filling yarn through to a latch hook to catch the filling yarn. After insertion, the filling

yarn is “beat” into the fabric to keep the filling yarns parallel. Narrow woven ribbons are produced using

***.30 ***.

Dyeing occurs in a continuous process where greige ribbons are washed, dried, dyed, and then

washed and dyed once more. During dyeing, one to several ends of ribbon are fed through an

accumulator, which winds ribbon vertically up and down through a series of cams to control the flow of

ribbon through the machine at a steady pace. This also serves to keep the machine running at the end of

the ribbon (by providing a steady pull) to reduce waste. ***.31

Greige ribbon is first de-sized in a pre-scour bath soap solution. Here, ribbons are washed to

remove the lubricant applied to the monofilaments prior to weaving. The ribbon is wound up and down

through the soap bath and then through a rinse before it is squeezed out and heated on drying cylinders.

After pre-scouring, the greige ribbon is dipped in a dye bath that covers the ribbons' surface with

a dispersed, high energy, fiber specific dye. The dyes used are water-delivery based. After the dye bath,

the ribbon passes through drying cylinders to remove excess moisture and then a gas-fired oven at ***

degrees for roughly *** seconds. Polyester melts at 482 degrees, so the temperature ***.32 The pigment

is absorbed into and inside the ribbon fiber. The color becomes deeper and changes after heating due to

the energy transfer occurring in the oven. This method of dyeing polyester is highly colorfast. After

dyeing, the ribbon passes through an after-scour bath which removes excess color to render the ribbon

machine washable (to prevent bleeding). Darker colors, such as black, undergo more after-scour washes

than lighter colors. The ribbon is then dried in a heated can stack. Finally, the ribbon is spun off the dye

machine and ready for embellishment or final blocking. 

Petitioner has separate dye lines for polyester and nylon. Dye formulas must be adjusted

according to the different fiber type used. The process for nylon is slightly different than that described

above for polyester. ***.33

***.

The process for yarn-dyed ribbons varies slight from that of greige ribbons. After weaving,

yarn-dyed ribbons are finished, a process that includes washing, de-sizing, drying, and ironing of the

ribbon, prior to final spooling. 

Prior to final spooling, narrow woven ribbons can be embellished using several techniques

including flexoprinting, transfer printing, silkscreen printing, lacquer printing, or hot stamping. In

flexoprinting, ribbon is continuously stamped with a film of metered-release ink by a flexible plate

around a cylinder. In transfer printing, a sublistatic ink is flexoprinted on paper, and then the print is heat

transferred to the ribbon. In this process, an employee feeds ribbon and paper together into a heated

drum. The dye is vaporized and permeates the ribbon. This process uses similar dyes to those used in

dyeing process, resulting in more permanent color. In lacquer printing, solvent-based lacquer paint is

applied to face of ribbon through an open pattern in a method similar to stenciling. With silkscreen

printing, paint is applied directly to ribbon through a silkscreen. Squeegees force paint through patterns. 

Silkscreen creates more of a texture and is more durable than lacquer print. After any of the printing
 34 Conference transcript, p. 63 (Shea).

 35 ***.

 36 Conference transcript, p. 41 (Kerr).

 37 Conference transcript, p. 31 (Pajic).

 38 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 2.

 39 Conference transcript, p. 165 (Jacobs).

 40 ***.

 41 Liberty Ribbon, U.S. producers’ questionnaire, p. 2.

 42 Petition, p. 3.

 43 Conference transcript, p. 31 (Pajic).

 44 Merrowing is tight-looped and continuously sewn thread (for example, in the case of wire sewn on the

longitudinal sides of a cut-edge ribbon).

I-10

methods described above, the ribbon is heated to set and dry the paint. Finally, hot-stamping uses a metal

plate to stamp a pattern on to the ribbon face from a roll of foil. 

Dyed, finished, and embellished ribbons are typically spooled (blocked) once an order is

received. Spooling can be done manually or automatically. The length of ribbon on a spool varies by

customer and distribution method. Narrow woven ribbons are spun to a specific length on to a cardboard

spool, flanges are glued to both sides of the spool, the package is labeled, and a plastic film is wrapped

around the exposed ribbon to form a finished product. Berwick Offray moved some spooling operations

to Mexico three to four years ago.34 Today, roughly *** of its spooling capacity is located outside of the

United States.35

Petitioner reports that production processes for narrow woven ribbons are essentially standard

worldwide.36

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.

There are reportedly two primary types of ribbons: narrow woven ribbons (discussed above) and

cut-edge ribbons.37 The petitioner contends that there is one like product composed of all narrow woven

ribbons with woven selvedge.38 Respondents did not contest that “there is a narrow woven ribbon

industry, as opposed to a cut-edge industry.”39 ***.40 Liberty Ribbon was the only U.S. producer of cutedge ribbons that provided a response to the U.S. producers’ questionnaire. Liberty Ribbon ***.41

Cut-edge ribbons are produced by cutting broad woven fabric longitudinally into long strips.42

Cut-edge ribbons are not woven to width, and therefore not considered to be narrow woven ribbons.43 To

prevent the cut edges from fraying, one of two methods is used. A producer may cut the fabric with a hot

knife, using heat to seal the edges as they are cut, rendering them less susceptible to fraying. 

Alternatively, a cut-edge ribbon producer may employ processes such as merrowing,44 lamination, fusing,

or waxing to prevent fraying. To achieve multi-thread effects or wired edges, cut-edge ribbons must be

manufactured in multiple steps, as opposed to narrow woven ribbons that are woven on one loom in one
 45 Conference transcript, p. 77 (Shea).

 46 ***.

 47 Conference transcript, p. 33 (Pajic).

 48 Conference transcript, p. 32 (Pajic).

 49 Conference transcript, p. 32 (Pajic).

 50 Petition, p. 4.

 51 ***.

 52 ***.

 53 ***.

 54 ***.

 55 Liberty Ribbon’s response to U.S. producers’ questionnaire, section II-3.

 56 Conference transcript, p. 33 (Pajic).

 57 Berwick Offray LLC Web site. http://www.offray.com/prod2.html (accessed August 10, 2009).

I-11

process. Cut-edge ribbons are often manufactured from acetate or polyester broad woven fabric.45

Reportedly, acetate ***.46

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Cut-edge ribbons are often used for seasonal decoration and in floral applications. They are 

considered somewhat disposable and intended for one time use.47 They are not recommended for use in

apparel or keepsake crafts, as the methods used to seal the seams are not as permanent as in narrow

woven ribbons. Cut-edge ribbons typically are 2.5 inches (6.35 centimeters) or wider, whereas narrow

woven ribbons are frequently less than two inches (5.08 centimeters) in width.48 Further, cut-edge

ribbons often are treated with a finish that gives the ribbons a stiff hand, as opposed to narrow woven

ribbons which generally have a soft and flexible hand.49

Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees

The looms used to weave broad fabric for use in cut-edge ribbon production are different from the

needle looms used to weave narrow woven ribbons. Broad looms weave fabrics of widths much greater

than narrow needle looms,50 ***.51 The two known U.S. producers of narrow woven ribbons manufacture

*** cut-edge ribbons in domestic operations, and the one responding U.S. cut-edge ribbon producer

submitting a questionnaire response reported that it produces *** narrow woven ribbons.52 Generally,

there is no overlap in the looms and dyeing lines used in the manufacture of cut-edge and narrow woven

ribbons. There could be some overlap in the machinery used to embellish cut-edge and narrow woven

ribbons, particularly in terms of equipment used in printing and hot stamping. For example, ***,53

although it produces *** cut-edge ribbons in its Leesville mill.54 Liberty Ribbon reported ***.55

Interchangeability

Reportedly, there is some overlap in use between cut-edge and narrow woven ribbons; both cutedge and narrow woven ribbons can be used in floral applications, to wrap a package, or to decorate a

home or office.56 However, cut-edge ribbons are less durable by nature of their manufacturing process.

As such, cut-edge ribbons often are used in single-use applications, as opposed to narrow woven ribbons

which are colorfast and washable for applications such as apparel and home furnishings.57
 58 Liberty Ribbon & Packaging, LLC Web site. http://libertyribbon.com/id4.html (accessed August 5, 2009).

 59 Carson & Gebel Ribbon Company Web site. http://www.cgribbon.com/aboutcgribbon.html (accessed August

5, 2009).

 60 Conference transcript, p. 34 (Pajic).

I-12

Channels of Distribution

One U.S. producer of cut-edge ribbons, Liberty Ribbon, does not sell ribbons directly to

consumers. According to its website, it does not manufacture stock items, it does not have any catalogs,

and it does not maintain any inventories.58 The other identified U.S. producer of cut-edge ribbons, Carson

& Gebel Ribbon Company, also states on its website that its ribbons are only available through wholesale

floral craft, and packaging distributors.59

Domestically produced cut-edge ribbons were shipped to different channels of distribution than

U.S.-produced narrow woven ribbons. Liberty Ribbon reported that *** percent of its 2008 quantity of 

U.S. shipments of cut-edge ribbons went to wholesalers or distributors, *** to retailers, and *** percent

to industrial end-users. U.S. producers of narrow woven ribbons reported that *** percent of U.S.

shipments were to wholesalers/distributors, *** percent to retailers, and *** percent to industrial endusers.

Price

In general, cut-edge ribbons cost less than narrow woven ribbons in retail outlets.60 The reported

average unit value of domestically produced cut-edge ribbons, which was $*** per square yard in 2008,

was lower than that of domestically produced narrow woven ribbons, at $*** per square yard. 
 1

 Petition, p. 5; conference transcript, p. 34 (Pajic).

 2

 Conference transcript, p. 74 (Pajic).

 3

 Of *** responding importers of narrow woven ribbons from China, *** reported lead times from inventory of

*** and *** reported lead times of ***.

 4

 Of *** responding importers of narrow woven ribbons from Taiwan, *** reported lead times from inventory of

*** and *** reported lead times of ***.

 5

 Of *** responding importers, *** reported lead times on sales produced to order in Taiwan of ***.

 6

 Geographical markets, as well as quantitative measures relating to fungibility and presence in the market, are

discussed in the section of this report entitled “Cumulation Considerations” beginning on page IV-6.

 7

 The importers that sell to final consumers are themselves retailers that import directly.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Narrow woven ribbons may be constructed from various man-made fibers and include a range of

different colors, styles, patterns, and weave constructions, including but not limited to single-faced satin,

double-faced satin, grosgrain, sheer, taffeta, twill, and jacquard, among which single-faced satin is

reportedly the most common weave of narrow woven ribbons in the U.S. market.1

 Narrow woven ribbons

typically are sold on a spool and used for decorative purposes in applications such as floral arrangements,

gift wrapping, packaging, scrap booking, and craft projects or for embellishment on apparel or handbags.2

U.S. producers reported that *** of their narrow woven ribbons are sold from inventory, with

lead times ranging from *** to ***. The lead times on U.S. producers’ sales produced to order range

from ***. A majority of importers of narrow woven ribbons from China reported that most or all of their

sales are from inventory, with most lead times ranging from one day to two weeks.3 Lead times on these

importers’ sales produced to order in China range from three weeks to four months. Nearly all of the 

importers of narrow woven ribbons from Taiwan also reported that most or all of their sales are from

inventory, with most lead times ranging from one day to two weeks.4 Lead times on these importers’

sales produced to order in Taiwan range mostly from one to three months.5

When firms were asked to list the geographic regions of the United States where they sell narrow

woven ribbons, *** producers and *** of the importers reported that they served a nationwide market. 

Six importers of narrow woven ribbons from China reported selling to specific geographic regions,

including the northeast, the Midwest, the West Coast, the northwest, the mid-Atlantic, and the southeast. 

Five importers of narrow woven ribbons from Taiwan reported selling to specific geographic regions,

including the northeast, the West Coast , the Midwest, the northwest, and the southeast. See part IV for

additional discussion on geographical markets.6

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

As shown in table II-1, the *** of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of narrow woven ribbons were

to ***, followed by shipments to ***. The majority of importers’ U.S. shipments of narrow woven

ribbons from China went to retailers, followed by shipments to industrial end users. The largest share of

importers’ U.S. shipments of narrow woven ribbons from Taiwan went to final consumers, followed by

shipments to retailers.7
II-2

Table II-1

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of narrow woven ribbons,

by sources and channels of distribution, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Period

2006 2007 2008

Jan.-Mar.

2008

Jan.-Mar.

2009

 Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of narrow woven ribbons to:

 Wholesalers/distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 Industrial end users *** *** *** *** ***

 Retailers *** *** *** *** ***

 Final consumers *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of narrow woven ribbons from China to:1

 Wholesalers/distributors 14.1 15.1 15.3 17.1 13.6

 Industrial end users 25.8 27.5 23.4 21.8 18.4

 Retailers 53.8 48.6 53.6 54.1 54.5

 Final consumers 6.3 8.8 7.7 7.1 13.5

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of narrow woven ribbons from Taiwan to:1

 Wholesalers/distributors 12.6 12.5 14.4 12.6 16.4 

 Industrial end users 5.8 6.2 7.4 11.9 5.6

 Retailers 38.2 37.4 33.0 38.5 31.3

 Final consumers 43.4 43.9 45.2 37.0 46.8

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of narrow woven ribbons from all other countries to:1

 Wholesalers/distributors 16.7 16.0 16.9 14.3 10.5

 Industrial end users 19.9 17.4 19.7 19.4 14.5

 Retailers 50.4 51.7 41.6 41.8 37.5

 Final consumers 13.0 14.9 21.8 24.6 37.6

 1

 Percentages are calculated based on questionnaire responses that included usable data on U.S. shipments in

square yards.

Note.–Data for domestic producers include only U.S. commercial shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 
 8

 The *** of unused capacity is attributable to ***. ***.

 9

 A *** amount of the reported inventory levels is attributable to *** and constitutes ***. ***, therefore, is not

completely flexible in its ability to use these inventories to increase its shipments.

 10 ***.

II-3

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

The supply response of U.S. producers to changes in price depends on such factors as the level of

excess capacity, the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced narrow woven ribbons, inventory

levels, and the ability to shift production to the manufacture of other products. The evidence indicates

that the U.S. supply is likely to be relatively elastic, due primarily to the existence of unused capacity and

inventories. 

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ annual capacity utilization rates for narrow woven ribbons *** over the period

for which data were collected, *** increasing from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, before

*** decreasing to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in the first quarter of 2009. This level of capacity

utilization indicates that the U.S. producers have unused capacity with which they could increase

production of narrow woven ribbons in the event of a price change.8

Alternative markets

U.S. producers’ exports, as a share of their total shipments, *** over the period for which data

were collected, *** decreasing from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008 and to *** percent in the

first quarter of 2009. These data indicate that the U.S. producers have a *** capability to divert

shipments to or from alternative markets in response to changes in the price of narrow woven ribbons. 

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments increased from *** percent

in 2006 to *** percent in 2008 and to *** in the first quarter of 2009. These data indicate that the U.S.

producers *** to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of narrow woven ribbons to the U.S.

market.9

Production alternatives

U.S. producer *** reported that it ***.10 U.S. producer *** reported that it ***.
 11 The data on capacity utilization, inventories, and alternative markets reported by producers in China have been

deemed unreliable because ***. Petitioner ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 12.

II-4

Subject Imports from China

The responsiveness of supply of imports from China to changes in price in the U.S. market is

affected by such factors as capacity-utilization rates and the availability of home markets and other export

markets. These data for the substantial majority producers in China are unavailable.11

Subject Imports from Taiwan

The responsiveness of supply of imports from Taiwan to changes in price in the U.S. market is

affected by such factors as capacity-utilization rates and the availability of home markets and other export

markets. Based on available information, producers in Taiwan have the capability to respond to changes

in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of narrow woven ribbons to the U.S.

market. The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the

existence of unused capacity and some alternative markets.

Industry capacity

During the period of for which data were collected, the capacity-utilization rate for reporting

producers in Taiwan of narrow woven ribbons decreased, from 94.0 percent in 2006 to 85.0 percent in

2008; it is projected to be 68.3 percent in 2009 and 73.1 percent in 2010.

Alternative markets

Available data indicate that producers in Taiwan have some ability to divert shipments to or from

alternative markets in response to changes in the price of narrow woven ribbons. The share of shipments

by producers in Taiwan that went to the United States slightly increased from 61.6 percent in 2006 to 63.0

percent in 2008; it is projected to be 67.8 percent in 2009 and 67.5 percent in 2010. The share of

shipments by producers in Taiwan to export markets other than the United States slightly increased from

26.8 in 2006 to 27.2 percent in 2008; it is projected to be 23.5 percent in 2009 and 22.7 percent in 2010. 

The share of shipments by producers in Taiwan going to the home market decreased from 6.6 percent in

2006 to 5.0 percent in 2007, before increasing to 6.8 percent in 2008; it is projected to be 7.5 percent in

2009 and 8.6 percent in 2009. The share of internal consumption by producers in Taiwan decreased from

5.1 percent in 2006 to 3.0 percent in 2008; it is projected to be 1.2 percent in 2009 and 2010.

Inventory levels

Responding Taiwan producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, slightly increased from

4.7 percent in 2006 to 4.8 percent in 2008; they are projected to be 5.0 percent in 2009 and 2010. These

data indicate that producers in Taiwan may be limited in their ability to use inventories as a means of

increasing shipments of narrow woven ribbons to the U.S. market.

Nonsubject Imports

Imports from nonsubject sources of narrow woven ribbons, as a share of the value of total U.S.

imports of narrow woven ribbons, decreased from 9.0 percent in 2006 to 7.4 percent in 2008. Imports
 12 As discussed in Part IV, Mexico is reportedly the largest nonsubject source of imports of narrow woven

ribbons. Conference transcript, p. 53 (Shea) and pp. 219-220 (Wong).

 13 Conference transcript, p. 67 (Shea) and p. 70 (Pajic).

 14 ***.

 15 ***. *** of these importers reported that demand for narrow woven ribbons had increased with respect to ***.

 16 ***. *** reported that *** percent of its sales occur in the second and third quarters and *** reported that ***

of its sales are shipped in the third quarter. Petitioner contends that ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 17. 

Based on questionnaire data, apparent U.S. consumption in January-March 2008 was equivalent to *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption for the full year, as measured by the value of U.S. shipments and imports.

 17 ***. 

II-5

from nonsubject sources accounted for 7.3 percent of the value of total imports in the first quarter of

2009.12

Demand

The existence of substitutes for narrow woven ribbons discussed below indicates that the demand

for this product is likely to be relatively price inelastic. The demand for narrow woven ribbons is largely

determined by the overall economy and fashion trends. When asked how the overall demand for narrow

woven ribbons has changed since January 2006, *** reported that demand has slightly increased, citing

an increase in craft and scrap booking projects and lower price points of narrow woven ribbons. Berwick

Offray reported that demand for narrow woven ribbons has historically not been affected by downturns in

the economy, citing consumers’ increased propensity to engage in at-home activities during economic

recessions, among which are craft projects that utilize narrow woven ribbons.13 *** reported that demand

has decreased since 2006.

Twenty-three of 54 responding importers reported that demand has decreased since 2006, with

most citing the recession and three citing a decrease in gift wrapping and scrap booking trends that utilize

narrow woven ribbons and an increased use of alternative packaging that does not require narrow woven

ribbons, such as bags, pouches, and boxes.14 Ten importers reported that demand has increased, due to an

increase in arts and craft projects, design innovation, and lower prices.15 Ten importers reported that there

has been no change in demand and seven reported that demand has fluctuated, following trends in the

overall economy and fashion. Four importers reported that demand had been increasing since 2006, but

has decreased since the recession. 

Apparent U.S. consumption by value *** decreased by *** percent from 2006 to 2008 overall,

*** increasing by *** percent from 2006 to 2007 before *** decreasing by *** percent from 2007 to

2008. Apparent U.S. consumption in the first quarter of 2009 is *** percent below the first quarter of

2008.

Business Cycles

When asked if the narrow woven ribbons market was subject to business cycles, U.S. producer

*** reported that the narrow woven ribbons market was not subject to business cycles, while *** reported

that sales peak from July through December. Twenty-seven responding importers reported that a business

cycle exists in the market for narrow woven ribbons, with 20 specifically stating that sales peak in the

second half of the year in a build-up for the Christmas season.16 Seventeen importers reported that there

is no business cycle.17
 18 ***. 

 19 ***.

II-6

Substitute Products

U.S. producers reported that substitutes for narrow woven ribbons include cut-edge ribbons for

packaging and some floral applications, and labels and extruded ribbons and embossed-edge ribbons for

packaging and some floral applications. *** reported that changes in the prices of these substitutes have

affected the price for narrow woven ribbons, with *** stating that a price change may occur with a threeto six-month time lag and that if the price of narrow woven ribbons drops, they are usually preferred over

the substitutes. 

Fourteen importers reported that cut-edge ribbons can be substituted for narrow woven ribbons. 

When asked the degree of interchangeability between narrow woven ribbons and cut-edge ribbons, 24

importers reported that the interchangeability is limited, stating that cut-edge ribbons are not as durable,

are not washable and thus cannot be used in apparel applications, can fray, and have a lower perceived

value and quality than narrow woven ribbons.18 Eleven importers reported that cut-edge ribbons are not

at all interchangeable with narrow woven ribbons, while six reported that they are fully interchangeable.

Other substitutes cited by importers included fabric, raffia and other natural materials, string,

twine, leather, yarn, lace, tinsel, and garland. Twenty-four importers reported that changes in the prices

of these substitutes have not affected the price for narrow woven ribbons, while eight importers reported

that such price changes have affected the price for narrow woven ribbons.19

When asked the degree of interchangeability between narrow woven ribbons and ribbons made of

non-man-made fabrics, *** reported that such ribbons have only recently been available, due to ecofriendly trends, and that they account for *** percent of the market. Additionally, 17 importers reported

that ribbons made of non-man-made fabrics are fully interchangeable with narrow woven ribbons, while

another 11 reported that they are somewhat interchangeable, dependent on consumer needs and

preferences. Thirteen importers also noted that using ribbons made of non-man-made fabrics is costprohibitive, particularly with respect to linen and silk. Seven importers reported that such ribbons are not

at all interchangeable with narrow woven ribbons.

Cost Share

*** reported that narrow woven ribbons account for approximately *** percent of the total cost

of end uses such as crafts, home decor, and floral arrangements, and can account for *** percent of the

total cost of packaging applications. Importers reported that narrow woven ribbons can account for up to

*** percent of the total cost of floral arrangements and home decor, and can account for *** percent of

apparel applications.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitutability between domestic products and subject and nonsubject imports and

between subject and nonsubject imports is examined in this section. The discussion is based upon the

results of questionnaire responses from producers and importers.

Comparisons of Domestic Product and Subject Imports

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced narrow woven ribbons can generally be used in the

same applications as imports from China and Taiwan, producers and importers were asked whether the

products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. *** U.S.
 20 Conference transcript, p. 158 (Freebern); p. 160 (Vaughn); pp. 161 and 183 (Mitchell); and p. 183 (Icsman).

 21 Conference transcript, pp. 46-48 (Shea, Pajic). Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 1.

 22 Conference transcript, p. 70 (Shea).

II-7

producers reported that they are frequently interchangeable, as shown in table II-2. A majority of the

importers that compared narrow woven ribbons from China and Taiwan with those from the United States

reported that they are always or frequently interchangeable. 

Table II-2

Narrow woven ribbons: Perceived degree of interchangeability of product produced in the United

States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers1

AF SNA F SN

U.S. vs. subject countries:

 U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 18 11 8 3

 U.S. vs. Taiwan *** *** *** *** 15 11 7 4

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries:

 U.S. vs. Mexico *** *** *** *** 7 4 3 0

 U.S. vs. Other2 *** *** *** *** 5 2 3 0

Subject country comparisons:

 China vs. Taiwan *** *** *** *** 19 11 3 1

 1

 ***. 2

 These comparisons include, among others, one instance of narrow woven ribbons produced in Brazil (reported

as “always” interchangeable); two instances of narrow woven ribbons produced in Thailand (reported once as

“always” interchangeable and once as “sometimes” interchangeable); and two instances of narrow woven ribbons

produced in Europe (reported once as “frequently” interchangeable and once as “sometimes” interchangeable).

Note.–“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

One importer that reported that narrow woven ribbons from U.S. producers are “never”

interchangeable with imports from China stated that the imports from China are used in lower end

applications. One importer that reported that narrow woven ribbons from U.S. producers are “never”

interchangeable with imports from Taiwan stated that the quality and color of the product from Taiwan is

superior to that of other suppliers. Another importer reported that Berwick Offray carries some sizes and

patterns that are proprietary and are not available from other suppliers. Another importer reported that 

the quality of U.S.-produced narrow woven narrow ribbons does not meet its standards for use in apparel. 

Importer (***) reported that narrow woven ribbons with basic designs are interchangeable from any

source, but that U.S. manufacturers are unable to produce custom designs. 

When respondent retailers participating in the Commission’s staff conference were asked if they 

had ever requested Berwick Offray to meet their requirements on custom designs or small volume orders

and were refused, none provided a specific example.20

Berwick Offray reported that it can reproduce any color or design and ***.21 It also reports that

the quality of narrow woven ribbons from any country source is comparable.22
 23 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 17 and exh. 6.

 24 Respondents’ responses to additional questions, p. 5, August 4, 2009.

 25 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 17 and exh. 6.

II-8

As indicated in table II-3, *** of the responding U.S. producers reported that differences other

than price are sometimes a significant factor in their sales of narrow woven ribbons. Responses from

importers were mixed, with slightly more than half of responding importers reporting that differences

other than price between U.S.-produced narrow woven ribbons and subject imports are sometimes or

never a significant factor. 

Table II-3

Narrow woven ribbons: Differences other than price between products from different sources1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers2

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. subject countries:

 U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 10 7 12 7

 U.S. vs. Taiwan *** *** *** *** 10 7 10 8

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries:

 U.S. vs. Mexico *** *** *** *** 3 3 3 4

 U.S. vs. Other3 *** *** *** *** 2 2 3 2

Subject country comparisons:

 China vs. Taiwan *** *** *** *** 6 7 15 8

 1

 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between narrow woven ribbons produced in

the United States and in other countries are a significant factor in their firms’ sales of narrow woven ribbons. 2

 ***. 3

 These comparisons include, among others, one instance of narrow woven ribbons produced in Thailand

(reported as differences other than price “always” being significant) and two instances of narrow woven ribbons

produced in Europe (reported once as differences other than price “always” being significant and once as

differences other than price “sometimes” being significant).

Note.–“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

*** importers (***) reported that suppliers in China and Taiwan offer superior availability and

product ranges over U.S. manufacturers. *** also reported that suppliers in China and Taiwan can

provide ***. *** reported that the products designed by Berwick Offray “***.”23 It also reported that

manufacturers in *** offer greater design innovation.24 *** also reported that it experienced ***.25 ***

also reported that it has had quality problems with U.S. producers, namely with matching dye colors. 

Importer *** reported that it imports narrow woven ribbons ***. One importer reported that U.S.-

produced narrow woven ribbons are sometimes of higher quality than imports from China, but that the

lead times from China are superior. 
II-9

Other Country Comparisons

In addition to comparisons between the U.S. product and imports from the subject countries, U.S.

producer and importer comparisons between the U.S. product and imports from nonsubject countries and

between subject imports and nonsubject imports are shown in tables II-2 and II-3. One importer reported

that high-end narrow woven ribbons from Europe are not always interchangeable with the U.S. product. 

Another importer reported that European suppliers offer broader product ranges and superior custom

designs than do U.S. producers. One importer reported that the quality of narrow woven ribbons from

Taiwan is superior to that of imports from Europe. Two importers reported that they had experienced

quality problems with narrow woven ribbons from Mexico, including color inconsistency and shipping

errors. 

 1

 Petition, exh. 2, and conference transcript, p. 129 (Vaughn).

 2

 U.S. producer *** reported that ***.” Email from ***, August 4, 2009.

 3

 *** provided a response to the U.S. producers’ questionnaire but it contained widespread inconsistencies, and

so is excluded from the U.S. producers’ data presented in this report.

 4

 *** provided a response to the U.S. producers’ questionnaire, but later confirmed that it did not produce subject

merchandise, but rather nonsubject narrow woven ribbons of a higher denier or containing only cotton. Staff

telephone interview with ***.

 5

 *** reported that they did not produce narrow woven ribbons.

 6

 WM Wright response to the U.S. producers’ questionnaire, section II-2.

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 margin of dumping were presented

earlier in this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is

presented in Parts IV and V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or

Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of two firms that accounted for the

vast majority of U.S. production of narrow woven ribbons during 2008.1

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to 15 U.S. companies identified in the petition and

through independent staff research as possible U.S. producers of narrow woven ribbons. Out of these 15

companies, two provided useable data, two provided incomplete data,2 3

 three certified that they had not

produced narrow woven ribbons since January 1, 2006, and the remaining eight provided no response.4 5

WM Wright reported that it was a U.S. producer but ceased U.S. production in ***, after which it was

*** an importer of narrow woven ribbons.6

 Of the producers that provided useable data, petitioner

(Berwick Offray) accounted for *** percent of U.S. production in 2008.

Presented in table III-1 is a list of current domestic producers of narrow woven ribbons and each

company’s position on the petition, production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms, and share of

reported U.S. production of narrow woven ribbons in 2008.
 7

 WM Wright, which ***, ceased production in *** and *** imported narrow woven ribbons.

 8

 *** reported ***.

 9

 Staff field trip report, Berwick Offray, July 16, 2009. In comparison, Schiff reported that it had *** looms. 

Schiff’s response to U.S. producers’ questionnaire, section II-11.

 10 Respondents argued that Berwick Offray has adopted a production process that keeps capacity utilization

artificially low, by dedicating looms to specific types of narrow woven ribbons rather than changing from style to

style like subject foreign producers, resulting a large number of looms being idle at any given point in time. 

Conference transcript, p. 133 (Vaughn) and p. 139 (Lodge).

III-2

Table III-1

Narrow woven ribbons: 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)

Berwick Offray1 Petitioner

Leesville, SC

Hagerstown, MD *** ***

Lawrence Schiff

Silk Mills, Inc. *** Quakertown, PA None ***

 1 Berwick Offray reported that it is a *** subsidiary of Paper Magic, which is in turn a *** subsidiary of CSS

Industries, Inc. CSS Industries, 2009 Annual Report, p. 1. Berwick Offray also reported an administrative office in

Berwick, PA, a sales and marketing office in Buck Lake, NJ, a distribution warehouse in El Paso, TX, and a

spooling/conversion facility in Juarez, Mexico. Conference transcript, pp. 18-19 (Shea).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

As indicated in table III-1, *** of the U.S. producers are related to foreign producers of the

subject merchandise, although Berwick Offray is related to ***. In addition, as discussed in greater detail

below, *** U.S. producers directly import the subject merchandise, *** purchase the subject merchandise

from U.S. importers, and *** purchase narrow woven ribbons from other domestic producers.7

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ weaving capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for narrow woven

ribbons are presented in table III-2. These data show that production capacity remained stable, while

production fluctuated during the period for which data were collected.8

 Capacity utilization likewise

fluctuated over the over the same period, although it differed *** between the two responding U.S.

producers. Capacity utilization reported by Berwick Offray ranged from a low of *** percent in 2006 to

a high of *** then declined to *** percent in 2008, while Schiff reported *** ranging from *** in 2006 to

*** percent in 2008. Berwick Offray reported that it had approximately *** looms, but was currently

only running roughly *** looms.9 10 

Table III-2

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. weaving capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 11 WM Wright reported ***.

 12 Berwick’s total spooling capacity ranged from *** percent to *** percent of its weaving capacity.

 13 Conference transcript, p. 62 (Shea).

 14 Conference transcript, p. 82 (Deese).

 15 Staff field trip report, Berwick Offray, July 16, 2009 and July 23, 2009.

 16 Conference transcript, pp. 62-63 (Shea) and pp. 81-82 (Deese).

 17 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 9.

III-3

*** produced *** of domestically produced narrow woven ribbons, ranging from *** percent of

total quantity of U.S. production in 2006 to *** percent in January-March 2009.11

U.S. spooling capacity fluctuated during 2006-08, ending *** percent lower, though it too

differed among the U.S. producers. Schiff reported its spooling capacity was steady ***, while Berwick

Offray’s U.S. spooling capacity declined between 2006 and 2008, and ranged from *** percent of its

weaving capacity.12 Likewise, in January-March 2009 Schiff reported steady capacity, while Berwick

Offray reported a *** higher capacity than in January-March 2008.

Spooling capacity in other countries rose by *** percent during 2006-08, offsetting some of the

decline in the U.S. spooling capacity, and was *** percent higher in January-March 2009 than in JanuaryMarch 2008. Berwick Offray reported that it operated a maquiladora in Juarez, Mexico, that is primarily

a converter which spools narrow woven ribbons that are woven, dyed and printed in the United States.13

The facility also performs a very small amount of transfer printing, equivalent to less than 5 percent of

total printing done by Berwick Offray. The narrow woven ribbons spooled in Mexico are then distributed

in the United States through Berwick Offray’s distribution facility in El Paso, TX.14

Berwick reported that ***.15 Berwick reported narrow woven ribbons are first woven in its

facility in South Carolina then sent in a jumbo roll to its facility in Mexico for spooling, or to its facility

in Maryland to be dyed, printed, or packaged, and then sent either to its Maryland distribution center or to

Mexico in a jumbo roll to be packaged.16 Berwick estimated that the operations performed at its facility

in Mexico only contribute *** percent of the value of the finished product and *** percent of the cost of

goods sold.17

U.S. producers’ spooling capacity data used for U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments for narrow

woven ribbons are presented in table III-3 and in figure III-1. 

Table III-3

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. producers’ spooling capacity, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure III-1

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. producers’ U.S. weaving capacity, spooling capacity, production, and

capacity utilization, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 18 “WM Wright Co. moving to Tennessee,” cbs6albany.com, retrieved July 14, 2009.

 19 WM Wright reported ***.

 20 Berwick Offray reported ***. *** response to U.S. producers’ questionnaire, section II-3.

 21 Schiff reported that ***. Email from ***, August 13, 2009.

 22 Responses to the U.S. producers’ questionnaire, IV-10.

 23 Email from ***, August 4, 2009.

 24 Staff field trip report, Berwick Offray, July 16, 2009 and Berwick’s response to the U.S. producers’

questionnaire.

 25 Berwick Offray reported inventory adjustments of ***.

III-4

The Commission asked domestic producers to describe any plant openings, relocations,

expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, and prolonged shutdowns. WM Wright ceased U.S.

production in ***, and reported that it became *** a U.S. importer of narrow woven ribbons.18 19 Schiff

reported that ***.

The Commission asked domestic producers to describe the constraints that limit production

capacity. Berwick Offray responded that its production capacity is limited by ***. *** of the U.S.

producers reported producing other products on the same equipment and machinery, or same U.S.

production and related workers used in the production of narrow woven ribbons.20

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of narrow woven ribbons are presented in table III-4. U.S.

producers’ U.S. commercial shipments, in terms of quantity, declined by *** percent during 2006-08. 

While Berwick Offray reported ***, Schiff reported ***. In terms of value, U.S. producers’ U.S.

commercial shipments declined by *** percent during 2006-08, with Berwick Offray reporting a decline

of *** percent, and Schiff reporting a decline of *** percent. In terms of value, Berwick Offray reported

***, while Schiff reported ***.21

Table III-4

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

*** reported transfers to the related firm ***, while *** reported internal transfers. The internal

transfers reported by ***, in terms of quantity and value, increased in 2007 by *** percent and ***

percent, respectively, and then declined in 2008, by *** percent and *** percent, respectively. The

transfers to related firms reported by *** increased in each year, ending in 2008 higher by *** percent

and *** percent in terms of quantity and value, respectively. *** reported exports, although ***. 

Average unit values for total shipments and for U.S. commercial shipments declined between 2006 and

2008. The U.S. producers reported *** average unit values.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-5, which presents end-of-period inventories for narrow woven ribbons, shows that

inventories increased during 2006-08 and were higher in January-March 2009 compared with JanuaryMarch 2009. *** reported that the *** of their sales are from inventory.22 ***. In addition, *** reported

that ***.23 *** reported that ***.24 *** reported that ***.25
 26 Conference transcript, p. 61 (Kerr).

 27 Conference transcript, p. 44 (Kerr), and p. 81 (Shea).

 28 Berwick Offray, supplemental response to U.S. importers’ questionnaire, August 3, 2009.

 29 Conference transcript, p. 12 (Jacobs), p. 115 (Mitchel), p. 120 (Icsman), and p. 180 (Freebern).

 30 Respondent ribbon retailers’ postconference brief, p. 6.

 31 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 15.

 32 In terms of value these transactions represent ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 16.

 33 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh 7.

 34 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 17.

 35 *** response to U.S. producers’ questionnaire, section II-4.

III-5

Table III-5

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of narrow woven ribbons are presented in table III-6.

Berwick Offray noted that while it is capable of making virtually any narrow woven product in the United

States,26 it imported narrow woven ribbons primarily because prices are often below Berwick Offray’s

cost of production, and the competitive pressures necessitate providing the narrow woven ribbons at the

lower price.27 Berwick Offray also reported that ***.28 Respondents argued that Berwick Offray has also

served as a “middleman” for other U.S. imports of narrow woven ribbons from subject sources for which

Berwick Offray does not serve as the importer of record.29 In this capacity, Berwick Offray reportedly

identifies products of interest to buyers, connects U.S. buyers to subject producers, handles logistic and

administrative aspects, coordinates shipments to U.S. buyers, while the buyer serves as the importer of

record and clears the subject merchandise for entry into the United States. Moreover, the Respondents

argued that Berwick Offray is heavily involved in these import transactions from beginning to end, and

charges the importer of record for these purchases.30 Berwick Offray stated that while it does handle the

paperwork, and does not act as importer of record for some imports of subject merchandise, it is capable

of making any narrow woven ribbon, and prefers to make that product in the United States.31 In addition,

Berwick Offray contended the actual volume of imports represented by these transactions is much smaller

than implied by the Respondents, representing only ***.32 Berwick reported that of its total sales value,

these transactions represented *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008.33

Moreover, Berwick Offray argued that these transactions were “one-off seasonal buys, primarily for the

December holidays, that typically are trays of ribbons composed in large part of cut-edge ribbon rather

than narrow woven ribbons.”34

*** reported that it imports narrow woven ribbons because it is “***.”35

Table III-6

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 36 *** reported ***.

 37 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 18.

III-6

Figure III-2

Narrow woven ribbons: Petitioner Berwick Offray’s U.S. production, imports, and purchases,

2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for narrow woven ribbons are presented in table

III-7. PRWs producing narrow woven ribbons declined by *** between 2006 and 2008, and were ***

less in January-March 2009 compared to January-March 2008.36 The majority of the decline in PRWs

was reported by ***. *** reported lower number of PRWs, by ***, in January-March 2009 compared

with January-March 2008, though it reported ***. Berwick Offray reported that the number of PRWs

was reduced by *** due to a variety of reasons. It estimated that *** PRWs were reduced due to savings

initiatives and measured productivity improvements, *** PRWs due to production shifts to its Mexico

facility, and the remaining *** PRWs due to a reduction in production volumes.37 

*** reported ***. *** also reported ***. The trend for unit labor costs for the two U.S.

producers ***. The trend was similar in January-March 2009 compared with January-March 2008, with

***.

Table III-7

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms that, based on a

review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have imported greater than one

percent of total U.S. imports under HTS statistical reporting number 5806.32.1090 during 2006-07, and under HTS

statistical reporting numbers 5806.32.1020, 5806.32.1030, 5806.32.1050, and 5806.32.1060 in 2008, the first year

these were applicable.

 2

 Ten companies provided incomplete questionnaire responses. ***, which was not identified by Customs as an

importer of record under the core HTS subheading or statistical reporting numbers, provided an incomplete response

to the U.S. importers' questionnaire. *** reported ***, and so is not included in the U.S. import data in this report. 

*** reported very small qualitites of imported subject merchandise. *** did not provide quantity data, but did

provide value data which are included in the applicable import data in this report.

 3

 The Commission also asked importers if they imported products other than narrow woven ribbons under HTS

subheading 5806.32; eighteen importers, including ***, reported that they did so. 

 4

 The Commission asked importers if they imported narrow woven ribbons under HTS subheadings other than

5806.32; twenty-one importers, including the petitioner reported that they did so. This represented 10.1 percent of

total quantity of imports from China, 4.1 percent of imports from Taiwan, and 1.4 percent of imports from all other

sources.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 235 firms believed to be importers of subject narrow woven

ribbons, as well as to all U.S. producers of narrow woven ribbons.1

 Complete or partial questionnaire

responses were received from 74 companies, representing 76.2 percent of total quantity, and 73.3 percent

of total value of U.S. imports from China and from Taiwan between January 2006 and December 2007

under HTS statistical reporting number 5806.32.1090, a “basket” category, and 90.3 percent and 90.8

percent of total quantity and value, respectively, of statistical reporting numbers 5806.32.1020,

5806.32.1030, 5806.32.1050, and 5806.32.1060 between January 2008 and March 2009.2 3

 Table IV-1

lists the top ten responding U.S. importers of narrow woven ribbons, by value, from China and from

Taiwan and other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports, in 2008. The largest importers

of narrow woven ribbons in 2008 from China were ***; from Taiwan were ***; and from all other

sources were ***.

Table IV-1

Narrow woven ribbons: Top U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, and shares of

imports in 2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS

Data on U.S. imports are based on responses to the Commission’s U.S. importers’ questionnaire,

as official statistics in 2006 and 2007 were based on an HTS statistical reporting number that was broader

than the subject merchandise, and narrow woven ribbons were imported under several statistical reporting

numbers other than the core numbers of 5806.32.1020, 5806.32.1030, 5806.32.1050, and 5806.32.1060 in

2008 and 2009.4
 5

 Conference transcript, p. 212 (Lodge) and p. 213 (Vaughn).

 6

 Conference transcript, pp. 212-214 (Lodge, Vaughn, and Icsman).

 7

 Conference transcript, p. 213 (Mitchell).

 8

 Data for quantity was not reported by ***.

 9

 For example, some importers, such as *** reported in linear yards, some, such as *** reported in linear meters,

some importers, such as *** reported by weight, and some converted their data from spools or units to square yards.

IV-2

 The collection, presentation, and analysis of data in these investigations posed particular

challenges. First, the universe of importers is both large and hard to document. In 2006 and 2007,

narrow woven ribbons were primarily, but not exclusively, classified under a broad HTS statistical

reporting number (5806.32.1090) that included not only the subject merchandise but also cut-edge

ribbons and wide ribbons, among others. Even after the establishment of four statistical reporting

numbers (5806.32.1020, 5806.32.1030, 5806.32.1050, and 5806.32.1060) designed to capture imports of

polyester and nylon narrow woven ribbons, imports of other narrow woven ribbons (such as metallic)

entered under separate, mixed statistical reporting numbers.

Second, a number of firms, many of them large, reportedly have only a limited sense of whether

the narrow woven ribbons that they source and sell are produced in the United States or in other countries,

in part because the primary U.S. producers of narrow woven ribbons also import the product. In

particular, the fact that ***.

Third, the measure of quantity is problematic. U.S. producers use square yards to measure

production and certain other volume metrics, and indeed the use of square yards is generally

acknowledged as a “fair” method to collect volume data.5

 However, official import statistics, to the

extent that they can be used, are collected in terms of weight, not area. Moreover, few if any importers

routinely maintain area-based quantity data, instead collecting data in terms of units (generally spools,

which themselves may contain varying yardage) and sometimes linear yards or meters.6

 Indeed, even

after best efforts, seven U.S. importers, representing approximately one-quarter of subject imports in

2008, were unable to provide even carefully prepared estimates of their quantity data in square yards. 

Importer Michaels stated that the “ability to do it {report in square yards} for current state would be

pretty much impossible, and it would be absolutely impossible to provide any historical context.”7

Finally, for those companies that were able to provide carefully prepared estimates of quantity

data in square yards, all data had to be reviewed carefully because of differences in product mix. These

included not only size differences and differences in characteristics (such as the use of metallics and other

embellishments), but also the fact that ribbons in assortments or other highly processed combinations

carried much higher (allocated) average unit values.

Table IV-2 present data for the quantity of U.S. imports of narrow woven ribbons from China,

Taiwan, and all other sources, to the extent that importers were able to report quantity data.8

 Both the

accuracy and the completeness of these data are at issue due to the extreme difficulty in achieving a

common standard of measure.9

 Table IV-3 presents data for the value of U.S. imports of narrow woven

ribbons from China and Taiwan and all other sources. These data are substantially more complete (and in

fact can be compared to official import statistics for calendar year 2008 and January-March 2008 and

2009). Finally, table IV-4 presents data for the average unit value of U.S. imports of narrow woven

ribbons from China and Taiwan and all other sources, based on the responses of firms that could provide

both quantity (in square yards) and value data. Because of the different levels of coverage in tables IV-2

and IV-3, the average unit value data in table IV-4 cannot be derived from the preceding tables. 
IV-3

Imports from Subject Sources

The reported quantity of subject U.S. imports fluctuated between 2006 and 2008, ending 7.3

percent lower than in 2006. This decline was due to a decline in imports from Taiwan of 13.7 percent

(1.7 million square yards). Over that same period, value, which includes data from more responses to the

U.S. importers’ questionnaire, also fluctuated, but ended 4.7 percent ($2.9 million) higher in 2008 than in

2006. This increase was due to a 24.6 percent ($5.3 million) increase in imports from China, with the

majority of this increase in 2007. Imports from Taiwan declined in each year, in terms of both quantity

and value. 

As shown in table IV-2, the quantity of subject imports was 12.8 percent lower in interim 2009

compared with interim 2008, with imports from Taiwan 13.5 percent lower and imports from China 11.8

percent lower. As shown in table IV-3, the value of subject imports was 7.9 percent higher in interim

2009 compared with interim 2008, with imports from China 17.4 percent lower and imports from Taiwan

27.8 percent higher. 

As shown in table IV-4, average unit values of imports from both China and Taiwan, derived

from questionnaire data from respondents that were able to provide both quantity and value, increased

from 2006 to 2008, with average unit value of imports from Taiwan generally higher than those of

imports from China. In January-March 2009, however, the average unit value of imports from China

were higher than those from Taiwan.

Table IV-2

Narrow woven ribbons: Reported quantity of U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

Source

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Reported quantity (1,000 square yards)

China 7,546 8,117 7,764 1,386 1,222

Taiwan 12,102 11,737 10,442 1,996 1,726

 Subject subtotal 19,648 19,854 18,206 3,383 2,948

Other countries 1,422 1,295 1,208 272 205

 Total U.S. imports 21,070 21,149 19,413 3,654 3,154

Share of reported quantity (percent)

China 35.8 38.4 40.0 37.9 38.8

Taiwan 57.4 55.5 53.8 54.6 54.7

 Subject subtotal 93.3 93.9 93.8 92.6 93.5

Other countries 6.7 6.1 6.2 7.4 6.5

 Total U.S. imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.–Quantity data are understated because the following companies were unable to provide data based on

square yards: ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
IV-4

Table IV-3

Narrow woven ribbons: Value of U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

Source

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 21,733 26,980 27,076 4,404 3,639

Taiwan 40,295 38,781 37,888 5,572 7,123

 Subject subtotal 62,027 65,761 64,964 9,976 10,762

Other countries 6,134 5,925 5,173 1,252 844

 Total U.S. imports 68,161 71,686 70,137 11,228 11,606

Share of value (percent)

China 31.9 37.6 38.6 39.2 31.4

Taiwan 59.1 54.1 54.0 49.6 61.4

 Subject subtotal 91.0 91.7 92.6 88.8 92.7

Other countries 9.0 8.3 7.4 11.2 7.3

 Total U.S. imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table IV-4

Narrow woven ribbons: Average unit value of U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

Source

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Unit value (per square yard)

1

China 2.38 2.55 2.66 2.86 2.73

Taiwan 2.50 2.46 2.73 2.64 2.67

 Subject subtotal 2.46 2.49 2.70 2.73 2.69

Other countries 3.45 3.74 3.74 3.63 3.77

 Total U.S. imports 2.52 2.57 2.76 2.80 2.76

1

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

Note.–Unit values are calculated using data of firms supplying both quantity and value information.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 10 Staff interview with ***.

 11 *** reported an increase in imports ***.

 12 Costco reported it imported only for seasonal business, largely Christmas, and that it did not import from China

or other sources during period for which data were collected. Conference transcript, p. 152, p. 180, and p. 189

(Buckley)

 13 *** also reported ***. Staff telephone interview with ***.

 14 Conference transcript, p. 53 (Shea) and pp. 219-220 (Wong).

 15 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)).

IV-5

One importer, *** reported that the *** decline in 2008 of imports from *** was due to ***10. 

*** noted that its increases in imports from *** were due to several factors ***.11 Costco, which reported

***, reported this ***12. ***, which reported an increase in imports from Taiwan of *** in 2007, stated

this increase was primarily due to ***13. *** also reported an increase in imports from Taiwan of *** in

2007, but then reported a decline of *** in 2008. *** reported the increase in 2007 was primarily due to

***, while the decrease was largely due to ***. *** reported ***.

Imports from Nonsubject Sources

Both the Petitioner and the Respondents reported that the only other significant nonsubject source

was Mexico, although imports from Mexico were substantially less than those from subject sources.14

This is corroborated by official import statistics for calendar year 2008 and interim 2008 and interim

2009, which indicate that Mexico is the leading nonsubject source with less than 3 percent of total

imports, by quantity and value, in 2008, followed by India and Korea with less than 0.5 percent of total

imports in 2008.

Subject Imports by U.S. Producers

Table IV-5 presents data on imports of narrow woven fabric by U.S. producers and all other

sources. The value of subject imports by Berwick Offray was *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent

of the total subject imports during 2006-08, respectively. In interim 2008 the ratio was *** percent and

increased to *** percent in interim 2009. The share of total imports from Taiwan by Berwick Offray was

*** than for imports from China for each period for which data collected, ranging from *** percent in

2006 to *** in interim 2009. The share of *** total subject imports ranged from a high of *** percent in

2007 to less than *** percent in interim 2009, with the majority of imports from ***.

Table IV-5

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Negligibility

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible, unless the Commission finds that imports of the

subject merchandise are likely to imminently exceed the negligibility threshold.15 Negligible imports are

generally defined in the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise
 16 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

 17 Based on HTS statistical reporting numbers 5806.32.1020, 5806.32.1030, 5806.32.1050, and 5806.32.1060.

 18 Petitioner argued that subject imports from China and Taiwan should be cumulated. Petitioner’s

postconference brief, pp. 5-8. The respondent importers did not address cumulation. Conference transcript, 167

(Perry). The respondent ribbon retailers take no position regarding the issue of cumulation for present material

injury and threat purposes. Ribbon retailers’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 5.

IV-6

corresponding to a domestic like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the

volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for

which data are available that precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. 

However, if there are imports of such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations

initiated on the same day that individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the

subject merchandise, and if the imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 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.16 Based on questionnaire data,

imports from China and from Taiwan accounted for 37.3 percent and 55.9 percent, respectively, of total

reported U.S. imports of narrow woven ribbons by value during April 2008-March 2009. Between July

2008 and June 2009, imports from China accounted for 32.9 percent, by value, and 28.2 percent, by

quantity, of total U.S. imports of narrow woven ribbons compiled from official Commerce statistics.17 

During the same period, imports from Taiwan accounted for 64.2 percent, by value, and 67.6 percent, by

quantity, of total U.S. imports of narrow woven ribbons compiled from official Commerce statistics.

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic

like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four

factors: (1) the degree of fungibility, including specific customer requirements and other quality-related

questions; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets; (3) common channels of

distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Channels of distribution and fungibility

(interchangeability) are discussed in Part II of this report. Additional information concerning fungibility,

geographical markets, and simultaneous presence in the market is presented below.18

Fungibility

Table IV-6 presents data on U.S. shipments of narrow woven ribbons by sources and by type over

the period for which data were collected. The largest share of domestically produced product, as well as

narrow woven ribbons imported from Taiwan and from other countries was polyester without wire in

selvedge, while the largest share of narrow woven ribbons imported from China was polyester with wire

in selvedge.
 19 Petition, p. 80. Berwick Offray noted that as most of its customers are nationwide, its distribution centers

service the entire United States rather than being regionally placed. In addition, Berwick Offray stated that it does

not import into the United States because of location, such as specifically for the U.S. west coast market. 

Conference transcript, pp. 80-81 (Shea).

 20 Petition, p. 80.

 21 Data may be understated as data are only for HTS statistical reporting numbers 5806.32.1020, 5806.32.1030,

5806.32.1050, and 5806.32.1060, while narrow woven ribbons may enter under other statistical reporting numbers.

IV-7

Table IV-6

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. shipments of the domestically produced and imported product, by

sources and by types, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Product United

States China Taiwan Other

countries

Share of value of U.S. shipments (percent)

Polyester with wire in selvedge *** 34.1 13.6 25.4

Polyester without wire in selvedge *** 17.1 47.6 30.6

Nylon with wire in selvedge *** 11.6 0.1 12.9

Nylon without wire in selvedge *** 5.8 7.9 6.5

Other fabric with wire in selvedge1 *** 22.2 17.1 15.6

Other fabric without wire in selvedge1 *** 9.2 13.7 9.1

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Examples of “other fabric” include acetate and metallic yarn. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Geography

With regard to geographical market overlap, U.S. imports of narrow woven ribbons from China

and Taiwan entered multiple U.S. ports of entry, dispersed across the nation. The three U.S. ports of

entry with the largest volume of imports from China were: (1) Los Angeles, CA; (2) New York, NY; and

(3) New Orleans, LA. The four U.S. ports of entry with the most volume of imports from Taiwan were:

(1) Los Angeles, CA; (2) New York, NY; (3) Dallas-Forth Worth, TX; and (4) San Francisco, CA. 

Approximately two-thirds of the imports of narrow woven ribbons from China and Taiwan entered

through those ports. Petitioners argue that the imported product, like domestically produced narrow

woven ribbons, is available nationwide.19

Presence in the Market

With regard to simultaneous presence in the market, petitioners state that imported narrow woven

ribbons from both China and Taiwan have been simultaneously present in the U.S. market along with

domestic product during the period examined.20 Commerce statistics and pricing data submitted to the

Commission show that imports from China and Taiwan entered the United States in every quarter for

which data were collected (and every month between January 2008 and June 2009). Table IV-7 presents

monthly import data for January 2008-June 2009.21 Pricing data are found in Part V of this report.
IV-8

Table IV-7Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. imports, by sources, January 2008 - June 2009

Source

Month

2008 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 

Quantity (1,000 kilograms)

China 19 57 27 44 64 39 86 96 108 76 96 43 71 53 Taiwan 128 52 45 50 69 73 201 363 234 156 99 112 208 130  Subtotal 148 109 73 93 132 112 288 460 342 232 195 155 279 183 Mexico 2 3 3 5 7 7 8 0 6 5 9 4 15 6 All othersources 4 3 2 5 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 1  Total 154 115 78 103 142 120 297 465 349 238 205 159 295 190 

Value ($1,000)1

China 348 1,677 563 792 1,514 908 2,499 2,227 2,941 1,535 1,883 1,089 980 924 

Taiwan 2,814 1,008 886 840 1,179 1,289 4,696 5,859 3,286 3,148 1,699 1,874 4,110 1,901 

 Subtotal 3,162 2,685 1,449 1,632 2,693 2,198 7,195 8,087 6,227 4,682 3,582 2,963 5,090 2,825 

Mexico 70 29 27 43 62 56 114 9 80 56 84 37 240 63 All othersources 74 76 31 72 40 22 15 152 16 13 30 23 20 13  Total 3,306 2,790 1,507 1,748 2,795 2,276 7,323 8,248 6,323 4,751 3,696 3,024 5,350 2,901 

1 Landed, port of entry, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics. HTS statistical reporting numbers 5806.32.1020, 5806.32.1030, 5806.32.1050, and 5806.32.1060.
IV-9

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of narrow woven ribbons during the period for

which data were collected are shown in table IV-8, table IV-9, and figure IV-1. Table IV-8 presents

quantity data only for those companies that reported quantity. Table IV-9 presents value data for all

companies that responded to the Commission’s U.S. producers’ and importers’ questionnaire. 

Table IV-8

Narrow woven ribbons: Quantity of U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 square yards)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from–

China 7,546 8,117 7,764 1,386 1,222

Taiwan 12,102 11,737 10,442 1,996 1,726

 Subject subtotal 19,648 19,854 18,206 3,383 2,948

Other countries 1,422 1,295 1,208 272 205

 Total U.S. imports 21,070 21,149 19,413 3,654 3,154

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Note.–Quantity data are understated because the following companies were unable to provide data based on

square yards: ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 22 Imports from China increased 24.1 percent in 2007 and 0.4 percent in 2008.

 23 Conference transcript, p. 130 (Vaughn) and p. 189 (Bucklin and Icsman)

 24 Conference transcript, p. 153 (Mitchel) and p. 189 (Bucklin and Icsman).

 25 Conference transcript, p. 67 (Shea).

IV-10

Table IV-9

Narrow woven ribbons: Value of U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent

U.S. consumption, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

China 21,733 26,980 27,076 4,404 3,639

Taiwan 40,295 38,781 37,888 5,572 7,123

 Subject subtotal 62,027 65,761 64,964 9,976 10,762

Other countries 6,134 5,925 5,173 1,252 844

 Total U.S. imports 68,161 71,686 70,137 11,228 11,606

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** ***

1

 Landed duty-paid.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure IV-1

Narrow woven ribbons: Value of apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

The value of apparent U.S. consumption declined by *** percent between 2006 and 2008, and

was *** percent lower in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. The value of U.S. producers’

shipments declined by *** percent from 2006 to 2008, as did U.S. imports from Taiwan and all other

sources, by 6.0 percent and 15.7 percent, respectively. Over the same period the value of U.S. imports

from China increased by 24.6 percent. While U.S. producers’ shipments and imports from Taiwan and all

other sources declined each year, imports from China increased each year.22

The value of U.S. producers’ shipments was *** percent lower in interim 2009 than in interim

2008. The value of U.S. imports from China and from all other sources were 17.4 percent and 32.6

percent lower, respectively, while U.S. imports from Taiwan were 27.8 percent higher in interim 2009

compared with interim 2008.

Respondents argued that the recession has resulted in a decline in the demand and shipments of

narrow woven ribbons.23 Respondents also noted that holiday-related narrow woven ribbons, which are

imported after the interim period, have been particularly impacted by the recession.24 Petitioner

acknowledged that the recession had an impact on demand, but argued that the impact was minor.25
 26 Conference transcript, pp. 67-68 (Shea and Pajic) and pp. 223-224 (Dorris).

 27 Import quantity is based only on responses to the Commission’s importers’ questionnaires for which quantity

data was provided. Import value data is based on all importers’ questionnaires. 

IV-11

Berwick Offray asserted that the market for narrow woven ribbons is “fairly recession proof,” noting that

with consumers staying home more and participating in “nesting projects”, there is less of a decrease in

sales.26

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share quantity and value data are presented in tables IV-10 and IV-11, respectively.27

The share of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, in terms of value, declined during 2006-08 and was lower in

interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. The share of value of subject imports increased between 2006

and 2008, with imports from China increasing by *** percentage points, while imports from Taiwan

declined by *** percentage points.

Table IV-10

Narrow woven ribbons: Quantity of U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-11

Narrow woven ribbons: Value of U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of narrow woven ribbons, in terms

of quantity is presented in table IV-12, while table IV-13 presents value information on the ratio of

imports to U.S. producers’ total shipments. Subject imports as a ratio of U.S. producers’ total shipments

(a value-based equivalent of U.S. production), increased by *** percentage points during 2006-08, and

was *** percentage points higher in January-March 2009 than in January-March 2008. The ratio of U.S.

imports from China increased *** percentage points during 2006-08, while the ratio of U.S. imports from

Taiwan increased by *** percentage points.

Table IV-12

Narrow woven ribbons: Quantity of U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S.

production, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-13

Narrow woven ribbons: Value of U.S. producers’ total shipments, U.S. imports, and ratios of

imports to U.S. producers’ total shipments, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

 1

 ***.

 2

 Specifically, Berwick Offray reported that a “couple” of customers, mainly mass retailers, have used reverse

auctions when purchasing narrow woven ribbons. Conference transcript, p. 88 (Shea).

 3

 This importer also reported that it recently participated in a reverse auction for the 2009 holiday season with

retailer Macy’s in which Berwick Offray allegedly drove the price down by 40 percent and won the bid for the

account, the incumbent supplier of which was U.S. producer and importer Lawrence Schiff. Conference transcript,

(continued...)

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

U.S. producers of narrow woven ribbons reported that polyester yarn, nylon, acetate, and rayon

are the principal raw materials used in producing narrow woven ribbons, with *** reporting that polyester

yarn in particular accounts for *** percent of its total raw material costs. Other raw materials cited

included dyes (reportedly accounting for *** percent of total raw material costs) and corrugate and plastic

rings for spools. U.S. producers reported that their costs for polyester *** since 2006 and that their costs

for dyes have *** by between *** percent and *** percent over the same period.1

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. producers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs of narrow woven ribbons range from

*** to *** percent of the delivered price. Importers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs of

narrow woven ribbons range from *** to *** percent of the delivered price, with the majority of

importers reporting U.S. inland transportation costs of *** percent or less. 

U.S. inland shipping distances for U.S.-produced narrow woven ribbons and narrow woven

ribbons produced in China and Taiwan were requested from both U.S. producers and U.S. importers. For

the U.S. producers, *** percent of their U.S. sales in 2008 occurred within distances of 100 miles from

their facilities, *** percent occurred within distances of 101 to 1,000 miles, and *** percent occurred

within distances over 1,000 miles from their facilities. For importers of ribbons from China, *** percent

of sales by value in 2008 occurred within 100 miles of their storage facilities, *** percent of sales

occurred within 101 to 1,000 miles, and *** percent occurred within distances over 1,000 miles. For

importers of ribbons from Taiwan, *** percent of sales by value in 2008 occurred within 100 miles of

their storage facilities, *** percent of sales occurred within 101 to 1,000 miles, and *** percent occurred

within distances over 1,000 miles.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

When questionnaire respondents were asked how they determined the prices that they charge for

narrow woven ribbons, *** reported *** and *** reported the use of ***. Among importers of narrow

woven ribbons from China and Taiwan, the majority reported the use of price lists, while the remainder

reported the use of transaction-by-transaction negotiations, or a combination of the two.

Berwick Offray reported that reverse auctions are used in price negotiations in a small number of

cases.2

 Importer MNC Stribbons reported that it is unaware of Berwick Offray losing a reverse auction in

which it has participated.3

 
 3

 (...continued)

p. 135 (Vaughn). Importers Liberty Ribbon and Papillon reported that Berwick Offray won a reverse auction with

retailer Bed Bath & Beyond in July 2008 by bidding the price down from 23 cents per yard to 4.83 cents per yard. 

Conference transcript, p. 136 (Lodge) and p. 144 (Wong).

 4

 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 12.

 5 Firms were also asked to report pricing data on sales of products imported from Mexico. Sales of imports from

Mexico were reported *** by ***. Importer *** reported unusable data on sales of product *** imported from

Mexico in linear yards.

 6

 Woven or applied embellishments include, but are not limited to: woven embellishments using a jacquard

mechanism, narrow woven ribbons made from differently colored yarns (yarns dyed before weaving), screen printed

embellishments, flexography printed embellishments, transfer printed embellishments, and foil stamped

embellishments.

V-2

Prices of narrow woven ribbons are generally quoted on an f.o.b. rather than a delivered basis, for

both U.S. producers and importers. 

Sales Terms and Discounts

U.S. producers and importers of narrow woven ribbons from China and Taiwan were asked what

share of their sales were on a (1) long-term contract basis (multiple deliveries for more than 12 months),

(2) short-term contract basis (up to and including 12 months), and (3) spot sales basis (for a single

delivery) during 2008. *** reported that *** percent of its sales are on a long-term contract basis; ***

percent are on a short-term contract basis; and *** percent are spot sales. *** reported that *** percent

of its sales are a short-term contract basis and *** percent are spot sales. ***’s contracts typically ***. 

***’s short-term contracts ***.

Among the importers that reported sales of imports from China and Taiwan, the vast majority

reported that all or nearly all of their sales are on a spot basis. Six importers reported that most of their

sales are on a short-term contract basis and one importer reported that most of its sales are on a long-term

contract basis. Importers’ short-term contracts last from 3 to 12 months, generally fix both price and

quantity, and may or may not contain meet-or-release provisions.

*** offer some form of discount. ***.4

 ***. Half of the 52 responding importers reported the

use of discounts, mostly citing discounts based on volume ranging from 4 to 40 percent.

*** and *** importers reported that they had provided markdown support to a retailer (i.e., paid

for retail space by incurring at least some of the cost to clear out existing inventory on the shelves,

including the supplier’s own product), citing ***. *** of these importers reported that the markdown

support was ***. *** reported that such markdowns ranged from $*** to $*** and *** importers

reported that their markdowns ranged from *** to *** percent ***.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of narrow woven ribbons from China

and Taiwan to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of selected products that were

shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market.5

 Data were requested for the period January 2006-

March 2009. The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:

Product 1.—Single faced satin of solid color, without woven or applied embellishments,6

 with a 

woven selvedge with no wire.
 7

 Importer *** reported sales prices of imports from China; however, it also stated that its data included *** and

thus its data have been excluded. Staff excluded sales prices of imports from China as reported by *** and ***

because they each applied the ***. 

 8

 Importer *** reported sales prices of imports from Taiwan; however, its reported pricing data quantity *** and

staff could not verify that the pricing data were reported in the correct units. Therefore, its data have been excluded. 

Staff excluded sales prices of imports from Taiwan as reported by *** because it applied the ***. 

 9

 Commission questionnaires requested that retailers that directly import narrow woven ribbons provide their

delivered prices of products purchased from U.S. producers and purchase prices of direct imports from China and

Taiwan. Appendix D presents the purchase prices reported by ***. Retailers *** were unable to provide ***.

V-3

Product 2.— Single faced satin of non-solid color, with or without woven or applied

embellishments, with a woven selvedge with no wire.

Product 3.—Double faced satin of solid color, without woven or applied embellishments, with a

woven selvedge with no wire.

Product 4.—Sheers of solid color, without woven or applied embellishments, with a woven 

selvedge with wire.

Product 5.—Sheers of non-solid color, with or without woven or applied embellishments, with a

woven selvedge, with no wire.

Product 6.—Grosgrain of non-solid color, with or without applied embellishments, with a woven

selvedge, with no wire.

*** U.S. producers, *** importers of product imported from China,7 and *** importers of

product imported from Taiwan provided pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all

firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.8 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for

approximately *** percent of the value of U.S. producers’s U.S. commercial shipments of narrow woven

ribbons during January 2006-March 2009 and *** percent of the value of U.S. shipments of imports from

China over the same period and *** percent of the value of U.S. shipments of imports from Taiwan.

9

Price Trends

Weighted-average f.o.b. prices reported for U.S. producers and importers are presented in tables

V-1 through V-6 and in figures V-1 through V-6 on a quarterly basis during January 2006-March 2009.

For sales reported by U.S. producers, ***. For sales of products imported from China, ***. For sales of

products imported from Taiwan, ***.

Table V-1

Narrow woven ribbons: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

Table V-2

Narrow woven ribbons: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009 

* * * * * * *
V-4

Table V-3

Narrow woven ribbons: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

Narrow woven ribbons: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 4 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

Narrow woven ribbons: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 5 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-6

Narrow woven ribbons: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 6 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

Figure V-1

Narrow woven ribbons: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 1, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

Narrow woven ribbons: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 2, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

Narrow woven ribbons: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 3, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-4

Narrow woven ribbons: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 4, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-5

Narrow woven ribbons: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 5, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *
V-5

Figure V-6

Narrow woven ribbons: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 6, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

Narrow woven ribbons: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-6 from the

United States and China and Taiwan

Item Number of

quarters

Low price 

(per square yard)

High price

(per square yard)

Change in price1

(percent)

Product 1 

United States 13 $*** $*** ***

China 13 2.87 4.16 6.7

Taiwan 13 3.13 5.77 -23.4

Product 2

United States 13 *** *** ***

China 13 4.11 5.59 -12.2

Taiwan 13 6.60 12.67 -18.1

Product 3

United States 13 *** *** ***

China 13 4.48 6.60 2.4

Taiwan 13 2.71 5.95 37.5

Product 4

United States 13 *** *** ***

China 13 3.77 10.09 -17.8

Taiwan 13 3.22 5.80 5.8

Product 5

United States 13 *** *** ***

China 13 5.70 9.07 11.4

Taiwan 13 4.81 9.80 64.6

Product 6

United States 13 *** *** ***

China 13 6.49 10.69 -14.2

Taiwan 13 4.00 7.77 89.2

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter in which price data were available to the last quarter in which price data

were available, based on unrounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 1 fluctuated and decreased overall by

*** percent from the first quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2009. The weighted-average sales prices

of product 1 imported from China increased by 6.7 percent over the same period. The weighted-average

sales prices of product 1 imported from Taiwan fluctuated and decreased by 23.4 percent over the same

period.
 10 Staff excluded reported sales prices of product 2 imported from Taiwan reported by *** because its prices

ranged from *** percent to *** percent higher than the weighted-average sales prices of the other importers

reporting prices in the same quarters.

 11 Staff excluded reported sales prices of product 5 imported from China reported by *** because its prices were

*** percent ***, on average than the prices reported by other importers and it reported that these sales included ***.

V-6

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 2 remained relatively flat, decreasing

*** percent from the first quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2009. The weighted-average sales prices

of product 2 imported from China decreased by 12.2 percent over the same period. The weighted-average

sales prices of product 2 imported from Taiwan fluctuated and decreased by 18.1 percent over the same

period.10

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 3 fluctuated, but increased overall by

*** percent from the first quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2009, with most of the increase occurring

in ***. The weighted-average sales prices of product 3 imported from China increased by 2.4 percent

over the same period. The weighted-average sales prices of product 3 imported from Taiwan increased

by 37.5 percent over the same period, with most of the increase occurring in 2008 and the first quarter of

2009.

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 4 remained relatively flat over the

period, increasing *** percent from the first quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2009. The weightedaverage sales prices of product 4 imported from China fluctuated and decreased overall by 17.8 percent

over the same period. The weighted-average sales prices of product 4 imported from Taiwan fluctuated

and increased overall by 5.8 percent over the same period.

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 5 fluctuated and increased overall by

*** percent from the first quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2009. The weighted-average sales prices

of product 5 imported from China fluctuated and increased overall by 11.4 percent over the same period.11

The weighted-average sales prices of product 5 imported from Taiwan increased by 64.6 percent over the

same period, with most of the increase occurring in 2008 and the first quarter of 2009.

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 6 increased by *** percent from the

first quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2009. The weighted-average sales prices of product 6 imported

from China fluctuated and decreased overall by 14.2 percent over the same period. The weighted-average

sales prices of product 6 imported from Taiwan increased by 89.2 percent over the same period, with

most of the increase occurring in 2008 and the first quarter of 2009.

Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling for the period are presented by product category in table V-8 

below. The data show that prices of imports from China were lower than the U.S. producers’ prices in 65

out of 78 quarterly comparisons, by margins ranging from 0.1 percent to 72.4 percent. The prices of

imports from China were higher than U.S. producers’ prices in 13 quarterly comparisons, by margins

ranging from 1.2 to 34.2 percent. The data show that prices of imports from Taiwan were lower than the

U.S. producer prices in 66 out of 78 quarterly comparisons, by margins ranging from 1.4 percent to 76.0

percent. The prices of imports from Taiwan oversold U.S. producers prices in 12 quarterly comparisons,

by margins ranging from 0.2 to 33.0 percent.

Table V-8

Narrow woven ribbons: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of

margins for products 1-6, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 12 ***. ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 15.

 13 ***. 

 14 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 15.

V-7

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested that U.S. producers report any instances of lost sales or revenues it

experienced due to competition from imports of narrow woven ribbons from China and Taiwan since

January 2006. *** provided *** lost sales allegations and *** provided *** lost sales allegations

collectively totaling $***.12 *** provided *** lost revenues allegations totaling $***.13 Staff contacted

the *** purchasers cited in the allegations; *** responded. *** confirmed lost sales allegations totaling

$*** and *** purchasers confirmed lost revenues allegations totaling $***. The results are summarized

in tables V-9 and V-10 and are discussed below.

Table V-9

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-10

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

*** was named in a lost revenues allegation valued at $***. It disagreed with the allegation,

stating that ***. It further reported that it has not switched from purchasing narrow woven ribbons from

U.S. producers to suppliers of imports and that it is unaware of U.S. producers reducing their prices to

compete with imports.

*** was named in a lost sales allegation valued at $***. It disagreed with the allegation, stating

that it only purchases from U.S. suppliers. 

*** was named in a lost revenues allegation valued at $***. It agreed with the allegation, further

stating that it had switched its purchases from U.S. producers to imports from China due to price, ***.

*** was named in a lost sales allegation valued at $***. It disagreed with the allegation, stating

that it has not purchased narrow woven ribbons from China or Taiwan.

*** was named in a lost sales allegation valued at $***. It reported that it could not respond to

the specific allegation, but stated that ***.

*** was named in a lost sale allegation valued at $*** and a lost revenues allegation valued at

$***. It agreed with the lost revenues allegation, stating that it paid $*** per piece from a supplier of

imports from China after the U.S. supplier had lowered it price from $*** to $*** per piece.

*** was named in a lost sale allegation valued at $***. It disagreed with the allegation, stating

that ***. Furthermore, it reported that ***.

*** was named in *** lost sales allegations valued at $*** and *** lost revenues allegations

valued at $***. It disagreed with the allegations, stating that ***. It also reported that ***. It also

reported that ***. Furthermore, ***. ***. In addition, it reports that, with regard to ***. ***.14

*** was named in a lost sales allegation valued at $*** and a lost revenues allegation valued

$***. It ***.

*** was named in a lost sales allegation valued at $***. It ***.

*** was named in a lost sales allegation valued at $***. It ***.
V-8

*** was named in *** lost sale allegations valued at $*** and a lost revenues allegation valued at

$***. It reported that ***.
 1

 ***.

 2

 Per-unit revenue increased from 2006 to 2007, then declined in 2008 to a level *** 2006 per-unit revenue. 

 3 ***.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

INTRODUCTION

Two U.S. firms provided usable financial data on their operations on narrow woven ribbons. 

These data are believed to account for the vast majority of U.S. operations on narrow woven ribbons in

2008. No firms reported toll production, and reported non-commercial sales were quite limited (and thus

are not separately presented in this chapter).1

 Berwick Offray reported a fiscal year end of March 31,

while Schiff reported a fiscal year end of December 31. Both firms were requested to provide, and did

provide, financial data on a calendar year basis regardless of actual fiscal year end.

OPERATIONS ON NARROW WOVEN RIBBONS

Income-and-loss data for U.S. firms on their operations on narrow woven ribbons are presented in

table VI-1, while selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table VI-2. The domestic industry

experienced *** decreasing operating income from 2006 to 2008, and in January-March 2009 relative to

January-March 2008. Total net sales quantity and value declined from 2006 to 2008, and were *** in

January-March 2009 than in January-March 2008. From 2006 to 2008, the reduction in net sales value

was relatively greater than the reduction in net sales quantity, while in January-March 2009 as compared

to January-March 2008, the reduction in net sales quantity was relatively greater than the reduction in net

sales value. Thus, the per-unit net sales value declined from 2006 to 2008, but was higher in JanuaryMarch 2009 as compared to January-March 2008 (and also higher than in full year 2008).2

 Per-unit

operating costs – cost of goods sold (“COGS”) and selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”)

expenses, combined – decreased from 2006 to 2008, declining by an equivalent amount as compared to

per-unit revenue during this time and thus leading to no net change in per-unit operating income. 

Between the comparable interim periods, per-unit operating costs increased less than per-unit revenue,

thus operating income improved in January-March 2009 as compared to January-March 2008 on a perunit basis and as a ratio to sales.

Table VI-1

Narrow woven ribbons: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-2

Narrow woven ribbons: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

While the overall industry reported fairly stable operating margins from 2006 to 2008, and an

improvement in the operating margin in January-March 2009 relative to January-March 2008, the two

firms reported *** financial data, with *** reporting *** financial results than *** during the period for

which data were collected. While *** reported *** per-unit COGS, the firm’s reported per-unit SG&A

expenses were *** than such expenses as reported by ***,3

 and resulted in ***. 
 4

 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

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 net volume component is generally smaller than the price variance

and the net cost/expense variance.

 5

 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 14, and exh. 14, and e-mail correspondence from *** of ***, August

7, 2009. 

VI-2

VARIANCE ANALYSIS

A variance analysis for narrow woven ribbons is presented in table VI-3. The analysis shows that

the decline in operating income from 2006 to 2008 is primarily due to the higher unfavorable price

variance despite a favorable net cost/expense variance (that is, prices declined more than costs/expenses). 

Operating income decreased in January-March 2009 primarily because the higher favorable price variance

was offset by an unfavorable net cost/expense and volume variance (that is, prices rose more than

costs/expenses, but volume declined).4

Table VI-3

Narrow woven ribbons: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, and JanuaryMarch 2008-09

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures are shown in table VI-4. Two firms

provided capital expenditure data, while no firms provided data on R&D expenses. Capital expenditures

for narrow woven ribbons increased from 2006 to 2008, but were *** lower in January-March 2009 than

in January-March 2008. *** accounted for *** percent of total capital expenditures in each requested

period. According to ***, capital expenditures primarily reflect ***.5

 

Table VI-4

Narrow woven ribbons: Capital expenditures of U.S. producers, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of narrow woven ribbons to compute return on investment (“ROI”). Data on the U.S. producers’

total assets and their ROI are presented in table VI-5. From 2006 to 2008, the total assets for narrow

woven ribbons *** increased from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2008, and the ROI declined from *** percent

in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. 
VI-3

Table VI-5

Narrow woven ribbons: Asset values and return on investment of U.S. producers, 2006-08

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers of narrow woven ribbons to describe any actual or

potential negative effects of imports of narrow woven ribbons from China on their firms’ growth,

investment, ability to raise capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital

investments. Their responses are shown in appendix E.

 1

 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider

{these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are

imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension

agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to

consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination

may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.”

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

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

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the

subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other

relevant economic factors1

--

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be

presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the

subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a

subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and

whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the

likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export

markets to absorb any additional exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of

imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of

substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on

domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the

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

are currently being used to produce other products,

(VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both

a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv))

and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the

likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product

shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission

under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw

agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both),
 2

 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as

evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or

kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material

injury to the domestic industry.”

 3

 The global balance trade data presented are derived from Global Trade Atlas, HS 580632. The products

covered under this HS classification include all narrow woven fabrics of man-made fiber. The subject narrow woven

ribbons are included in the data presented, as are many other products. The Global Trade Atlas data presented

exclude the data for Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore because these data are not consistent with other data

reported.

 4

 Mexico is not included in table VII-1 because it was not a top exporting country of narrow woven fabric of manmade fibers in 2008. However, in 2008, Mexico did have 2,968,554 kilograms of exports, 31,876,890 kilograms of

imports, and a world trade balance of (28,908,336) kilograms (net imports) of narrow woven fabrics of manmade

fibers (HS 580632). Global Trade Atlas, accessed August 4, 2009.

VII-2

(VIII) the 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

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability

that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for

importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).2

Information on the nature of the subsidies was presented earlier in this report; information on the

volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and V; and information

on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and

production efforts is presented in Appendix E. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise;

foreign producers’ operations, and any dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented in this

section of the report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries

and the global market.

OVERVIEW

Global Trade in Narrow Woven Fabrics of Man-Made Fibers

Published information regarding worldwide production and sales of narrow woven ribbons is

scarce. However, according to Global Trade Atlas, China and Hong Kong combined were the world’s

largest exporters in 2008, accounting for 35 percent of the world’s total exports of narrow woven fabrics

of man-made fibers in 2008 (table VII-1).3

 In 2008, Germany was the second largest exporter in the

world, comprising approximately 9 percent of total world exports. The United States was the third largest

exporter with about 8 percent of the world’s total exports in 2008 and Taiwan was fourth with about 7

percent of exports. Ribbons of narrow woven fabric of man-made fibers accounted for 20.7 percent of the

broader HS 580632 category exported by the United States in 2008 (table VII-2).

In contrast, Mexico was the world’s largest importer of narrow woven fabric of man-made fibers

in 2008, accounting for about 19 percent of total world imports.4

 China and Hong Kong were the second

largest importers of narrow woven fabric of man-made fibers, together importing about 13 percent of total

world imports in 2008. The United States was the third largest importer of narrow woven fabric of manmade fibers in 2008, accounting for 10 percent of total world imports (table VII-1).
VII-3

Table VII-1

Narrow woven ribbons and related products: World exports, imports, and trade balance of narrow

woven fabrics of man-made fibers, by country, 2007-08

Country

Calender year

2007 2008

Quantity (kilograms)

Exports from:

China 45,030,871 56,453,382

Germany 15,389,000 16,460,000

United States 17,838,826 15,299,727

Taiwan 13,403,141 12,581,332

Hong Kong 8,770,401 7,869,425

Netherlands 10,136,000 7,807,000

Belgium 6,821,000 6,762,000

Philippines 5,143,304 6,204,422

United Kingdom 6,937,000 5,971,000

Spain 5,514,000 5,087,000

Subtotal 134,983,543 140,495,288

All others 43,274,906 42,500,441

Total 178,258,449 182,995,729

Imports into:

China 14,360,671 13,491,003

Germany 8,398,000 8,254,000

United States 19,014,535 17,627,454

Taiwan 509,325 754,365

Hong Kong 9,402,714 8,231,714

Netherlands 2,155,000 1,437,000

Belgium 2,653,000 1,799,000

Philippines 689,748 536,881

United Kingdom 3,082,000 3,309,000

Spain 2,985,000 2,461,000

Subtotal 63,249,993 57,901,417

All others 108,977,094 114,455,797

Total 172,227,087 172,357,214

Table continued on next page.
VII-4

Table VI- 1- Continued

Narrow woven ribbons and related products: World exports, imports, and trade balance of

narrow woven fabrics of man-made fibers, by country, 2007-08

Country

Calender year

2007 2008

Quantity (kilograms)

Trade balance:

China 30,670,200 42,962,379

Germany 6,991,000 8,206,000

United States (1,175,709) (2,327,727)

Taiwan 12,893,816 11,826,967

Hong Kong (632,313) (362,289)

Netherlands 7,981,000 6,370,000

Belgium 4,168,000 4,963,000

Philippines 4,453,556 5,667,541

United Kingdom 3,855,000 2,662,000

Spain 2,529,000 2,626,000

Subtotal 0 0

All others (65,702,188) (71,955,356)

Total 0 0

Note.–Countries presented separately are based on the top ten exporting countries to the world in 2008. Excludes trade to and

from Australia and Singapore that respectively collected quantity trade data on a square meter or meter basis or did not collect

any quantity data whatsoever.

Note.--Positive numbers presented for “trade balance” show net exports and numbers in parentheses presented for “trade

balance” show net imports. 

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas, HS 580632 (narrow woven fabrics of man-made fibers), excluding data for Australia,

Hong Kong and Singapore, accessed August 4, 2009.
 5

 The ATC entered into force with the WTO agreements in 1995. It called for the gradual elimination of quotas

established under the Multifiber Arrangement, an arrangement negotiated under the General Agreement on Tariffs

and Trade (GATT) that had governed world textile and apparel trade since 1974. The ATC required countries both

to increase the rate at which all quotas grow and to “integrate” textile and apparel articles into the GATT regime

over a 10-year transition period, which ended on January 1, 2005; the articles were brought under GATT discipline

and subject to the same rules as products of other sectors.

 6

 Addressed under tariff coverage in Part I of this report.

 7

 http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/16-tex_e.htm

 8

 China joined the WTO on December 11, 2001; Taiwan joined on January 1, 2002.

 9

 USTR, “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Governments of the United States of America and the

People's Republic of China.”

 10 Under China's Accession Agreement to the WTO, the United States and other WTO countries could impose

temporary safeguards (or quotas) on imports of Chinese textiles and apparel under certain conditions. The textile

safeguard provision permitted WTO countries that concluded that imports of Chinese textiles and apparel were,

owing to market disruption, threatening to impede the orderly development of trade in these goods, to request

consultations with China “with a view to easing or avoiding such market disruption.” No safeguards on narrow

(continued...)

VII-5

Table VII-2

Narrow woven ribbons and related products: U.S. exports to the world of narrow woven fabrics of

manmade fibers, by HTSUS number, 2007-08

Commodity Description

Quantity (kilograms) Share (percent)

2007 2008 2007 2008

5806321010

Ribbons of manmade fiber suitable for

manufacture of typewriter or similar ribbons

of heading 9612 2,497,650 1,804,848 14.0 11.8

5806321090

Ribbons of narrow woven fabric: manmade fibers, nesoi 2,193,064 3,164,614 12.3 20.7

5806322000

Narrow woven fabrics of manmade fiber,

nesoi 13,147,812 10,330,265 73.7 67.5

580632

Narrow woven fabrics, nesoi, of manmade

fibers 17,838,826 15,299,727 100.0 100.0

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas, HS 580632 (narrow woven fabrics of manmade fibers), accessed August 11, 2009.

Bilateral and Multilateral Trade Restrictions

The framework for global trade in textiles and apparel, in general, was liberalized on January 1,

2005, when the United States, the EU, and Canada agreed to gradually eliminate their remaining quotas

on imports from WTO countries, as required by the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing

(ATC).5

 Trade in the basket HTS category historically covering narrow woven ribbons6 was liberalized

in the second round of quota phase-outs under the ATC during 1998-2002.7

 Upon accession to the WTO,

both China and Taiwan were eligible for quota-free exports of narrow woven ribbons to the United

States.8

On November 8, 2005, the United States and China signed a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) that established quotas on U.S. imports of selected textile and apparel products, including narrow

woven ribbons, from China.9

 The MOU went into effect on January 1, 2006, and extended through

December 31, 2008, at which time the right of the United States to invoke safeguards under the textile

provision of China's WTO Membership Accession Agreement expired.10 Narrow woven ribbons were
 10 (...continued)

woven ribbons were enacted or petitioned for in the period between the final quota phase-out and the implementation

of the MOU.

 11 Category 229, which is special purpose fabric, covers a broad range of products of which narrow woven

products are one component. http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/correlat/cor229.htm. 

 12 For category 229 the quotas under the MOU were 33,162,019 kilograms in 2006, 38,467,942 kilograms in

2007, and 45,007,492 kilograms in 2008.

 13 Petition, exh. 12. 

 14 Petition, exh. 17 and 18.

 15 Petition, exh. 13. 

VII-6

included in category 229.11 The quota fill rates for this category from 2006-08 were 31.0, 26.3, and 39.0

percent, respectively.12 These fill rates were relatively low, and did not approach binding levels (typically

80 percent or greater). 

No quantitative restrictions were placed on U.S. textile imports from Taiwan after the 2005

liberalizations.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Overview

The petitioner indicated that there are at least 95 producers of narrow woven ribbons in China.13

The Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to 82 firms that were identified as possible

producers/exporters of narrow woven ribbons in China and for which contact information was available. 

Two Chinese producers of narrow woven ribbons responded to the Commission’s request for information

in these investigations. According to Chinese company profiles, Chinese producers export narrow woven

ribbons to the United States, Europe, India, Japan, Korea, and other Asian countries.14

Narrow Woven Ribbons Operations

 Data provided by *** concerning capacity, production, inventories and shipments are presented

in table VII-3. *** indicated in its questionnaire response that it accounted for *** percent of total

narrow woven ribbons production in China during 2008. *** indicated that its production was *** to

provide an estimate of its share of Chinese production. Capacity, production, shipment, and inventory

data from the responses of the Chinese producers is, therefore, substantially incomplete. 

Table VII-3

Narrow woven ribbons: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2006-08, January-March 2008, January-March 2009, and projections for 2009-10

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN TAIWAN

Overview

Petitioner Berwick Offray indicated that there are at least 39 producers of narrow woven ribbons

in Taiwan.15 The Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to 43 firms that were identified as

possible producers/exporters of narrow woven ribbons in Taiwan. Ten producers of narrow woven

ribbons in Taiwan responded to the Commission’s request for information in these investigations. 

Questionnaire respondents indicated that producers in Taiwan also exported narrow woven ribbons to

various countries in Asia, Europe, Central America and South America.
 16 In describing the methodology used to calculate weaving and spooling capacity, some Taiwan producers

responding to the Commission’s questionnaires indicated that their capacity was determined according to orders. 

 17 Foreign producers questionnaires of ***

VII-7

Narrow Woven Ribbons Operations

Data provided by the 10 producers of narrow woven ribbons in Taiwan responding to the

Commission’s questionnaire concerning capacity, production, inventories and shipments are presented in

table VII-4. These 10 firms reportedly account for a majority of subject narrow woven ribbons

production in Taiwan. The reported aggregate capacity declined over the period for which data were

requested in these investigations. During 2006-08, the Taiwan producers reportedly ran their narrow

woven ribbons operations at levels below their collective full capacity.16 The aggregate reported capacity

utilization in 2008 was 85.0 percent. The aggregate projected capacity utilization in 2009 is 68.3 percent. 

Several producers in Taiwan indicated that their capacity utilization was projected to decease in 2009 due

to the global economic recession.17

Producers in Taiwan reported that exports to the United States were 63.0 percent of total

shipments in 2008, up slightly from a reported share of 62.8 percent in 2007. The responding producers

in Taiwan projected exports to the United States accounted for 67.8 percent of total shipments in 2009. 

From 2006 to 2008 total export shipments increased from 88.3 percent to 90.2 percent of all shipments of

narrow woven ribbons by the producers in Taiwan, while the volume of shipments to the home market

were 6.8 percent in 2008 and projected to increase to 7.5 percent in 2009.

Table VII-4

Narrow woven ribbons: Taiwan production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-

08, January-March 2008, January-March 2009, and projections for 2009-10

Item

2006 2007 2008

January - March Projected Projected

2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 square yards)

Weaving capacity 21,082 22,113 20,133 4,244 4,538 16,973 14,899

Spooling capacity 16,348 17,510 15,767 3,348 3,791 14,030 12,179

Production 19,815 20,681 17,110 2,404 2,749 11,592 10,893

End-of-period inventories 923 1,091 881 509 479 573 539

Shipments:

Internal

consumption/transfers 1,000 669 549 117 101 134 125

Home market 1,312 1,015 1,237 267 271 871 930

Exports to:

United States 12,180 12,856 11,468 1,291 1,068 7,849 7,288

All other markets 5,295 5,935 4,954 819 622 2,720 2,455

Total exports 17,476 18,791 16,422 2,110 1,690 10,569 9,743

Total shipments 19,788 20,475 18,207 2,494 2,061 11,574 10,798

Table continued on next page.
 18 Thirty-nine importers reported end-of-period inventories. Eighteen importers, representing almost 25 percent

of total reported quantity of subject imports in 2008, reported imports from subject sources but did not report

inventories. Many of these importers reported retail shipments to final consumers, including ***. 

 19 In 2008, the importers with the largest ratios were ***, each with inventories of over 5 percent of total subject

imports. Of these companies, *** had the lowest ratio of inventories to the firm’s subject imports.

 20 U.S. importers’ inventories of U.S. imports from China and Taiwan to U.S. shipments increased by 7.1 and 7.9

percentage points, respectively. These inventories as a ratio of total shipments increased by 6.6 and 7.4 percentage

points, respectively.

 21 Importer *** reported that its inventories are higher in the interim periods than the full year average, as it ***.

VII-8

Table VII-4--Continued

Narrow woven ribbons: Taiwan production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2006-08, January-March 2008, January-March 2009, and projections for 2009-10

Item

2006 2007 2008

January - March Projected Projected

2008 2009 2009 2010

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 94.0 93.5 85.0 56.6 60.6 68.3 73.1

Inventories/production 4.7 5.3 5.1 5.3 4.4 4.9 5.0

Inventories/shipments 4.7 5.3 4.8 5.1 5.8 5.0 5.0

Share of total shipments:

Internal

consumption/transfers 5.1 3.3 3.0 4.7 4.9 1.2 1.2

Home market 6.6 5.0 6.8 10.7 13.2 7.5 8.6

Exports to:

United States 61.6 62.8 63.0 51.8 51.8 67.8 67.5

All other markets 26.8 29.0 27.2 32.8 30.2 23.5 22.7

Total exports 88.3 91.8 90.2 84.6 82.0 91.3 90.2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. INVENTORIES OF NARROW WOVEN RIBBONS

Data collected in these investigations on U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of narrow

woven ribbons are presented in table VII-5.18 U.S. importer’s reported inventories of narrow woven

ribbons from China and Taiwan increased each year, by a total of 18.1 percent and 16.5 percent,

respectively from 2006 to 2008. Similarly, as a ratio of imports, inventories of imports from China and

Taiwan also increased, by 6.3 and 8.5 percentage points respectively.19 Ratio of inventories to U.S.

shipments and as a ratio of total shipments increased for both China and Taiwan during 2006-08.20 

The ratio of inventories to subject imports was higher in interim 2009 compared with interim

2008 by 6.3 percentage points. Likewise, the ratio of U.S. shipments of subject imports was also higher

in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008, increasing by 5.1 percentage points in interim 2009. 

Similarly, the ratio of total shipments was higher in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008, increasing

4.1 percentage points.21
 22 This and other importer increases were partially offset by a decline in inventories, the largest of which were by

***.

 23 This and other importer decreases were partially offset by a increase in inventories, the largest of which were

by ***.

 24 ***, supplemental response to U.S. importers' questionnaire, August 3, 2009.

VII-9

*** accounted for the largest increase in inventories of subject imports between 2006 and 2007,

reporting an increase of *** percent (*** square yards).22 Between 2007 and 2008, *** accounted for the

largest decline in inventories of subject imports, with a decrease of *** square yards (*** percent).23 ***

reported that ***.24

Table VII-5

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. importers' end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Source

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Imports from China:

Inventories (1,000 square yards) 3,219 3,661 3,803 3,934 3,795

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 42.7 45.1 49.0 70.9 77.6

Ratio of U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 43.0 46.2 50.1 75.5 84.9

Ratio of total shipments of imports (percent) 40.8 43.9 47.4 72.3 80.1

Imports from Taiwan:

Inventories (1,000 square yards) 2,924 3,307 3,406 3,271 3,226

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 24.2 28.2 32.6 41.0 46.7

Ratio of U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 25.3 30.1 33.2 41.1 44.3

Ratio of total shipments of imports (percent) 24.8 29.4 32.1 39.6 42.2

Imports from all subject sources:

Inventories (1,000 square yards) 6,143 6,968 7,209 7,205 7,021

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 31.3 35.1 39.6 53.2 59.5

Ratio of U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 32.2 36.9 40.4 54.7 59.8

Ratio of total shipments of imports (percent) 31.2 35.6 38.7 52.5 56.7

Imports from all other sources:

Inventories (1,000 square yards) 778 804 840 857 742

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 54.7 62.1 69.5 78.9 90.3

Ratio of U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 57.7 64.7 73.0 96.1 99.8

Ratio of total shipments of imports (percent) 57.2 63.9 71.8 93.7 99.2

Imports from all sources:

Inventories (1,000 square yards) 6,921 7,772 8,049 8,062 7,763

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 32.8 36.7 41.5 55.2 61.5

Ratio of U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 33.9 38.6 42.3 57.3 62.1

Ratio of total shipments of imports (percent) 32.9 37.3 40.7 55.1 59.1

Note.–Ratios are based on annualized import and shipments data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 25 The importers who reported the largest total imports from China were ***. *** reported the largest imports

from Taiwan, while *** reported the largest imports from all other sources.

 26 Conference transcript, p. 128 (Vaughn).

VII-10

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of narrow woven ribbons from China, Taiwan and all other sources after March 31, 2009. Of

the forty-nine importers that reported data, the majority reported imports from China in July-September.25

As noted previously, the Respondents argued that the market and imports for narrow woven ribbons is

seasonal, and there is usually an increase in imports in the second half of the year to coincide with the

peak holiday season.26

Table VII-6

Narrow woven ribbons: U.S. importers' orders for delivery subsequent to March 31, 2009, by

period

Source April-June

2009

July-Sept

2009

Oct-Dec

2009

After Dec

2009 Total

Quantity (1,000 square yards)

China 1,227 2,479 734 241 4,681

Taiwan 1,387 3,373 1,403 7,411 13,574

All other sources 167 151 43 0 361

Total 2,782 6,003 2,179 7,653 18,617

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY INVESTIGATIONS 

IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There is no indication that narrow woven ribbons have been the subject of antidumping or

countervailing duty findings or remedies in any WTO-member country.
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

34362 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Notices 

Comments may also be submitted to 

DHS via facsimile to 202–272–8352 or 

via e-mail at rfs.regs@dhs.gov. When 

submitting comments by e-mail, please 

make sure to add OMB Control No. 

1615–0061 in the subject box. Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the collection of information should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

(1) 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; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agencies estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) 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: 

Extension of an existing information 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Notice of Immigration Pilot Program. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

sponsoring the collection: File No. 

OMB–5; U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS). 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Individuals or 

households. The information collected 

will be used by USCIS to determine 

which regional centers should 

participate in the immigration pilot 

program. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: 50 responses at 40 hours per 

response. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: 2,000 annual burden hours. 

If you need a copy of the information 

collection, please visit the Web site at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/. 

We may also be contacted at: USCIS, 

Regulatory Products Division, 111 

Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20529–2210, 

Telephone number 202–272–8377. 

Dated: July 10, 2009. 

Stephen Tarragon, 

Deputy Chief, Regulatory Products Division, 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. E9–16799 Filed 7–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–467 and 731– 

TA–1164–1165 (Preliminary)] 

Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven 

Selvedge From China and Taiwan 

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–467 

and 731–1164–1165 (Preliminary) under 

section 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 China and Taiwan of 

narrow woven ribbons with woven 

selvedge, provided for in subheading 

5806.32 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be subsidized by the 

Government of China. Unless the 

Department of Commerce extends the 

time for initiation pursuant to section 

702(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must 

reach a preliminary determination in 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations in 45 days, or in this case 

by August 24, 2009. The Commission’s 

views are due at Commerce within five 

business days thereafter, or by August 

31, 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: July 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nathanael Comly (202–205–3174), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations 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 July 9, 2009, by 

Berwick Offray LLC and its whollyowned subsidiary Lion Ribbon 

Company, Inc., Berwick, PA. 

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 

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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Notices 34363 

1 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and 

Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun made a 

negative determination. 

2 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and 

Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun, having made 

a negative determination regarding market 

disruption, were not eligible to vote on a proposed 

remedy. 

Conference.—The Commission’s 

Director of Investigations has scheduled 

a conference in connection with these 

investigations for 9:30 a.m. on July 30, 

2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Nathanael Comly (202–205– 

3174) not later than July 27, 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 

August 4, 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. 

Issued: July 9, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–16747 Filed 7–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. TA–421–7] 

Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light 

Truck Tires From the People’s 

Republic of China 

Determination 

On the basis of information developed 

in the subject investigation, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determined, pursuant to 

section 421(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 

1974,1 that certain passenger vehicle 

and light truck tires 2 from the People’s 

Republic of China are being imported 

into the United States in such increased 

quantities or under such conditions as 

to cause or threaten to cause market 

disruption to the domestic producers of 

like or directly competitive products 1

(74 FR 30321, June 25, 2009). 

Recommendation on Proposed 

Remedy 2

Chairman Shara L. Aranoff and 

Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane, Irving 

A. Williamson, and Dean A. Pinkert 

propose that the President, for a threeyear period, impose a duty, in addition 

to the current rate of duty, on imports 

of certain passenger vehicle and light 

truck tires from China as follows: 55 

percent ad valorem in the first year, 45 

percent ad valorem in the second year, 

and 35 percent ad valorem in the third 

year. They further propose that, if 

applications are filed, the President 

direct the U.S. Department of Labor and 

the U.S. Department of Commerce to 

provide expedited consideration of 

Trade Adjustment Assistance for firms 

and/or workers that are affected by 

subject imports. 

Background 

The Commission instituted this 

investigation effective April 24, 2009 

following receipt of a petition filed by 

the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, Pittsburgh, PA. 

Notice of the institution of the 

Commission’s investigation and of the 

scheduling of a public hearing to be 

held in connection therewith was given 

by posting a copy of the notice on the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.usitc.gov) and by publishing the 

notice in the Federal Register of April 

29, 2009 (74 FR 19593). The hearing was 

held on June 2, 2009 in Washington, DC; 

all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 4085 

(July 2009), entitled Certain Passenger 

Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from 

China: Investigation No. TA–421–7. 

Issued: July 9, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–16749 Filed 7–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993 National Fluid Power 

Association Technology Roadmap 

Joint Development Process 

Notice is hereby given that, on May 

21, 2009, pursuant to section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), National Fluid 

Power Association Technology 

Roadmap Joint Development Process 

(‘‘NFPA Technology Roadmap’’) has 

filed written notifications 

simultaneously with the Attorney 

General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing (1) The 

identities of the parties to the venture 

and (2) the nature and objectives of the 

venture. The notifications were filed for 

the purpose of invoking the Act’s 

provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the 

identities of the parties to the venture 

are: Bimba Manufacturing, Monee, IL; 

Bosch Rexroth, Hoffman Estates, IL; 

Caterpillar, Joliet, IL; Center for 

Compact and Efficient Fluid Power, 

Minneapolis, NN; Deltrol Fluid 

Products, Bellwood, IL; Eaton 

Corporation, Eden Prairie, NN; Enfield 

Technologies, Trumbull, CT; Festo 

Corporation, Hauppauge, NY; Gates 

Corporation, Denver, CO; HUSCO 

International, Waukesha, WI; Lynch 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 39291 

comments, or at a hearing, if requested, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results. 

Assessment Rate 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department calculated an assessment 

rate for each importer of the subject 

merchandise. Upon issuance of the final 

results of this administrative review, if 

any importer-specific assessment rates 

calculated in the final results are above 

de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), 

the Department will issue appraisement 

instructions directly to CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries by applying the assessment rate 

to the entered value of the merchandise. 

For assessment purposes, we calculated 

importer-specific assessment rates for 

the subject merchandise by aggregating 

the dumping margins for all U.S. sales 

to each importer and dividing the 

amount by the total entered value of the 

sales to that importer. Where 

appropriate, to calculate the entered 

value, we subtracted international 

movement expenses (e.g., international 

freight) from the gross sales value. For 

the responsive companies which were 

not selected for individual review, we 

have calculated an assessment rate 

based on the simple average of the cash 

deposit rates calculated for the 

companies selected for individual 

review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by companies included in 

these preliminary results of review 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 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 Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

To calculate the cash deposit rate for 

PAM and Garofalo, we divided its total 

dumping margin by the total net value 

of its sales during the review period. For 

the responsive companies which were 

not selected for individual review, we 

have calculated a cash deposit rate 

based on the simple average of the cash 

deposit rates calculated for the 

companies selected for individual 

review. 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of pasta from Italy 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rate for companies subject to 

this review will be the rate established 

in the final results of this review, except 

if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, 

therefore, de minimis, no cash deposit 

will be required; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies not 

listed above, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent final 

results for a review in which that 

manufacturer or exporter participated; 

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 

in this review, a prior review, or the 

original less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’) 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent final 

results for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous review 

conducted by the Department, the cash 

deposit rate will be 15.45 percent, the 

all-others rate established in the LTFV 

investigation. See Implementation of the 

Findings of the WTO Panel in U.S.— 

Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determination 

Under Section 129 of the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act and Revocations 

and Partial Revocations of Certain 

Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 25261 

(May 4, 2007). These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this review period. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in the Secretary’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and 

increase the subsequent assessment of 

the antidumping duties by the amount 

of antidumping duties reimbursed. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: July 31, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–18884 Filed 8–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–952, A–583–844)] 

Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge from the People’s Republic 

of China and Taiwan: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood at (202) 482–3874 or 

Miriam Eqab at (202) 482–3693 

(Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, Office 2; 

Maisha Cryor at (202) 482–5831 or 

Zhulieta Willbrand at (202) 482–3147 

(the People’s Republic of China (the 

‘‘PRC’’)), 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 July 9, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) received 

petitions concerning imports of narrow 

woven ribbons with woven selvedge 

(‘‘narrow woven ribbon’’) from the PRC 

and Taiwan filed in proper form by 

Berwick Offray LLC and its wholly– 

owned subsidiary Lion Ribbon 

Company, Inc. (collectively, the 

‘‘Petitioner’’). See Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Narrow 

Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

Taiwan dated July 9, 2009 (the 

‘‘Petitions’’). On July 14, 2009, the 

Department contacted the Petitioner by 

telephone seeking additional 

information and clarification regarding 

the Petition. See Memo to the File from 

Matthew Glass, ‘‘Scope Call with the 

Petitioner,’’ dated July 14, 2009. On July 

15, 2009, and July 22, 2009, the 

Department issued a request for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petitions. Also, on 

July 23, 2009, the Department contacted 

the Petitioner by telephone seeking 

additional information and clarification 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
39292 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 

regarding the Petitions. See Memo to the 

File from Meredith A.W. Rutherford, 

‘‘General Issues Discussion with the 

Petitioner,’’ dated July 23, 2009. Based 

on the Department’s requests, the 

Petitioner filed additional information 

on July 21, 2009 (hereinafter, 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated July 21, 2009) and July 27, 2009 

(hereinafter, Second Supplement to the 

AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 27, 2009). 

On July 28, 2009, the Department again 

contacted the Petitioner by telephone 

seeking additional information and 

clarification regarding certain general 

issues of the Petitions. See Memo to the 

File from Meredith A.W. Rutherford, 

‘‘Phone Call with the Petitioner,’’ dated 

July 28, 2009, and Memo to the File 

from Elizabeth Eastwood, ‘‘Scope Calls 

with the Petitioner,’’ dated July 29, 

2009. Based on the Department’s 

requests, the Petitioner timely filed 

additional information pertaining to the 

Petition on July 29, 2009 (hereinafter, 

Third Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions, dated July 29, 2009). The 

period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) for the 

PRC is January 1, 2009, through June 30, 

2009. The POI for Taiwan is July 1, 

2008, through June 30, 2009. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’), the Petitioner alleges that 

imports of narrow woven ribbon from 

the PRC and Taiwan 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 

Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of 

the domestic industry because the 

Petitioner is an interested party as 

defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act 

and has demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

antidumping duty investigations that 

the Petitioner is requesting that the 

Department initiate (see ‘‘Determination 

of Industry Support for the Petitions’’ 

section below). 

Scope of Investigations 

The products covered by these 

investigations are narrow woven ribbons 

with woven selvedge from the PRC and 

Taiwan. For a full description of the 

scope of the investigations, please see 

the ‘‘Scope of Investigations,’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigations 

During our review of the Petitions, we 

discussed the scope with the Petitioner 

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 by August 18, 2009, twenty 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. 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. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

narrow woven ribbon to be reported in 

response to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaires. This 

information will be used to identify the 

key physical characteristics of the 

subject merchandise in order to more 

accurately report 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 listing 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 

note 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 utilized by 

manufacturers to describe narrow 

woven ribbon, 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 

product matching. 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 August 18, 2009. 

Additionally, rebuttal comments must 

be received by August 25, 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 to poll 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 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 (see 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 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 39293 

Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 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 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 Petitioner does 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 narrow 

woven ribbon constitutes 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 Antidumping 

Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Narrow woven ribbon from the PRC 

(‘‘PRC Initiation Checklist’’) at 

Attachment II, Industry Support, and 

Antidumping Duty Investigation 

Initiation Checklist: Narrow woven 

ribbon from Taiwan (‘‘Taiwan Initiation 

Checklist’’) at Attachment II, Industry 

Support, dated concurrently with this 

notice and on file in the Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

In determining whether the Petitioner 

has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act, 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. To 

establish industry support, the 

Petitioner provided its production of the 

domestic like product for the year 2008, 

and compared this to the estimated total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See 

Volume I of the Petition, at 7, and 

Exhibits 2, 4, and 5, Supplement to the 

AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 21, 2009, 

at A–9–11, Second Supplement to the 

AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 27, 2009, 

at A–1–2 and Exhibit 117, and Third 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated July 29, 2009, at Attachment II. To 

estimate 2008 production of the 

domestic like product, the Petitioner 

used its own data and industry specific 

knowledge. The Petitioner calculated 

total domestic production based on its 

own production plus estimates from the 

nine other producers of the domestic 

like product in the United States. See 

id.; see also PRC Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II, and Taiwan Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petitions, supplemental submissions, 

and other information readily available 

to the Department indicates that the 

Petitioner has established industry 

support. First, the Petitions established 

support from domestic producers (or 

workers) accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and, as such, 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; see also 

PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment 

II, and Taiwan Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. Second, 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 PRC Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II, and Taiwan 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 id. 

The Department finds that the 

Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of 

the domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and it has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigations that it is requesting 

the Department initiate. See id. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The Petitioner alleges 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 Petitioner 

alleges that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

The Petitioner contends that the 

industry’s injured condition is 

illustrated by reduced market share, 

underselling and price depressing and 

suppressing effects, increased import 

penetration, lost sales and revenue, 

reduced production, reduced capacity, 

reduced 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 PRC 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, 

Injury, and Taiwan Initiation Checklist 

at Attachment III, Injury. 

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 narrow woven ribbon from 

the PRC and Taiwan. The sources of 

data for the deductions and adjustments 

relating to the U.S. price, the factors of 

production (for the PRC) and 

constructed value (‘‘CV’’) (for Taiwan) 

are also discussed in the country– 

specific initiation checklists. See PRC 

Initiation Checklist and Taiwan 

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 

The PRC 

For the PRC, the Petitioner calculated 

export price (‘‘EP’’) based on a price 

quote made during the POI for narrow 

woven ribbon products by a Chinese 

producer, sale term free on board 

(‘‘FOB’’). See PRC Initiation Checklist; 

see also Volume I of the Petitions at 24. 

To be conservative, the Petitioner did 

not make specific adjustments to the EP 

for domestic inland freight from the 

plant to the Chinese port. Id. However, 

the Petitioner did make an adjustment 

for foreign brokerage and handling. Id. 

Specifically, the Petitioner calculated 

PRC brokerage and handling by using 

the brokerage and handling surrogate 

value from Certain Steel Grating from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 74 FR 30273 (June 25, 

2009) (‘‘Steel Grating From China’’), and 

adjusted it for inflation for the POI. See 

Steel Grating From China, 74 FR at 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
39294 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 

30276; see also Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions, dated July 21, 2009, at 4 

and Exhibit 93; and PRC Initiation 

Checklist. In addition, the Petitioner 

converted brokerage and handling 

expenses into U.S. dollars based on the 

POI–average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange 

rate, as reported on the Department’s 

website. See Volume II of the Petitions, 

at Exhibit 42, and Supplement to the 

AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 21, 2009, 

at Exhibit 98. 

Taiwan 

For Taiwan, the Petitioner calculated 

EP based on price quotes made during 

the POI for narrow woven ribbon 

products from a Taiwan producer/ 

exporter, sale term FOB. See Taiwan 

Initiation Checklist; see also Volume I of 

the Petitions at 28–29 and Volume II of 

the Petitions at Exhibits 58, 59, and 60. 

To be conservative, the Petitioner did 

not make specific adjustments to the EP 

for domestic inland freight from the 

plant to the Taiwanese port. See id. 

However, the Petitioner did make an 

adjustment for foreign brokerage and 

handling. See id. Specifically, the 

Petitioner calculated Taiwanese 

brokerage and handling using Taiwan– 

specific brokerage and handling 

expenses. See Volume II of the Petitions, 

at Exhibit 59; see also Supplement to 

the AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 21, 

2009, at Exhibit 108 and Taiwan 

Initiation Checklist. 

Normal Value 

The PRC 

The Petitioner states that the PRC is 

a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country and no determination to the 

contrary has been made by the 

Department. See Volume I of the 

Petitions, at 19. The Petitioner states 

that the Department has treated the PRC 

as an NME country in every 

administrative proceeding in which the 

PRC has been involved, and has 

continued to do so in recent months. 

See id.; see also Citric Acid and Certain 

Citrate Salts From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Affirmative 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 74 FR 16838 (April 13, 

2009); see also Certain Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 74 FR 14514 (March 31, 

2009). 

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 the 

PRC 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 for the PRC investigation 

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 the PRC investigation, all 

parties, including the public, will have 

the opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issue of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

Citing section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the 

Petitioner contends that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because: 1) it is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC; and 2) it is a significant 

producer of narrow woven ribbon. See 

Volume I of the Petitions at 19–21, and 

Volume II of the Petitions, at Exhibit 32. 

Based on the information provided by 

the Petitioner, 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 Petitioner calculated the 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 Petitioner calculated NV 

based on its own consumption rates for 

producing narrow woven ribbon in 

2009. See Volume I of the Petitions at 

18, and Volume II of the Petitions, at 

Exhibit 29, and Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions, dated July 21, 2009, at 

Exhibit 95. In calculating NV, the 

Petitioner based the quantity of each of 

the inputs used to manufacture and 

pack narrow woven ribbon in the PRC 

based on an analysis of Chinese narrow 

woven ribbon samples obtained by the 

Petitioner, as well as on its own 

production experience during the POI. 

See id. The Petitioner states that the 

actual usage rates of the foreign 

manufacturers of narrow woven ribbon 

are not reasonably available to it; 

however, the Petitioner notes that the 

production of narrow woven ribbon 

relies on the same basic technology 

worldwide. See Volume I of the 

Petitions at 18. The Petitioner asserts 

that the Chinese producers of narrow 

woven ribbon use largely the same 

production equipment, material inputs, 

and production processes as the 

Petitioner itself. See Volume I of the 

Petitions at 18, and Exhibit 27, and 

Volume II of the Petitions, at Exhibit 29. 

Raw materials (e.g., yarn) are 

significant inputs used in the 

production of narrow woven ribbon. 

The Petitioner determined the 

consumption of all raw materials and 

packing materials based on examination 

and analysis of samples of white single 

face satin narrow woven ribbon and 

black single face satin narrow woven 

ribbon from the PRC as well as its own 

production experience. See Volume I of 

the Petitions at 18, and Volume II of the 

Petitions at Exhibit 29, and Supplement 

to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 21, 

2009, at Exhibit 95. The Petitioner 

valued the factors of production based 

on reasonably available, public 

surrogate–country data, including 

Indian import statistics from the World 

Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’). See Volume I of 

the Petitions, at 21, and Volume II of the 

Petitions, at Exhibit 34. The Petitioner 

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 as the 

Department has previously excluded 

prices from these countries because they 

maintain broadly available, non– 

industry-specific export subsidies. See 

Volume I of the Petition at 22. In 

addition, the Petitioner made currency 

conversions, where necessary, based on 

the POI–average rupee/U.S. dollar 

exchange rate, as reported on the 

Department’s website. See Volume I of 

the Petitions, at 23, and Volume II of the 

Petitions, at Exhibit 42. Further, the 

Petitioner inflated certain factors of 

production, where necessary, on a POI 

basis. See Volume I of the Petitions, at 

23, and Volume II of the Petitions, at 

Exhibit 41. The Petitioner determined 

labor costs using the labor consumption, 

in hours, derived from its own 

experience. See Volume II of the 

Petitions, at Exhibit 29, and Supplement 

to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 21, 

2009, at Exhibit 95. The Petitioner 

valued labor costs using the 

Department’s NME Wage Rate for the 

PRC at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/ 

05wages/05wages–051608.html. See 

Volume I of the Petitions, at 22, and 

Volume II of the Petitions, at Exhibit 35. 

For purposes of initiation, the 

Department determines that the 

surrogate values used by the Petitioner 

are reasonably available and, thus, 

acceptable for purposes of initiation. 

The Petitioner determined electricity 

costs using the electricity consumption, 

in kilowatt hours, derived from its own 

experience. See Volume I of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 39295 

Petitions, at 22, and Volume II of the 

Petitions, at Exhibits 29 and 43, and 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated July 21, 2009, at Exhibit 95. The 

Petitioner valued electricity using the 

Indian electricity rate reported by the 

Central Electric Authority of the 

Government of India. See Volume I of 

the Petitions, at 22, and Volume II of the 

Petitions, at Exhibit 36. 

The Petitioner determined natural gas 

costs using the natural gas consumption 

derived from its own experience. See 

Volume I of the Petitions, at 22, and 

Volume II of the Petitions, at Exhibit 29. 

The Petitioner valued natural gas using 

the Indian rate reported by the Gas 

Authority of India, Ltd. See Volume I of 

the Petitions, at 22, and Volume II of the 

Petitions, at Exhibit 38. The Petitioner 

adjusted the Indian natural gas rates to 

make them contemporaneous with the 

POI using Indian wholesale price 

indices as published by the 

International Monitory Fund. See 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated July 21, 2009, at Exhibit 97. 

The Petitioner determined water costs 

using the water consumption derived 

from its own experience. See Volume I 

of the Petitions, at 22, and Volume II of 

the Petitions, at Exhibit 29. The 

Petitioner valued water based on 

information from the Maharastra 

Industrial Development Corporation, 

which is contemporaneous with the 

POI. See Volume I of the Petitions, at 22, 

and Volume II of the Petitions at 22, and 

Exhibit 37. 

The Petitioner based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

(‘‘SG&A’’), and profit on data from Ratan 

Glitter Industries Ltd. (‘‘Ratan’’), a 

ribbon producer, for the fiscal year April 

2007 through March 2008. See Volume 

I of the Petitions, at 23, and Volume II 

of the Petitions, at Exhibit 39. The 

Petitioner states that Ratan is an Indian 

producer of in–scope ribbon. See 

Volume I of the Petitions at 23. 

Therefore, for purposes of the initiation, 

the Department finds the Petitioner’s 

use of Ratan’s financial ratios 

appropriate. 

Taiwan 

With respect to NV for the Taiwan 

investigation, the Petitioner states that 

neither home–market prices nor third– 

country POI prices of narrow woven 

ribbon produced in Taiwan were 

reasonably available. According to the 

Petitioner, it was unsuccessful in 

obtaining Taiwanese POI pricing 

information despite its best efforts. See 

Volume I of the Petitions at 16–17, and 

Exhibit 2. Further, the Petitioner claims 

it was unable to base NV on publicly 

available information covering 

Taiwanese third–country export prices 

because exports of narrow woven ribbon 

from Taiwan are classified in Taiwan’s 

export schedule under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) number 

5806.32.1000. According to the 

Petitioner, this HTS category includes 

both in–scope and out–of-scope ribbons 

including typewriter ribbons, ribbons 

exceeding 12 centimeters in width, and 

ribbons without woven selvedge. 

Therefore, the Petitioner based NV on 

CV. 

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, 

CV consists of the cost of manufacturing 

(‘‘COM’’), SG&A expenses, packing 

expenses, and profit. In calculating 

COM and packing, the Petitioner based 

the quantity of each of the inputs used 

to manufacture and pack narrow woven 

ribbon in Taiwan based on an analysis 

of Taiwanese narrow woven ribbon 

samples obtained by the Petitioner, as 

well as on its own production 

experience during the POI. See Volume 

I of the Petitions, at 18, Volume II of the 

Petitions, at Exhibit 29, and Supplement 

to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 21, 

2009, at Exhibit 95. The Petitioner states 

that the actual usage rates of the foreign 

manufacturers of narrow woven ribbon 

are not reasonably available to it; 

however, the Petitioner notes that the 

production of narrow woven ribbon 

relies on the same basic technology 

worldwide. The Petitioner asserts that 

the Taiwanese producers of narrow 

woven ribbon use largely the same 

production equipment, material inputs, 

and production processes as the 

Petitioner itself. See Volume I of the 

Petitions at 18 and Exhibit 27. 

The Petitioner multiplied the usage 

quantities of the inputs used to 

manufacture and pack narrow woven 

ribbon by the Taiwanese values based 

on publicly available data. See Volume 

I of the Petitions, at 25–28 and 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated July 21, 2009, at Exhibits 105, 

106, and 107. 

Raw materials (e.g., yarn) are 

significant inputs used in the 

production of narrow woven ribbon. 

The Petitioner determined the 

consumption of all raw materials and 

packing materials based on examination 

and analysis of samples of white single 

face satin narrow woven ribbon and 

black single face satin narrow woven 

ribbon from Taiwan, as well as its own 

production experience. See Volume I of 

the Petitions at 18, Volume II of the 

Petitions, at Exhibit 29, and Supplement 

to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 21, 

2009, at Exhibit 95. The Petitioner 

valued all raw materials and packing 

materials using Taiwanese import 

statistics as reflected in the WTA data 

for the POI. The Petitioner excluded 

from these import statistics imports 

from countries previously determined 

by the Department to be NME countries 

and from India, Indonesia, the Republic 

of Korea, and Thailand as the 

Department has previously excluded 

prices from these countries because they 

maintain broadly available, non– 

industry-specific export subsidies. See 

Volume I of the Petitions at 26 and 

Volume II of the Petitions, at Exhibit 48. 

Because Taiwanese import statistics 

report import values in Taiwanese 

dollars, the Petitioner converted the 

import values into U.S. dollars using the 

Department’s POI exchange rates. See 

Volume I of the Petitions at 28 and 

Volume II of the Petitions, at Exhibit 56. 

The Petitioner determined labor costs 

using the labor consumption in hours 

derived from its own experience. As the 

Petitioner did not have access to the 

cost of labor inputs in the production of 

narrow woven ribbon in Taiwan, it 

relied on data available from the 

International Labour Organization’s 

database at http://laborsta.ilo.org to 

determine the average wage rate in 

Taiwan. See Volume I of the Petitions at 

34 and Volume II of the Petitions, at 

Exhibit 49. The Petitioner adjusted 

Taiwanese labor rates to make them 

contemporaneous with the POI using 

Taiwanese wholesale price indices as 

published by the Directorate General of 

Budget, Accounting and Statistics, 

Republic of China. The Petitioner 

converted the Taiwanese labor rates into 

U.S. dollars using the Department’s POI 

exchange rates. See Volume I of the 

Petitions at 26, Volume II of the 

Petitions, at Exhibit 49, and Supplement 

to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 21, 

2009, at Exhibit 106. 

The Petitioner determined the costs of 

electricity, water, and natural gas using 

consumption amounts derived from its 

own experience. The Petitioner valued 

electricity and natural gas using the 

Taiwanese electricity and natural gas 

rates for the industry reported by the 

Energy Information Administration at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ 

international/. Because Taiwanese 

electricity and natural gas rates are 

reported in U.S. dollars, the Petitioner 

did not make currency conversions. The 

Petitioner adjusted the Taiwanese 

electricity and natural gas rates to make 

them contemporaneous with the POI 

using Taiwanese wholesale price 

indices as published by the Directorate 

General of Budget, Accounting and 

Statistics, Republic of China. See 

Volume I of the Petitions at 26; Volume 

II of the Petitions, at Exhibits 50, 52, and 

55, and Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions, dated July 21, 2009, at Exhibit 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
39296 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 

106. The Petitioner valued water using 

the Taiwanese rates published by 

Taiwan Water Corporation, which are 

contemporaneous with the POI. The 

Petitioner converted the Taiwanese 

water rates into U.S. dollars using the 

Department’s POI exchange rates. See 

Volume I of the Petitions at 26; Volume 

II of the Petitions at Exhibit 51, and 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated July 21, 2009, at C 2. 

To calculate factory overhead, SG&A, 

interest expenses, and a profit rate, the 

Petitioner relied on financial statements 

of a Taiwanese producer of textile 

products, Far Eastern Textile Ltd. See 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated July 21, 2009, at C 3, and Exhibits 

103 and 104. See also Taiwan Initiation 

Checklist. 

Fair–Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by the 

Petitioner, there is reason to believe that 

imports of narrow woven ribbon from 

the PRC and Taiwan are being, or are 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value. Based on a 

comparison of EPs and NV calculated in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, the estimated dumping margins for 

narrow woven ribbon from the PRC 

range from 208.80 percent to 231.40 

percent. See PRC Initiation Checklist. 

Based on a comparison of EPs and CV 

calculated in accordance with section 

773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated 

dumping margins for narrow woven 

ribbon from Taiwan range from 116.60 

percent to 137.20 percent. See Taiwan 

Initiation Checklist. 

Initiation of Antidumping 

Investigations 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petitions on narrow woven ribbon from 

the PRC and Taiwan, 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 narrow 

woven ribbon from the PRC and Taiwan 

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.’’ See 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 

The PRC 

For this investigation, the Department 

will request quantity and value 

information from all known exporters 

and producers identified with complete 

contact information in the Petitions. 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); 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 

FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). 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 and a response to the 

quantity and value questionnaire is due 

no later than August 19, 2009. Also, the 

Department will send the quantity and 

value questionnaire to those PRC 

companies identified in the Supplement 

to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 21, 

2009, at Exhibit 116, and Second 

Supplemental to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated July 27, 2009, at B1–B4. 

Taiwan 

For this investigation, the Department 

intends to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. imports under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) numbers 

5806.32.1020, 5806.32.1030, 

5806.32.1050, and 5806.32.1060, the 

four HTSUS categories most specific to 

the subject merchandise, 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 ten 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. 

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 

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/ia–highlights-and– 

news.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. For exporters and 

producers who submit a separate–rate 

status application and subsequently are 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 39297 

selected as mandatory respondents, 

these exporters and producers will no 

longer be eligible for consideration for 

separate rate status unless they respond 

to all parts of the questionnaire as 

mandatory respondents. 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. 

The quantity and value questionnaire 

will be available on the Department’s 

website at <http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia– 

highlights-and–news.html> on the date 

of the publication of this initiation 

notice in the Federal Register. 

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 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 the PRC and Taiwan. Because of the 

large number of producers/exporters 

identified in the Petition, the 

Department considers the service of the 

public version of the Petition to the 

foreign producers/exporters satisfied by 

the delivery of the public version to the 

Government of the PRC, consistent with 

19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiations, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than August 24, 2009, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of narrow woven ribbon from 

the PRC and Taiwan 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: July 29, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigations 

The merchandise subject to the 

investigations is narrow woven ribbons 

with woven selvedge, in any length, but 

with a width (measured at the narrowest 

span of the ribbon) less than or equal to 

12 centimeters, composed of, in whole 

or in part, man–made fibers (whether 

artificial or synthetic, including but not 

limited to nylon, polyester, rayon, 

polypropylene, and polyethylene 

teraphthalate), metal threads and/or 

metalized yarns, or any combination 

thereof. Narrow woven ribbons subject 

to the investigations may: 

• also include natural or other non– 

man-made fibers; 

• be of any color, style, pattern, or 

weave construction, including but 

not limited to single–faced satin, 

double–faced satin, grosgrain, 

sheer, taffeta, twill, jacquard, or a 

combination of two or more colors, 

styles, patterns, and/or weave 

constructions; 

• have been subjected to, or composed 

of materials that have been 

subjected to, various treatments, 

including but not limited to dyeing, 

printing, foil stamping, embossing, 

flocking, coating, and/or sizing; 

• have embellishments, including but 

not limited to applique ́, fringes, 

embroidery, buttons, glitter, 

sequins, laminates, and/or adhesive 

backing; 

• have wire and/or monofilament in, 

on, or along the longitudinal edges 

of the ribbon; 

• have ends of any shape or 

dimension, including but not 

limited to straight ends that are 

perpendicular to the longitudinal 

edges of the ribbon, tapered ends, 

flared ends or shaped ends, and the 

ends of such woven ribbons may or 

may not be hemmed; 

• have longitudinal edges that are 

straight or of any shape, and the 

longitudinal edges of such woven 

ribbon may or may not be parallel 

to each other; 

• consist of such ribbons affixed to 

like ribbon and/or cut–edge woven 

ribbon, a configuration also known 

as an ‘‘ornamental trimming;’’ 

• be wound on spools; attached to a 

card; hanked (i.e., coiled or 

bundled); packaged in boxes, trays 

or bags; or configured as skeins, 

balls, bateaus or folds; and/or 

• be included within a kit or set such 

as when packaged with other 

products, including but not limited 

to gift bags, gift boxes and/or other 

types of ribbon. 

Narrow woven ribbons subject to the 

investigations include all narrow woven 

fabrics, tapes, and labels that fall within 

this written description of the scope of 

the investigations. 

Excluded from the scope of the 

investigations are the following: 

(1) formed bows composed of narrow 

woven ribbons with woven selvedge; 

(2) ‘‘pull–bows’’ (i.e., an assemblage of 

ribbons connected to one another, 

folded flat and equipped with a means 

to form such ribbons into the shape of 

a bow by pulling on a length of material 

affixed to such assemblage) composed of 

narrow woven ribbons; 

(3) narrow woven ribbons comprised at 

least 20 percent by weight of 

elastomeric yarn (i.e., filament yarn, 

including monofilament, of synthetic 

textile material, other than textured 

yarn, which does not break on being 

extended to three times its original 

length and which returns, after being 

extended to twice its original length, 

within a period of five minutes, to a 

length not greater than one and a half 

times its original length as defined in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), Section XI, Note 

13) or rubber thread; 

(4) narrow woven ribbons of a kind used 

for the manufacture of typewriter or 

printer ribbons; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
39298 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 

(5) narrow woven labels and apparel 

tapes, cut–to-length or cut–to-shape, 

having a length (when measured across 

the longest edge–to-edge span) not 

exceeding 8 centimeters; 

(6) narrow woven ribbons with woven 

selvedge attached to and forming the 

handle of a gift bag; 

(7) cut–edge narrow woven ribbons 

formed by cutting broad woven fabric 

into strips of ribbon, with or without 

treatments to prevent the longitudinal 

edges of the ribbon from fraying (such 

as by merrowing, lamination, sono– 

bonding, fusing, gumming or waxing), 

and with or without wire running 

lengthwise along the longitudinal edges 

of the ribbon; 

(8) narrow woven ribbons comprised at 

least 85 percent by weight of threads 

having a denier of 225 or higher; 

(9) narrow woven ribbons constructed 

from pile fabrics (i.e., fabrics with a 

surface effect formed by tufts or loops of 

yarn that stand up from the body of the 

fabric) ; 

(10) narrow woven ribbon affixed 

(including by tying) as a decorative 

detail to non–subject merchandise, such 

as a gift bag, gift box, gift tin, greeting 

card or plush toy, or affixed (including 

by tying) as a decorative detail to 

packaging containing non–subject 

merchandise; 

(11) narrow woven ribbon affixed to 

non–subject merchandise as a working 

component of such non–subject 

merchandise, such as where narrow 

woven ribbon comprises an apparel 

trimming, book marker, bag cinch, or 

part of an identity card holder; and 

(12) narrow woven ribbon(s) comprising 

a belt attached to and imported with an 

item of wearing apparel, whether or not 

such belt is removable from such item 

of wearing apparel. 

The merchandise subject to the 

investigations is classifiable under the 

HTSUS statistical categories 

5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 

5806.32.1050 and 5806.32.1060. Subject 

merchandise also may enter under 

subheadings 5806.31.00; 5806.32.20; 

5806.39.20; 5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 

5810.91.00; 5810.99.90; 5903.90.10; 

5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80 

and under statistical categories 

5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 

5903.90.3090; and 6307.90.9889. The 

HTSUS statistical categories and 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

merchandise under investigation is 

dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–18732 Filed 8–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Docket 31–2009] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 54—Clinton 

County, NY; Application for 

Reorganization Under Alternative Site 

Framework 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board 

(the Board) by Clinton County, New 

York, grantee of FTZ 54, requesting 

authority to reorganize the zone under 

the alternative site framework (ASF) 

adopted by the Board (74 FR 1170, 01/ 

12/09; correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09). 

The ASF is an option for grantees for the 

establishment or reorganization of 

general-purpose zones and can permit 

significantly greater flexibility in the 

designation of new ‘‘usage-driven’’ FTZ 

sites for operators/users located within 

a grantee’s ‘‘service area’’ in the context 

of the Board’s standard 2,000-acre 

activation limit for a general-purpose 

zone project. The application was 

submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade 

Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a– 

81u), and the regulations of the Board 

(15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed 

on July 31, 2009. 

The grantee’s proposed service area 

under the ASF would be Clinton 

County, New York. If approved, the 

grantee would be able to serve sites 

throughout the service area based on 

companies’ needs for FTZ designation. 

The proposed service area is adjacent to 

the Champlain Customs and Border 

Protection port of entry. 

FTZ 54 was approved on February 14, 

1980 (Board Order 153, 45 FR 12469, 

02/26/80), and expanded on: September 

23, 1982 (Board Order 196, 47 FR 43012, 

09/30/82); May 29, 1996 (Board Order 

829, 61 FR 28840, 06/06/96); May 29, 

2001 (Board Order 1169, 66 FR 31612, 

06/12/01); and November 16, 2001 

(Board Order 1199, 66 FR 59235, 11/27/ 

01). The applicant is requesting to 

include its current sites in the 

reorganized zone as ‘‘magnet’’ sites. The 

applicant proposes that Site 4 be exempt 

from ‘‘sunset’’ time limits that otherwise 

apply to sites under the ASF. No usagedriven sites are being proposed at this 

time. Because the ASF only pertains to 

establishing or reorganizing a generalpurpose zone, the application would 

have no impact on FTZ 54’s authorized 

subzones. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ 

Staff is designated examiner to evaluate 

and analyze the facts and information 

presented in the application and case 

record and to report findings and 

recommendations to the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address below. The closing period for 

their receipt is October 5, 2009. Rebuttal 

comments in response to material 

submitted during the foregoing period 

may be submitted during the subsequent 

15-day period (to October 20, 2009). 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading 

Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site, 

which is accessible via http:// 

www.trade.gov/ftz. For further 

information, contact Kathleen Boyce at 

Kathleen_Boyce@ita.doc.gov or 202– 

482–1346. 

Dated: July 31, 2009. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–18874 Filed 8–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–953] 

Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven 

Selvedge From the People’s Republic 

of China: Initiation of Countervailing 

Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak, Shelly Atkinson, or 

Justin Neuman, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–2209, (202) 482–0116, and (202) 

482–0486, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On July 9, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) and 

antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petitions 

concerning imports of narrow woven 

ribbons with woven selvedge (‘‘narrow 

woven ribbons’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The 

petitions were filed in proper form by 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 39299 

Berwick Offray LLC and its whollyowned subsidiary Lion Ribbon 

Company, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘the 

Petitioner’’), a domestic producer of 

narrow woven ribbons. See ‘‘Petition for 

Countervailing Duty and Antidumping 

Duty Investigations of China and an 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Taiwan on Imports of Narrow Woven 

Ribbons with Woven Selvedge’’ (‘‘the 

Petition’’). On July 13, 2009, the 

Department issued a request for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain of the Petitioner’s subsidy 

allegations. See Letter from Brandon 

Farlander, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, to the Petitioner, 

‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge from the People’s Republic of 

China: Questions Regarding the 

Countervailing Duty Allegations,’’ dated 

July 13, 2009. In response to the 

Department’s request, the Petitioner 

timely filed additional information on 

July 17, 2009. See Supplement to the 

CVD Petition, dated July 17, 2009. On 

July 14, 2009, the Department contacted 

the Petitioner by telephone seeking 

additional information and clarification 

regarding the Petition. See 

Memorandum to the File from Matthew 

Glass, ‘‘Scope Call with the Petitioner,’’ 

dated July 14, 2009. On July 15, 2009, 

a request seeking clarification regarding 

the general issues of the Petition was 

sent to the Petitioner. See Letter from 

Shawn Thompson, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, to the 

Petitioner, ‘‘Regarding Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge (‘‘NWR’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China and Antidumping 

Duties on Imports of NWR from Taiwan: 

Supplemental Questions,’’ dated July 

15, 2009. A second request seeking 

additional information and clarification 

regarding the Petition was sent to the 

Petitioner on July 17, 2009. See Letter 

from Brandon Farlander, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

to the Petitioner, ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 

Imports of Narrow Woven Ribbons with 

Woven Selvedge from the People’s 

Republic of China: Questions Regarding 

the Countervailing Duty Allegations,’’ 

dated June 17, 2009. In response to the 

Department’s request, the Petitioner 

timely filed additional information 

pertaining to the Petition on July 21, 

2009. See Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions, dated July 21, 2009. On July 

22, 2009, another request seeking 

clarification regarding the general issues 

of the Petition was sent to the Petitioner. 

See Letter from Shawn Thompson, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 2, to the Petitioner, ‘‘Regarding 

Supplement to the Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge (NWR) from the People’s 

Republic of China and Antidumping 

Duties on Imports of NWR from Taiwan: 

Additional Questions,’’ dated July 22, 

2009. On July 23, 2009, and July 24, 

2009, the Department contacted the 

Petitioner by telephone seeking 

additional information and clarification 

regarding the Petition. See 

Memorandum to the File from Meredith 

A.W. Rutherford, ‘‘General Issues 

Discussion with the Petitioner,’’ dated 

July 23, 2009; see also Memorandum to 

the File from David Layton, Trade 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge from the People’s Republic of 

China: Question Regarding the 

Countervailing Duty Allegations,’’ dated 

July 24, 2009. Based on the 

Department’s request, the Petitioner 

timely filed additional information 

pertaining to the Petition on July 27, 

2009. See Second Supplement to the 

AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 27, 2009. 

On July 28, 2009, the Department again 

contacted the Petitioner by telephone 

seeking additional information and 

clarification regarding certain general 

issues of the Petition. See Memorandum 

to the File from Meredith A.W. 

Rutherford, ‘‘Phone Call with the 

Petitioner,’’ dated July 28, 2009, and 

Memorandum to the File from Elizabeth 

Eastwood, ‘‘Scope Calls with the 

Petitioner,’’ dated July 29, 2009. Based 

on the Department’s request, the 

Petitioner timely filed additional 

information pertaining to the Petition on 

July 29, 2009. See Third Supplement to 

the AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 29, 

2009. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), the Petitioner alleges that 

producers/exporters of narrow woven 

ribbons in the PRC received 

countervailable subsidies within the 

meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of 

the Act and that imports materially 

injure, or threaten material injury to, an 

industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that the 

Petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, and the Petitioner 

has demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigation that it is requesting the 

Department to initiate (see 

‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition’’ below). 

Period of Investigation 

The anticipated period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’) is calendar year 

2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are narrow woven ribbons 

with woven selvedge from the PRC. For 

a full description of the scope of the 

investigation, please see the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ in Appendix I to this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with the Petitioner 

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 (See 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 by August 18, 2009, twenty 

calendar days from the signature of this 

notice. 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. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, the Department held 

consultations with the Government of 

the PRC (hereinafter, the GOC) with 

respect to the Petition on July 24, 2009. 

See Memorandum to the File, 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on 

Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge from the People’s Republic of 

China—Consultations with the 

Government of China,’’ on file in the 

CRU, Room 1117 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
39300 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 

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 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll 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 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 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel 

Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 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 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 Petitioner does 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 narrow 

woven ribbons 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: 

Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘CVD Initiation Checklist’’) at 

Attachment II (Industry Support), dated 

concurrently with this notice and on file 

in the CRU, Room 1117 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

In determining whether the Petitioner 

has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act, we considered the industry 

support data contained in the Petition 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ in Appendix I. To 

establish industry support, the 

Petitioner provided its production of the 

domestic like product for the year 2008, 

and compared this to the total estimated 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See 

Volume I of the Petition, at 7, and 

Exhibits 2, 4, and 5, Supplement to the 

AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 21, 2009, 

at A–9–11, Second Supplement to the 

AD/CVD Petitions, dated July 27, 2009, 

at A–1–2 and Exhibit 117, and Third 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated July 29, 2009, at Attachment II. To 

estimate 2008 production of the 

domestic like product, the Petitioner 

used its own data and industry specific 

knowledge. The Petitioner calculated 

total domestic production based on its 

own production plus estimates from the 

nine other producers of the domestic 

like product in the United States. See 

id., see also CVD Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II, Industry Support. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that the 

Petitioner has established industry 

support. First, the Petition established 

support from domestic producers (or 

workers) accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and, as such, 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; see also 

CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment 

II. Second, 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 CVD 

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 id. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC 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 the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The Petitioner alleges that imports of 

narrow woven ribbons from the PRC are 

benefitting from countervailable 

subsidies and that such imports are 

causing, or threaten to cause, material 

injury to the domestic industry 

producing narrow woven ribbons. In 

addition, the Petitioner alleges that 

subsidized imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

The Petitioner contends that the 

industry’s injured condition is 

illustrated by reduced market share, 

underselling and price depressing and 

suppressing effects, increased import 

penetration, lost sales and revenue, 

reduced production, reduced capacity, 

reduced 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 CVD 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III 

(Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of 

Material Injury and Causation for the 

Petition). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 39301 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the 

Department to initiate a CVD proceeding 

whenever an interested party files a 

CVD 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 petitioner supporting 

the allegations. 

The Department has examined the 

Petition on narrow woven ribbons from 

the PRC 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 CVD investigation to 

determine whether producers/exporters 

of narrow woven ribbons in the PRC 

receive countervailable subsidies. For a 

discussion of evidence supporting our 

initiation determination, see CVD 

Initiation Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

Petition to provide countervailable 

subsidies to producers/exporters of the 

subject merchandise: 

A. Loan Programs 

1. Policy Loans to Narrow Woven Ribbon 

Producers From State-Owned 

Commercial Banks 

B. Grant Programs 

2. The State Key Technology Renovation 

Project Fund 

3. Famous Brands Program 

4. Export Assistance Grants 

5. Export Interest Subsidy Funds for 

Enterprises Located in Zhejiang Province 

6. Technology Grants for Enterprises 

Located in Zhejiang Province 

C. Income and Other Direct Tax Programs 

7. Preferential Tax Policies for Enterprises 

with Foreign Investment (‘‘Two Free 

Three Half’’) Program 

8. Tax Subsidies to FIEs in Specially 

Designated Areas 

9. Preferential Tax Policies for ExportOriented FIEs 

10. Corporate Income Tax Refund Program 

for Reinvestment of FIE Profits in ExportOriented Enterprises 

11. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reduction Programs for ‘‘Productive’’ 

FIEs 

12. Tax Program for High or New 

Technology FIEs 

13. Preferential Tax Policies for Township 

Enterprises 

14. Preferential Tax Policies for Research 

and Development for FIEs 

15. Tax Benefits for FIEs in Encouraged 

Industries that Purchase Domestic 

Equipment 

D. Indirect Tax and Tariff Exemption 

Programs 

16. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for 

FIEs Using Imported Technology and 

Equipment 

17. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for 

Certain Domestic Enterprises Using 

Imported Technology and Equipment 

18. VAT Rebate for FIE Purchases of 

Domestically Produced Equipment 

For further information explaining why 

the Department is investigating these 

programs, see CVD Initiation Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers/exporters of 

the subject merchandise in the PRC: 

1. Loan Guarantees to Narrow Woven Ribbon 

Producers from State-Owned 

Commercial Banks 

2. Export Loans 

3. Loan Forgiveness 

4. Loan Interest Forgiveness 

5. Grants for High-Technology Equipment 

6. Technology Development Grants for 

Enterprises Located in Wenzhou 

Municipality 

7. Grants to Loss-Making SOEs 

8. Provision of Land Use Rights to SOEs for 

LTAR 

9. Provision of Land Use Rights for LTAR in 

Certain Geographical Regions 

10. Provision of Yarn for LTAR 

For further information explaining why 

the Department is not initiating an 

investigation of these programs, see 

CVD Initiation Checklist. 

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 

HTSUS numbers 5806.32.1020, 

5806.32.1030, 5806.32.1050, and 

5806.32.1060, the four HTSUS 

categories most specific to the subject 

merchandise, 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 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 Web site 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 and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the Petition has been provided to the 

representatives of the GOC. Because of 

the particularly large number of 

producers/exporters identified in the 

Petition, the Department considers the 

service of the public version of the 

Petition to the foreign producers/ 

exporters satisfied by the delivery of the 

public version to the GOC, consistent 

with 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, 

within 25 days after the date on which 

it receives notice of the initiation, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of subsidized narrow 

woven ribbons from the PRC 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: July 29, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise subject to the 

investigation is narrow woven ribbons with 

woven selvedge, in any length, but with a 

width (measured at the narrowest span of the 

ribbon) less than or equal to 12 centimeters, 

composed of, in whole or in part, man-made 

fibers (whether artificial or synthetic, 

including but not limited to nylon, polyester, 

rayon, polypropylene, and polyethylene 

teraphthalate), metal threads and/or 

metalized yarns, or any combination thereof. 

Narrow woven ribbons subject to the 

investigation may: 

• Also include natural or other non-manmade fibers; 

• Be of any color, style, pattern, or weave 

construction, including but not limited to 

single-faced satin, double-faced satin, 

grosgrain, sheer, taffeta, twill, jacquard, or a 

combination of two or more colors, styles, 

patterns, and/or weave constructions; 

• Have been subjected to, or composed of 

materials that have been subjected to, various 

treatments, including but not limited to 

dyeing, printing, foil stamping, embossing, 

flocking, coating, and/or sizing; 

• Have embellishments, including but not 

limited to applique ́, fringes, embroidery, 

buttons, glitter, sequins, laminates, and/or 

adhesive backing; 

• Have wire and/or monofilament in, on, 

or along the longitudinal edges of the ribbon; 

• Have ends of any shape or dimension, 

including but not limited to straight ends that 

are perpendicular to the longitudinal edges of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
39302 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 

the ribbon, tapered ends, flared ends or 

shaped ends, and the ends of such woven 

ribbons may or may not be hemmed; 

• Have longitudinal edges that are straight 

or of any shape, and the longitudinal edges 

of such woven ribbon may or may not be 

parallel to each other; 

• Consist of such ribbons affixed to like 

ribbon and/or cut-edge woven ribbon, a 

configuration also known as an ‘‘ornamental 

trimming;’’ 

• Be wound on spools; attached to a card; 

hanked (i.e., coiled or bundled); packaged in 

boxes, trays or bags; or configured as skeins, 

balls, bateaus or folds; and/or 

• Be included within a kit or set such as 

when packaged with other products, 

including but not limited to gift bags, gift 

boxes and/or other types of ribbon. 

Narrow woven ribbons subject to the 

investigation include all narrow woven 

fabrics, tapes, and labels that fall within this 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation. 

Excluded from the scope of the 

investigation are the following: 

(1) Formed bows composed of narrow 

woven ribbons with woven selvedge; 

(2) ‘‘Pull-bows’’ (i.e., an assemblage of 

ribbons connected to one another, folded flat 

and equipped with a means to form such 

ribbons into the shape of a bow by pulling 

on a length of material affixed to such 

assemblage) composed of narrow woven 

ribbons; 

(3) Narrow woven ribbons comprised at 

least 20 percent by weight of elastomeric 

yarn (i.e., filament yarn, including 

monofilament, of synthetic textile material, 

other than textured yarn, which does not 

break on being extended to three times its 

original length and which returns, after being 

extended to twice its original length, within 

a period of five minutes, to a length not 

greater than one and a half times its original 

length as defined in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), 

Section XI, Note 13) or rubber thread; 

(4) Narrow woven ribbons of a kind used 

for the manufacture of typewriter or printer 

ribbons; 

(5) Narrow woven labels and apparel tapes, 

cut-to-length or cut-to-shape, having a length 

(when measured across the longest edge-toedge span) not exceeding 8 centimeters; 

(6) Narrow woven ribbons with woven 

selvedge attached to and forming the handle 

of a gift bag; 

(7) Cut-edge narrow woven ribbons formed 

by cutting broad woven fabric into strips of 

ribbon, with or without treatments to prevent 

the longitudinal edges of the ribbon from 

fraying (such as by merrowing, lamination, 

sono-bonding, fusing, gumming or waxing), 

and with or without wire running lengthwise 

along the longitudinal edges of the ribbon; 

(8) Narrow woven ribbons comprised at 

least 85 percent by weight of threads having 

a denier of 225 or higher; 

(9) Narrow woven ribbons constructed 

from pile fabrics (i.e., fabrics with a surface 

effect formed by tufts or loops of yarn that 

stand up from the body of the fabric); 

(10) Narrow woven ribbon affixed 

(including by tying) as a decorative detail to 

non-subject merchandise, such as a gift bag, 

gift box, gift tin, greeting card or plush toy, 

or affixed (including by tying) as a decorative 

detail to packaging containing non-subject 

merchandise; 

(11) Narrow woven ribbon affixed to nonsubject merchandise as a working component 

of such non-subject merchandise, such as 

where narrow woven ribbon comprises an 

apparel trimming, book marker, bag cinch, or 

part of an identity card holder; and 

(12) Narrow woven ribbon(s) comprising a 

belt attached to and imported with an item 

of wearing apparel, whether or not such belt 

is removable from such item of wearing 

apparel. 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is classifiable under the HTSUS 

statistical categories 5806.32.1020; 

5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050 and 

5806.32.1060. Subject merchandise also may 

enter under subheadings 5806.31.00; 

5806.32.20; 5806.39.20; 5806.39.30; 

5808.90.00; 5810.91.00; 5810.99.90; 

5903.90.10; 5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 

5907.00.80 and under statistical categories 

5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 5903.90.3090; 

and 6307.90.9889. The HTSUS statistical 

categories and subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

merchandise under investigation is 

dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–18892 Filed 8–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XQ79 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council’s (NEFMC) 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) will host an Ecosystem Based 

Fisheries Management (EBFM) 

Workshop for Council members and 

staff, Plan Development Team members, 

interested parties and members of the 

public. The intent of this meeting is to 

develop a ‘‘blueprint’’ that would 

inform the Council’s efforts to develop 

an EBFM approach or plan for NEFMCmanaged species. 

DATES: This meeting will be held on 

August 26 and August 27, 2009. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific 

dates and times. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Marriott Hotel, 25 America’s Cup 

Avenue, Newport, RI 02840; telephone: 

(401) 849–1000; fax: (401) 849–3422. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting will begin at 9 a.m. on 

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 and recess 

at 5 p.m., or when business is complete; 

reconvene at 9 a.m. on Thursday, 

August 27, 2009 and recess at 3 p.m., or 

when business is complete. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, at 978– 

465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the 

meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: July 31, 2009. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–18745 Filed 8–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XQ78 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

convene the SEDAR Red Snapper 

Update Workshop (SEDAR). 

DATES: The meeting will convene at 1 

p.m. on Monday, August 24, 2009 and 

conclude no later than 1 p.m. on Friday, 

August 28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the NMFS, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, 

Miami, FL 33149. 

Council address: Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 2203 

North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, 

FL 33607. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Atran, Population Dynamic 

Statistician, Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council; telephone: (813) 

348–1630. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
B-1

APPENDIX B

CONFERENCE WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF THE PUBLIC CONFERENCE

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s conference:

Subject: Narrow Woven Ribbons from China and Taiwan

Inv. No.: 701-TA-467 and 731-TA-1164-1165 (Preliminary)

Date and Time: July 30, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

The conference in connection with these investigations was held in the Main Hearing Room

(room 101), 500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Gregory C. Dorris, Pepper Hamilton LLP)

Respondents (Brenda A. Jacobs, Sidley Austin LLP)

In Support of the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties:

Pepper Hamilton LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Party name(s)

Scott M. Shea, President, 

Berwick Offray LLC and Lion Ribbon Company, Inc.

Julie Pajic, Head of Marketing and Sales, 

Berwick Offray LLC

Owen Deese, Senior Industrial Engineer,

Berwick Offray LLC

Bruce Kerr, Vice President-Procurement, 

Berwick Offray LLC

Donald Girard, Design Engineer, 

Berwick Offray LLC

Gregory C. Dorris, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL
B-4

In Opposition to the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties:

Sidley Austin LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Party name(s)

David Mitchell, Business Unit Divisional Manager – Celebrations, 

Michaels Stores, Inc.

Robert D. Icsman, Senior Legal Counsel, 

Jo-Ann Stores, Inc.

Melissa Freebern, Merchandise Manager, 

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Brenda A. Jacobs, Esq. )

Neil Ellis, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL

Jill Caiazzo, Esq. )

Party name(s)

John Aemisegger, President, 

Compass Designs LLC

Joseph Duffey, CEO, 

Compass Designs LLC

Richard Jenkins, Controller,

Compass Designs LLC
B-5

In Opposition to the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties (continued):

Garvey Schubert Barer

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Party name(s)

Charles Vaughn, President, 

MNC Stribbons, Inc.

Thomas Lodge, President,

Liberty Ribbons & Packaging LLC

Vinci Wong, President, 

Papillon Ribbons & Bows, Inc.

Ronald M. Wisla, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL

William E. Perry, Esq. )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Gregory C. Dorris, Pepper Hamilton LLP)

Respondents (Neil Ellis, Sidley Austin LLP)

 (William E. Perry, Garvey Schubert Barer)

C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-3

APPENDIX C

CONTENTS

Page

Table C-1

Narrow woven ribbons: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, 

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009 (VALUE BASIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5

The apparent U.S. consumption, market share, and U.S. import data presented in table C-1 

are calculated on a value basis compiled from Commission questionnaire responses.

Table C-2

Narrow woven ribbons: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, 

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009 (QUANTITY BASIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6

The apparent U.S. consumption, market share, and U.S. import data presented in table C-2

are compiled from Commission questionnaire responses by firms that could provide both 

quantity (in square yards) and value data. Although this method understates import quantity,

table C-2 presents average unit values on a consistent basis for comparison purposes.

Table C-1

Narrow woven ribbons: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009 (VALUE BASIS)

(Quantity=square yards, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per square yard; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-March Jan.-Mar.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,733 26,980 27,076 4,404 3,639 24.6 24.1 0.4 -17.4

 Taiwan:

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,295 38,781 37,888 5,572 7,123 -6.0 -3.8 -2.3 27.8

 Subtotal:

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,027 65,761 64,964 9,976 10,762 4.7 6.0 -1.2 7.9

 All other sources:

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,134 5,925 5,173 1,252 844 -15.7 -3.4 -12.7 -32.6

 All sources:

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,161 71,686 70,137 11,228 11,606 2.9 5.2 -2.2 3.4

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (yards/1,000 hours) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

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 data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-5
Table C-2

Narrow woven ribbons: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009 (QUANTITY BASIS)

(Quantity=square yards, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per square yard; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-March Jan.-Mar.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,546 8,117 7,764 1,386 1,222 2.9 7.6 -4.4 -11.8

 Value for reported quantity. . . . . . . 17,986 20,658 20,614 3,964 3,335 14.6 14.9 -0.2 -15.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.38 $2.55 $2.66 $2.86 $2.73 11.4 6.8 4.3 -4.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . 3,219 3,661 3,803 3,934 3,795 18.1 13.7 3.9 -3.5

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,102 11,737 10,442 1,996 1,726 -13.7 -3.0 -11.0 -13.5

 Value for reported quantity. . . . . . . 30,296 28,862 28,537 5,266 4,609 -5.8 -4.7 -1.1 -12.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.50 $2.46 $2.73 $2.64 $2.67 9.2 -1.8 11.1 1.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . 2,924 3,307 3,406 3,271 3,226 16.5 13.1 3.0 -1.4

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,648 19,854 18,206 3,383 2,948 -7.3 1.0 -8.3 -12.8

 Value for reported quantity. . . . . . . 48,282 49,520 49,151 9,230 7,944 1.8 2.6 -0.7 -13.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.46 $2.49 $2.70 $2.73 $2.69 9.9 1.5 8.2 -1.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . 6,143 6,968 7,209 7,205 7,021 17.3 13.4 3.5 -2.5

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,422 1,295 1,208 272 205 -15.1 -8.9 -6.8 -24.4

 Value for reported quantity. . . . . . . 4,909 4,844 4,520 987 774 -7.9 -1.3 -6.7 -21.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.45 $3.74 $3.74 $3.63 $3.77 8.4 8.3 0.1 3.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . 778 804 840 857 742 7.9 3.4 4.4 -13.5

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,070 21,149 19,413 3,654 3,154 -7.9 0.4 -8.2 -13.7

 Value for reported quantity. . . . . . . 53,191 54,364 53,671 10,217 8,718 0.9 2.2 -1.3 -14.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.52 $2.57 $2.76 $2.80 $2.76 9.5 1.8 7.6 -1.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . 6,921 7,772 8,049 8,062 7,763 16.3 12.3 3.6 -3.7

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (yards/1,000 hours) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--To calculate average unit values for U.S. imports, the values shown are limited to those for companies reporting both quantity and value data.

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 data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-6
D-1

APPENDIX D

PRICING DATA REPORTED BY PURCHASERS

D-3

Table D-1

Narrow woven ribbons: Delivered purchase prices and quantities imported product 1 reported by

***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

Table D-2

Narrow woven ribbons: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of imported product 2 reported

by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

Table D-3

Narrow woven ribbons: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of imported product 4 reported

by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

Table D-4

Narrow woven ribbons: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of imported product 5 reported

by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

Table D-5

Narrow woven ribbons: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of imported product 6 reported

by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

Table D-6

Narrow woven ribbons: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 1 reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

Table D-7

Narrow woven ribbons: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 2 reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-8

Narrow woven ribbons: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of imported product 3 reported

by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-9

Narrow woven ribbons: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 4 reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *
D-4

Table D-10

Narrow woven ribbons: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of domestic product 5 reported

by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-11

Narrow woven ribbons: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 6 reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *
E-1

APPENDIX E

ALLEGED EFFECTS OF SUBJECT IMPORTS ON U.S. PRODUCERS’ 

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION EFFORTS,

GROWTH, INVESTMENT, AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL

E-3

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or potential negative effects since

January 1, 2006, on their return on investment, growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing

development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of

narrow woven ribbons from China. Their responses are as follows:

Actual Negative Effects

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Negative Effects

* * * * * * *