U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4144 April 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Final)
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 B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Joshua Kaplan, Investigator 

Raymond Cantrell, Industry Analyst 

Craig Thomsen, Economist 

Charles Yost, Accountant 

Karl von Schriltz, Attorney 

Lita David-Harris, Statistician 

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

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4144 April 2010

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam

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

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Dissenting views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

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

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

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

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

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

Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Manufacturing facilities and production employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

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

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

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

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-5

Supply ................................................................... II-5

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-10

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-15

Knowledge of country sources ................................................ II-15

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-16

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-20

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-26

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-26

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-26

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-26

i
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-3

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

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-6

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

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

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

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

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Geographical markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Simultaneous presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-14

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-14

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-15

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

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

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

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

facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

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

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-8

ii
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

The industry in Taiwan ......................................................... VII-1

The industry in Vietnam ........................................................ VII-2

The industries in the subject countries combined ..................................... VII-3

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-3

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-4

Investigations in third-country markets ............................................ VII-5

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

Appendixes

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

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

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

D. Price data regarding PRCBs in units of 1,000 bags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Per-pound delivered prices of PRCBs imported directly by purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Per-pound prices and quantities of PRCBs from the United States, subject, and nonsubject . .

countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Financial results of U.S. producers on their combined domestic operations and imports of . .

subject PRCBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

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

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

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

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

asterisks.

iii

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

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

POLYETHYLENE RETAIL CARRIER BAGS FROM INDONESIA, TAIWAN, AND VIETNAM

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1671d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by

reason of imports from Vietnam of polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs), provided for in subheading

3923.21.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the

Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be subsidized by the Government of Vietnam.2

 The

Commission further determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)), that an

industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from Indonesia, 

Taiwan, and Vietnam of PRCBs that have been found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at less

than fair value (LTFV).3

 In addition, the Commission determines that it would not have found material

injury but for the suspension of liquidation. 

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these investigations effective March 31, 2009, following receipt of 

petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Hilex Poly Co., LLC, Hartsville, SC and Superbag

Corp., Houston, TX. The final phase of these investigations was scheduled by the Commission following

notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan,

and Vietnam were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 

1673b(b)) and that imports of PRCBs from Vietnam were being subsidized within the meaning of section

703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the

Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by

posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of December 3, 2009 (74 FR

63410). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on March 16, 2010, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

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

 2

 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson dissenting.

 3

 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson dissenting.

1

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that the domestic industry

producing polyethylene retail carrier bags (“PRCBs”) is threatened with material injury by reason of

imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam that the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) has found to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and imports of

PRCBs from Vietnam that Commerce has found to be subsidized by the Government of Vietnam.1

 

I. BACKGROUND

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

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

producers of PRCBs. The only respondents that participated in the hearing and filed briefs in these final

phase investigations were Indonesian foreign producers PT Super Exim Sari and PT Super Makmur

(collectively, “respondents”). 

The Commission has relatively complete coverage for the domestic industry.2

 Foreign producer

coverage from all three subject countries, however, is less complete. Responding subject foreign

producers in all three countries estimated that they represented a relatively *** share of their respective

countries’ PRCB production and exports to the United States in 2008.3

 Their reported exports as a share

of subject imports from each country that year, however, suggests a greater degree of questionnaire

coverage with respect to exports to the United States, but not necessarily with respect to production.4

 

II. 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

 1 Vice Chairman Pearson joins the majority in finding that the domestic industry producing PRCBs is not

materially injured by reason of imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam that Commerce has found to

be sold in the United States at LTFV and imports of PRCBs from Vietnam that Commerce has found to be

subsidized by the Government of Vietnam. He therefore joins the majority opinion in sections I, II, III, and IV, and

also in section V, as it pertains to material injury and except where otherwise noted. Vice Chairman Pearson

dissents from the majority, however, in finding that the domestic industry producing PRCBs is not threatened with

material injury by reason of subject imports. See Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Pearson. 

 2

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

 3 The three responding Indonesian producers estimated that they accounted for *** percent of Indonesian PRCB

production and *** percent of Indonesian PRCB exports to the United States in 2008. CR at VII-1; PR at VII-1. 

The three responding Taiwan producers estimated that they accounted for *** percent of Taiwan PRCB production

and *** percent of Taiwan PRCB exports to the United States in 2008. CR at VII-3; PR at VII-1-2. The seven

responding Vietnamese producers estimated that they accounted for *** percent of Vietnamese PRCB production

and *** percent of Vietnamese PRCB exports to the United States in 2008. Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14,

2010), at VII-5; PR at VII-2. 

 4 The three responding Indonesian producers reported exports to the United States equivalent to *** percent of

the quantity of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Indonesia that year. CR at VII-1; PR at VII-1. The three responding

Taiwan producers reported exports to the United States equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of

PRCBs from Taiwan that year. CR at VII-3; PR at VII-2. The seven responding Vietnamese producers reported

exports to the United States equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Vietnam that

year. Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010), at VII-5; PR at VII-2. 

3
“domestic like product” and the “industry.”5

 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.”6

 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.”7

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.8

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.9

 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.10

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,11 the Commission determines what domestic

product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.12

B. Product Description

Commerce has defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these investigations as

follows:

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

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

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

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

 5 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 6 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 7

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 8

 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).

 9

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

 10 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.”).

 11 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).

 12 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 in

which Commerce found five classes or kinds).

4
or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.13 

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

under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.14

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

customers free of charge for packaging and carrying purchased goods home from the point of sale.15

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

undershirts, are made of thinner, typically 1 mil or less, denser polyethylene film and are generally

printed with simple designs of one or two, but up to four, colors.16 Die-cut and drawstring bags are made

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

bags, sometimes reinforced, and are also generally printed with simple designs.17 Higher-end PRCBs18

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

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

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

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

sides of the bag.19 

 

C. Like Product Analysis

In its prior antidumping duty investigations covering PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and

Thailand, conducted in 2004, the Commission defined a single domestic like product encompassing a

continuum of PRCBs made in a wide range of shapes and sizes with a variety of features.20 The

Commission rejected respondents’ argument that certain high-end PRCBs be defined as a separate

 13 CR at I-8-9; PR at I-7.

 14 CR at I-9; PR at I-7.

 15 CR at I-10, 16; PR at I-8, 12.

 16 CR at I-10-11; PR at I-8-9.

 17 CR at I-11, I-16; PR at I-9, 12-13; Conference Transcript (“Conference Tr.”). at 82 (Daniels), 141 (Wisla).

 18 We note that “higher-end” does not appear to be a well defined term in the industry. See CR/PR at Table II-2

(when asked to report the characteristics associated with “high-end” PRCBs, purchasers reported a broad range of

such attributes).

 19 CR at I-11, 16; PR at I-9, 12-13.

 20 See Confidential Views, PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final)

(“2004 Confidential Views”), at 7-13. We note that the scope of the 2004 investigations was identical to the scope

of these final phase investigations with the exception that the HTSUS statistical category in these investigations is

specific to PRCBs, whereas the HTSUS statistical category in the 2004 investigations was a “basket” category that

included PRCBs. See Conference Tr. at 72 (Dorn). 

5
domestic like product because the argument “[did] not account for the vast array of PRCBs that fall in the

middle of the continuum.”21

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, respondents argued that the Commission should

define two domestic like products corresponding to high-end PRCBs, defined as PRCBs that are 2.25 mils

or more in thickness and reusable, and all other PRCBs, respectively.22 Petitioners argued that the

Commission should define a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of the

investigations.23 The Commission concluded that “there is insufficient evidence on the record of these

preliminary investigations for us to conclude that there is a clear dividing line separating high-end PRCBs

from other types of PRCBs on the continuum of PRCB products,” and defined a single domestic like

product that was coextensive with the scope of the investigations and was comprised of a continuum of

PRCB products.24 It based this determination on evidence that “higher-end” domestically produced

PRCBs of unknown thickness competed with subject imported high-end PRCBs; evidence that PRCBs

thinner than 2.25 mils are reused; and the lack of evidence or argument addressing the similarities and

differences between domestically produced PRCBs in the middle of the continuum of PRCB products and

subject imported high-end PRCBs.25 The Commission indicated that it intended to explore the issue

further in any final phase of the investigations and requested that respondents provide in their written

comments on draft questionnaires a more detailed definition of their proposed high-end PRCBs.26 

In the final phase of these investigations, petitioners again argue that the Commission should

define a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of the investigations and is

comprised of a continuum of PRCB products.27 Respondents, however, no longer argue that the

Commission should define high-end PRCBs as a separate domestic like product, and they implicitly

accept the Commission’s domestic like product definition from the preliminary phase of the

investigations.28

 21 2004 Confidential Views at 12.

 22 See PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4080 (May 2009) (“Public Preliminary Views”), at 5-6. The following respondents

participated in the staff conference and filed a post-conference brief in the preliminary phase of the investigations:

foreign producers and importers Ampac Packaging Vietnam Ltd., The Cannon Group, Inc., Chung Va (Vietnam)

Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd., Elkay Plastics Co., Inc., Glopack, Inc., Industrias Chung Va (Holdings) Limitada, MHI

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

importers Ampac Plastics LLC and Glopack, Inc. Id. at 1.

 23 Public Preliminary Views, at 4-5.

 24 Public Preliminary Views, at 10. 

 25 Public Preliminary Views at 10; see also id. at 7-9. 

 26 Public Preliminary Views at 10.

 27 See Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 9-17.

 28 Respondents’ Prehearing Br. at 3-5. Respondents suggest that the Commission should define two separate

domestic like products corresponding to t-shirt bags and all other PRCBs. Id. at 3-4. Recognizing that “it is too late

in the investigation for the Commission to gather data that would be needed to conduct a full requisite analysis on

the basis of those two like products,” respondents “argue that there is no injury to the domestic industry based on one

like product.” Id. at 4. In their comments on the draft questionnaires for the final phase of these investigations, filed

on November 25, 2009, respondents did not indicate that they would be arguing for two domestic like products

corresponding to T-shirt bags and all other PRCBs, and did not request that the Commission collect the data that

would be necessary to conduct its analysis on such a basis. See 19 C.F.R. 207.20(b); Notice of Final Rulemaking,

61 Fed. Reg. 37,818, 37,826 (July 22, 1996) (explaining the promulgation of rule 207.20(b), providing that “[t]he

Director shall circulate draft questionnaires in the final phase of an investigation to parties to the investigation for

comment”: “It is often impracticable to satisfy new data collection requests made during the later stages of a final

phase investigation, given the need to collect, verify, and analyze data, release data under APO, and receive

comments from the parties concerning data before the record closes.”). Consequently, the record does not contain

6
In the preliminary phase of these investigations, we found evidence that domestically produced

“higher-end” PRCBs, which do not satisfy the definition of high-end PRCBs,29 share certain similarities

with subject imported high-end PRCBs in terms of the six domestic like product factors, and compete

with subject imported high-end PRCBs to some degree.30 On that basis, we found no clear dividing line

separating high-end PRCBs from the continuum of other PRCB products.31 There is no new evidence on

the record of the final phase of these investigations that would warrant our reconsideration of these

findings.32 We therefore define a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of the

investigations and is comprised of a continuum of PRCB products.

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

A. In General

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.”33 In defining the domestic industry, the

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

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

Based on our definition of a single domestic like product, we define a single domestic industry consisting

of all domestic producers of PRCBs. 

B. Related Parties

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

the domestic industry as a related party pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B)

allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry

producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves

the information that would be necessary for the Commission to conduct its analysis on the basis of the domestic like

product definitions proposed by respondents, for the first time, in their prehearing brief, filed on March 9, 2010. 

 29 CR at I-17 & n.57. *** reported production of high-end PRCBs during the period examined, and ***. CR at I17 n.57. Moreover, as a practical matter, the record does not contain the information we would need to perform our

analysis with respect to the domestic industry producing high-end PRCBs because, although these data were

requested, ***. Id. at Table C-2, note. 

 30 See Public Preliminary Views at 6-10. *** reported *** sales of higher-end PRCBs in the preliminary phase of

the investigations, see id. at 7-9, yet reported no production of high-end PRCBs in the final phase of the

investigations. See U.S. Producers’ Questionnaire Response of *** at question II-14.

 31 Public Preliminary Views, at 10. 

 32 See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-8 (all PRCBs share the same general physical characteristics and uses);

Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 11 (noting that domestic producers *** report that their higher-end PRCBs do not

satisfy the definition of high-end PRCBs, but nevertheless compete directly with subject imported high-end PRCBs). 

There also is no information on the record suggesting that our domestic like product analysis from the preliminary

phase of the investigations is any less valid with respect to the definition of high-end PRCBs adopted in the final

phase of the investigations: “Custom-made high-end shopping bags that incorporate value added materials such as

cardboard inserts (top or bottom) and/or manually applied handles of various material (i.e., rope handle, rope

drawstring, ribbon handle, tri-fold handle, rigid plastic molded handle, and plastic or metal grommets).” CR at I-15;

PR at I-12. High-end PRCBs as defined in the preliminary phase of the investigations, bags with thicknesses greater

than 2.25 mils, possessed these same characteristics. See Public Preliminary Views at 7; Confidential Preliminary

Staff Report at I-13-14; Public Preliminary Staff Report at I-9-10. 

 33 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

7
importers.34 Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts

presented in each investigation.35 

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, no party argued that any related party should be

excluded from the domestic industry.36 The Commission found that eight domestic producers, ***,

qualified as related parties and concluded that circumstances did not warrant the exclusion of any related

party from the domestic industry.37 

In the final phase of these investigations, petitioners argue that the Commission should exclude

Inteplast from the domestic industry as a related party.38 Respondents have not addressed the issue of

related parties. 

We find that six domestic producers, ***, qualify as related parties because they were importers

of subject merchandise from Indonesia, Taiwan, or Vietnam during the period examined.39 In addition,

*** are related to subject foreign exporters of PRCBs.40 

We again find that circumstances do not warrant the exclusion of any related party, including

Inteplast. The ratio of Inteplast’s imports of subject PRCBs to its domestic production of PRCBs

increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008, and was *** percent

in January-September 2009 (“interim 2009”), *** from *** percent in January-September 2008 (“interim

2008”).41 Given that Inteplast produced *** more PRCBs domestically than it imported from subject

countries throughout the period examined, we find that Inteplast’s primary interest was in domestic

production during the period.42

 34 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 35 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude a related party include the following: (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 without opinion, 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, 1865 (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. 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”).

 36 Confidential Preliminary Views at 17; Public Preliminary Views at 12.

 37 Confidential Preliminary Views at 15-17; Public Preliminary Views at 11-12.

 38 Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 19.

 39 See CR/PR at Table III-5; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). *** imported subject PRCBs, while *** purchased

significant quantities of subject imports. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 40 CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 41 CR/PR at Table III-5.

 42 CR/PR at Table III-1. We also note that Inteplast ranked as the *** largest domestic producer in 2008. Id.

Inteplast does not report the reason that it increased its imports of subject PRCBs.

8
We also note that there is little evidence that Inteplast’s domestic production operations

benefitted from dumped or subsidized PRCBs.43 44 Inteplast’s operating income margin did not ***

during the period of investigation, though its rank in terms of profitability did improve over the period.45 

For this reason, Inteplast’s inclusion in the domestic industry would not skew data for the rest of the

industry. In sum, we find that circumstances do not warrant the exclusion of Inteplast or any other related

party from the domestic industry.46 

 43 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. 

 44 Commissioner Pinkert has considered the financial performance of the six related party producers as one of the

factors in his analysis of whether to exclude one or more of them from the domestic industry. He notes in this regard

that certain of these producers appear to have enjoyed a financial benefit from import operations. CR/PR at G-5. As

explained below, however, he has not excluded any of them from the domestic industry. 

First, the six related party producers exhibited relatively low import to domestic production ratios (under 50

percent) throughout the period examined. Second, it is unclear whether their domestic operations benefitted from the

import operations -- their operating margins did not differ significantly from those of non-importing domestic

producers. Finally, as Petitioners have argued, domestic producers may well have engaged in import operations to

remain competitive with subject imports. 

 45 CR/PR at Table VI-2. Inteplast’s operating income margin declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent

in 2007 before increasing to *** percent in 2008. Id. Its operating income margin was *** percent in interim 2009,

up from *** percent in interim 2008. Id. It is noteworthy that Inteplast’s peak operating income margin during the

2006-2008 period was in ***, when the ratio of its subject imports to domestic production was the lowest of the

period. Relative to the performance of other domestic producers, Inteplast was the *** most profitable domestic

producer in 2006 and 2007, the *** most profitable domestic producer in 2008, and the *** most profitable domestic

producer in interim 2009. Id.

 46 With respect to related parties other than Inteplast, between 2006 and 2008, the ratio of subject imports to

domestic production increased for *** but was virtually zero for ***. See CR/PR at Table III-5. For all five

producers, however, the ratio of subject imports to domestic production remained under 50 percent throughout the

period examined, indicating that all remained more interested in domestic production than importing. Id. Indeed,

petitioners have claimed that domestic producers were forced to import PRCBs as a means of sustaining their highercost domestic operations, and also that these producers would likely reduce their imports of subject PRCBs if relief

were granted. See Petitioners’ Post-Conference Br. at 22; Conference Tr. at 20 (Bazbaz) (“[S]ome domestic

producers are using blended sales programs. That is a domestic producer will commit to sell a customer its higher

priced domestic bags and lower priced imported bags at a single average price.”); Petitioners’ Responses to

Commissioner Questions, at 40. At the same time, there is no evidence that these five related parties derived a

significant financial benefit from their importation of PRCBs from subject countries, since the operating income

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

did not import from subject countries. See CR/PR at Table VI-2. In this regard, we note that the related party with

the highest ratio of subject imports to domestic production, ***. See id. at Table VI-2 & n.1. No party argues that

any related party other than Inteplast should be excluded from the domestic industry. Thus, we find that

circumstances do not warrant the exclusion of *** as related parties. 

9
IV. CUMULATION47

A. Background

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 with domestic like products in

the U.S. market and no statutory exceptions apply.48 The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in

these investigations because the petitions with respect to Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam were filed on

the same day, March 31, 2009.49

In assessing whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product,

the Commission has generally considered four factors:

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

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

customer requirements and other quality related questions;

(2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets of subject

imports from different countries and the domestic like product;

(3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for subject imports

from different countries and the domestic like product; and

(4) whether the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.50 51

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.52 Only a “reasonable overlap” of

competition is required.53

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission found a reasonable overlap of

competition between subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and the domestic like

 47 Negligibility is not an issue in these investigations. Based on official Commerce statistics, subject imports

from Indonesia accounted for 6.5 percent of all imports of PRCBs, subject imports from Taiwan accounted for 11.2

percent of all imports of PRCBs, and subject imports from Vietnam accounted for 19.6 percent of all imports of

PRCBs, by volume, during the most recent 12-month period preceding the filing of the petition for which data are

available. CR at IV-6; PR at IV-4. 

 48 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i).

 49 CR at I-1; PR at I-1. None of the statutory exceptions to cumulation is applicable.

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

markets are not required.”).

10
product, and among the imports themselves.54 The Commission thus analyzed subject imports on a

cumulated basis.55

In the final phase of these investigations, petitioners argue that the Commission should again

consider subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam on a cumulated basis because, in their

view, there is a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from all three countries and

the domestic like product based on the four factors the Commission considers in analyzing the issue.56

Respondents do not address the issue of cumulation in the context of material injury.

B. Reasonable Overlap of Competition Analysis

Based on the record of these investigations, we find a reasonable overlap of competition among

subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and between subject imports from each source and

the domestic like product. First, the record indicates that there is a high degree of substitutability between

the subject imports from each source and the domestic like product, as well as among the subject

imports.57 The majority of responding producers, importers, and purchasers reported that the domestic

like product is “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan,

and Vietnam, and that subject imports from each source are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable

with each other.58 When asked whether differences other than price are ever significant to purchasers,

almost all producers and a majority of importers and purchasers responded “sometimes” or “never,”

though a significant minority of importers and purchasers reported that differences other than price are

“always” or “frequently” significant to purchasers choosing between subject imports and the domestic

like product.59

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

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

multiple ports of entry dispersed across the country, and responding importers reported shipping almost

half of their subject import shipments under 100 miles.60 Domestic producers tended to serve slightly

broader geographic markets than importers.61 Nine of 14 domestic producers reported serving a

nationwide market.62 Therefore, the record indicates that subject imports from all three sources and the

domestic like product served all regions of the United States.

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

the same general channels of distribution. During the period examined, a majority of U.S. shipments of

both the domestic like product and subject imports from Indonesia and Taiwan was shipped directly to

end users, though U.S. shipments of subject imports from Vietnam were almost evenly divided between

 54 Public Preliminary Views at 13-14.

 55 Public Preliminary Views at 13-14.

 56 See Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 22-23.

 57 CR at II-21; PR at II-15.

 58 CR at II-27; PR at II-20; CR/PR at Table II-12.

 59 CR/PR at Table II-13.

 60 Responding importers reported shipping 47.5 percent of their subject import shipments under 100 miles, 26.4

percent of their subject import shipments between 100 and 1,000 miles, and 26.1 percent of their subject import

shipments over 1,000 miles. CR/PR at Tables II-3, V-2. Twelve of 36 importers of subject PRCBs reported serving

the national market, while 24 reported serving one or more regional markets. CR/PR at Table II-3. We note that

these data do not break out the country source of the subject imported PRCBs.

 61 Domestic producers reportedly shipped 10.1 percent of their domestic like product shipments less than 100

miles, 58.1 percent of their domestic like product shipments between 101 and 1,000 miles, and 31.8 percent of their

domestic like product shipments more than 1,000 miles. CR/PR at Tables II-3, V-2.

 62 CR/PR at Table II-3.

11
end users and distributors between 2006 and 2008.63 The balance of U.S. shipments of PRCBs from all

sources was made to distributors.64 

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

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

period examined.65 

We conclude that there is a reasonable overlap of competition between and among subject

imports and the domestic like product, and, therefore, cumulate subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan,

and Vietnam for purposes of our analysis of material injury by reason of subject imports.

C. Cumulation for Threat Analysis

Because our determinations address the issue of threat of material injury by reason of subject

imports, we must also consider whether to cumulate subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam for purposes of a threat analysis. In contrast to cumulation for material injury, cumulation for a

threat analysis 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 in the material injury

context are satisfied.66

In the final phase of these investigations, petitioners argue that the Commission should exercise

its discretion to cumulate subject imports from all three sources for purposes of any threat analysis

because in their view, subject imports share common trends and operate under the same conditions of

competition.67 Respondents disagree, and argue that the Commission should exercise its discretion to

consider subject imports from Indonesia on a decumulated basis because subject imports from Indonesia

exhibited different trends and were subject to different conditions of competition than subject imports

from Taiwan and Vietnam over the period examined.68 

 63 Between 2006 and 2008, shipments to end users accounted for between 70.4 and 72.5 percent of U.S.

shipments of the domestic like product, between 69.4 and 82.8 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from

Indonesia, between 55.2 and 66.8 percent of subject imports from Taiwan, and between 45.0 and 50.5 percent of

subject imports from Vietnam. CR/PR at Table II-1. In interim 2009, shipments to end users accounted for 57.0

percent of U.S. shipments of the domestic like product, 68.4 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from

Indonesia, 58.6 percent of subject imports from Taiwan, and 63.2 percent of subject imports from Vietnam Id.

 64 Between 2006 and 2008, shipments to distributors accounted for between 27.5 and 29.6 percent of U.S.

shipments of the domestic like product, between 17.2 and 30.6 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from

Indonesia, between 33.2 and 44.8 percent of subject imports from Taiwan, and between 49.5 and 55.0 percent of

subject imports from Vietnam. CR/PR at Table II-1. In interim 2009, shipments to distributors accounted for 43.0

percent of U.S. shipments of the domestic like product, 31.6 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from

Indonesia, 41.4 percent of subject imports from Taiwan, and 36.8 percent of subject imports from Vietnam Id.

 65 CR at IV-5; PR at IV-4.

 66 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H).

 67 Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 56-57.

 68 Hearing Tr. at 182 (Lee); Respondents’ Posthearing Br. at 10-11. First, they claim that subject import volume

from Indonesia increased by less than subject imports from Taiwan and Vietnam, and declined in terms of both

volume and market share between 2007 and 2008, unlike subject imports from Taiwan and Vietnam. Hearing Tr. at

182-83 (Lee); Respondents’ Posthearing Br. at 11-12; CR at Tables IV-2-3. Second, they contend that subject

imports from Indonesia were generally priced higher than subject imports from Taiwan and Vietnam, because a

relatively high proportion of subject imports from Indonesia consisted of high-end PRCBs. Hearing Tr. at 184-85

(Lee); Respondents’ Posthearing Br. at 14. Finally, they claim that subject producers in Indonesia did not increase

their capacity over the period examined, unlike producers in Taiwan and Vietnam, and that the record contains ***. 

Hearing Tr. at 177-78 (Lee); Respondents’ Posthearing Br. at 12-14; Respondents’ Responses to Commissioner

Questions, at 5-6 (arguing that Indonesia is not a popular destination for foreign direct investment); CR/PR at Tables

12
In the preceding section, we found that the requirements for cumulating subject imports for

purposes of our material injury analysis are satisfied, and there is no information on the record to suggest

that the reasonable overlap of competition between and among subject imports and the domestic like

product will not continue into the imminent future. We further find that subject imports from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market in

the imminent future, based on the following considerations.69 

First, subject imports from all three sources increased overall over the full years of the period

examined in terms of both absolute volume and market share.70 In terms of volume, between 2006 and

2008, subject imports from Indonesia increased 37.6 percent, subject imports from Taiwan increased

110.7 percent, and subject imports from Vietnam increased 134.9 percent.71 In terms of market share,

between 2006 and 2008, subject imports from Indonesia increased their share of the quantity of apparent

U.S. consumption by 0.9 percentage points, subject imports from Taiwan increased their share by 2.5

percentage points, and subject imports from Vietnam increased their share by 4.3 percentage points.72 

There is no evidence on the record that subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam differed

significantly in terms of product mix.73 

VII-1-3.

 69 In determining for purposes of a threat analysis whether to exercise his discretion to cumulate subject imports

for which there is a reasonable overlap of competition, Commissioner Pinkert places primary weight on volume and

price trends.

 70 Specifically, subject imports from Indonesia increased from 2.0 billion bags in 2006 to 3.4 billion bags in

2007, but declined to 2.8 billion bags in 2008. Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4. 

Subject imports from Indonesia were 1.5 billion bags in interim 2009, down from 2.4 billion bags in interim 2008. 

Id. Subject imports from Taiwan increased from 2.2 billion bags in 2006 to 4.0 billion bags in 2007 and 4.6 billion

bags in 2008. Id. Subject imports from Taiwan were lower in interim 2009, at 2.2 billion bags, than in interim 2008,

at 3.6 billion bags. Id. Subject imports from Vietnam increased from 3.1 billion bags in 2006 to 7.3 billion bags in

2007 and then remained stable in 2008, at 7.2 billion bags. Id. Subject imports from Vietnam were higher in interim

2009, at 5.8 billion bags, than in interim 2008, at 5.1 billion bags. Id. 

 71 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4. Subject import volume from Indonesia was 37.9

percent lower in interim 2009 as compared to interim 2008 and subject import volume from Taiwan was 37.8 percent

lower, while subject import volume from Vietnam was 15.0 percent higher. Id.

 72 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4. The market share of subject imports from

Indonesia was 1.2 percentage points lower in interim 2009 as compared to interim 2008 and the market share of

subject imports from Taiwan was 1.8 percentage points lower, while the market share of subject imports from

Vietnam was 1.0 percentage point higher. Id.

 73 The record indicates that the product mix of subject imports from all three countries was focused on “T-shirt

style” bags. See Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Tables V-2, E-1-3; CR/PR at Tables V-3-9. We

recognize that the average unit value of subject imports from Indonesia was higher than the average unit value of

subject imports from Taiwan and Vietnam throughout most of the period examined, although the average unit value

of subject imports from all three countries converged somewhat in 2008 and interim 2009. See Memorandum INVHH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4. 

We find, however, that the record does not support respondents’ argument that the generally higher average

unit value of subject imports from Indonesia resulted from the relatively higher proportion of subject imports from

Indonesia consisting of high-end PRCBs. See Hearing Tr. at 178 (Lee); Respondents’ Posthearing Br. at 14. The

proportion of subject imports from Indonesia consisting of high-end PRCBs remained too small over the period

examined, at 0.6 percent in 2006, 0.7 percent in 2007, 1.4 percent in 2008, and 1.6 percent in interim 2009, to have

had a significant influence over the relative average unit value of subject imports from Indonesia, particularly given

that the product mix of all three subject countries was otherwise focused on “T-shirt style” bags. Compare

Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4 with CR/PR at Table C-2. Nor was Indonesia the only

significant subject source of high-end PRCBs during the period examined. The volume of high-end PRCBs

imported from Vietnam exceeded the volume of high-end PRCBs imported from Indonesia over the 2006-2008

period, even though the proportion of subject imports from Vietnam comprised of high-end PRCBs was generally

13
Subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam also exhibited similar patterns of over- and

underselling.74 Subject imports from all three sources generally oversold the domestic like product with

respect to product 2 and generally undersold the domestic like product with respect to products 1, 6, and

8.75 Moreover, subject imports from Taiwan and Vietnam exhibited a similarly mixed pattern of underand overselling with respect to product 3, and subject imports from Indonesia and Vietnam exhibited a

similar pattern of predominant underselling with respect to product 7.76

In addition, responding subject foreign producers in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam reported a

similar dependence on exports to the U.S. market and lack of a significant home market, and a similar

degree of excess capacity, towards the end of the period examined. Specifically, responding subject

producers in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam reported that a similarly high share of their total shipments

were exported to the United States in 2008, at *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent, respectively,

and in interim 2009, at *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent, respectively.77 Responding subject

producers in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam also reported that a similarly low share of their total

shipments were made to home market customers in 2008, at *** percent, *** percent, and ***,

respectively, and in interim 2009, at *** percent, *** percent, and ***, respectively.78 Finally,

responding subject producers in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam reported a similarly low rate of capacity

utilization in 2008, at *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent, respectively, and in interim 2009, at ***

percent, *** percent, and *** percent, respectively.79 These data indicate that subject producers in

lower. See CR/PR at Table C-2. The volume of high-end PRCBs imported from Taiwan exceeded the volume of

high-end PRCBs imported from Indonesia in 2006. Id. We are therefore unconvinced that the generally higher

average unit value of subject imports from Indonesia was a function of the higher proportion of subject imports from

Indonesia comprised of high-end PRCBs. 

 74 We also note that a comparison between delivered prices of PRCBs imported directly by purchasers and

domestic producers’ pricing data indicates that subject import prices from all three subject countries were

pervasively priced lower than the domestic like product with respect to products 2 and 3. Compare Memorandum

INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Tables E-1-2 with CR/PR at Tables V-3-4. We recognize that the delivered

prices of PRCBs imported directly by purchasers are at a different level of trade than domestic producers’ pricing

data, but note that delivered subject import prices include transportation costs whereas domestic producers’ prices,

which were reported f.o.b. at the factory gate, do not.

We also recognize that imports from different subject country sources exhibited a different pattern of overand underselling with respect to products 4 and 5, see CR/PR at Tables V-5-6, although we note that the sales

quantities of imports from Indonesia and Taiwan available for price comparisons for products 4 and 5 were low. We

also acknowledge that direct import prices for subject imports from Indonesia were higher than domestic producers’

prices with respect to product 5, unlike direct import prices for subject imports from Taiwan and Vietnam, which

were lower. Compare Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table E-3 with CR/PR at Table V-6. 

Nevertheless, in most cases, the pattern of under- and overselling by subject imports, and the extent to which direct

import prices were lower than domestic producers’ prices, was similar with respect to subject imports from all three

countries. 

 75 See CR/PR at Tables V-3, 7, 9. 

 76 See CR/PR at Tables V-4, 8.

 77 CR/PR at Tables VII-1-2; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-3.

 78 CR/PR at Tables VII-1-2; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-3.

 79 CR/PR at Tables VII-1-2; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-3. We recognize that

responding foreign producers in Indonesia reported relatively stable capacity over the period examined, while ***

responding foreign producers in Taiwan and Vietnam began production after the beginning of 2006, and thus

reported *** increases in capacity over the period examined. Compare CR/PR at Table VII-1 with CR/PR at Table

VII-2; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-3; see also CR at VII-3, 5. But the fact remains

that responding foreign producers in Indonesia, like responding foreign producers in Taiwan and Vietnam, reported

*** excess capacity in 2008. See id. (in 2008, reported excess capacity was *** bags in Indonesia, *** bags in

Taiwan, and *** bags in Vietnam). 

14
Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam will have similar capabilities and incentives to increase their exports to

the United States in the imminent future.

On balance, we conclude that subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam increased in

volume and market share between 2006 and 2008 in a similar fashion, and exhibited a similar pattern of

over- and underselling during the period examined.80 We also find similarities with respect to important

characteristics of the industries in all three countries. In sum, we find that the similarities in the

conditions of competition facing subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam outweigh the

differences, and have exercised our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam for our analysis of threat of material injury by reason of subject imports. 

 

V. MATERIAL INJURY AND THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF

SUBJECT IMPORTS

A. Legal Standards

1. In General

In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material

injury by reason of the imports under investigation.81 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.82 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or

unimportant.”83 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject

imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United

States.84 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.”85

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is

“materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded imports,86 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.87 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject

 80 Commissioner Pinkert acknowledges some differences in volume trends between subject imports from

Indonesia as opposed to those from Taiwan and Vietnam. Specifically, subject imports from Indonesia decreased in

both volume and market share from 2007 to 2008, which was not the case for subject imports from Taiwan or

Vietnam. Nevertheless, given that there are significant similarities in the volume trends, specifically that subject

import volume and market share for all three subject countries increased substantially from 2006 to 2008, as well as

parallel pricing trends, Commissioner Pinkert exercises his discretion to cumulate subject imports from Indonesia

with those from Taiwan and Vietnam for purposes of his threat determination.

 81 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

 82 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 ... and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 83 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 84 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 85 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 86 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a).

 87 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’d, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

15
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.88

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

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

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

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

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

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

statutory material injury threshold.89 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.90 Nor does the

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

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

 88 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).

 89 SAA at 851-52 (“{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.

 90 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,’

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.”).

16
imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.91 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.92

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

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

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

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”93 94 Indeed, the

Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid

adherence to a specific formula.”95

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

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

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

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

imports.96 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have

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

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

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

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

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

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

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

injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.97 Accordingly, we do not consider

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

 92 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.”).

 93 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.

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

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

when considering present material injury, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject imports. Mittal

explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price-competitive,

nonsubject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an

important aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether nonsubject 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.

 95 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.”).

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

 97 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).

17
ourselves required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions

subsequent to Bratsk.

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

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

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

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.98 99

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

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.101

2. Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

In evaluating the volume of subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act provides that

the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that

volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is

significant.”102

In evaluating the price effects of the subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act

provides that 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.103

In examining the impact of subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that the

Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the

industry.”104 These factors include output, sales, inventories, ability to raise capital, research and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 100 We provide in our respective discussions of volume, price effects, and impact a full analysis of other factors

alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry.

 101 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.”).

 102 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 103 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 104 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”). 

18
development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all relevant factors

are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive

to the affected industry.”105

3. Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

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.”106 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

material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.107 In making our

determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to this investigation.108

 105 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

 106 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 107 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 108 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 this investigation. No argument was

19
B. Conditions of Competition

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

investigations.

1. Demand Conditions

 

 Apparent U.S. consumption for PRCBs declined by 6.7 percent between 2006 and 2008, from

108.7 billion bags in 2006 to 105.3 billion bags in 2007 and 101.4 billion bags in 2008, and was flat over

the interim period, at 74.4 billion bags in interim 2008 and 74.5 billion bags in interim 2009.109 When

asked how demand for PRCBs in the U.S. market has changed since 2006, nine responding producers

reported a decrease, four reported no change, and none reported an increase, while 12 importers reported

a decrease, ten reported no change, two reported an increase, and two reported that demand fluctuated.110

Reasons given by responding producers and importers for the decline in PRCB demand since 2006

included the weakening economy, increased use of alternative bag types, legislative actions regulating the

use of PRCBs, the increased cost of PRCBs, and consumer perceptions.111 Petitioners project that PRCB

demand will remain flat or decline in the imminent future due to environmental laws and increased

acceptance of reusable bags.112 

The record indicates that laws and regulations taxing, banning, or limiting the use of PRCBs have

been enacted in San Francisco, CA; Westport, CT; the Outer Banks of North Carolina; Seattle, WA; and

Washington, DC, and have been considered, but not implemented, in 32 states and localities throughout

the United States.113 When asked whether they expect the passage of laws regulating PRCB use and

disposal to affect PRCB demand, 8 of 12 responding domestic producers answered yes, with an average

projected demand decline of 11 percent; 12 of 27 responding importers answered yes, with an average

projected demand decline of 27 percent; and 27 of 50 responding purchasers answered yes, with an

average projected demand decline of 18 percent.114 

 

2. Supply Conditions

API, Hilex, Inteplast, and Superbag were *** domestic producers during the period of

investigation, accounting for *** percent, *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent of domestic PRCB

production in 2008, respectively.115 All other domestic producers combined accounted for only ***

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).

 109 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4.

 110 CR at II-15; PR at II-10.

 111 CR at II-15; PR at II-10-11. 

 112 Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 58 (citing CR at Table II-7). When asked whether PRCB demand had been

affected by the passage of laws regulating use and disposal of PRCBs, 4 of 13 responding domestic producers

answered yes, with an average estimated demand decline of 6 percent; 10 of 26 responding importers answered yes,

with an average estimated demand decline of 16 percent; and 10 of 49 responding purchasers answered yes, with an

average estimated demand decline of 5 percent. CR/PR at Table II-7. 

 113 CR at II-20; PR at II-13-14. The record also indicates that the 5-cent per-bag tax imposed on PRCBs in

Washington, DC has had a significant impact on PRCB demand there. Id. 

 114 CR/PR at Table II-7.

 115 CR/PR at Table III-1.

20
percent of domestic production in 2008.116 Between 2006 and 2008, Hilex closed three PRCB production

facilities and Europackaging closed one, resulting in a 4.1 percent decline in domestic production

capacity.117 

On May 9, 2008, Hilex, the dominant domestic producer of PRCBs, voluntarily filed for relief

under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy code, reportedly to reduce its overall debt and strengthen its

balance sheet.118 Hilex emerged from bankruptcy protection in July 2008.119

Imports from subject and nonsubject sources accounted for 35.9 percent of apparent U.S.

consumption in 2008.120 Two major producers in Taiwan, and most responding producers in Vietnam,

first began producing PRCBs during the period examined.121 

The principal sources of nonsubject imports were China, Malaysia, and Thailand,122 and PRCBs

from all three countries are subject to antidumping duty orders imposed in 2004.123 A substantial

proportion of imports from these countries was imported from producers not subject to the orders,

however, including *** percent of imports from China and *** percent of imports from Malaysia in

2008.124 Nonsubject imports declined from 34.7 billion bags in 2006, or 31.8 percent of apparent U.S.

consumption, to 20.9 billion bags in 2007, or 19.8 percent of apparent U.S. consumption, before

increasing slightly to 21.8 billion bags in 2008, or 21.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption, a volume

37.2 percent below that of 2006.125 

3. Substitutability and Other Conditions of Competition

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

the source, and that price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions.126 The majority of

responding producers, importers, and purchasers reported that the domestic like product is “always” or

“frequently” interchangeable with subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and that subject

imports from each source are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with each other.127 When asked

whether differences other than price are ever significant to purchasers, almost all producers and a majority

of importers and purchasers responded “sometimes” or “never,” though a significant minority of

importers and purchasers reported that differences other than price are “always” or “frequently”

significant to purchasers choosing between subject imports and the domestic like product.128 When asked

to identify the three major factors considered in selecting among different suppliers of PRCBs, 49 of 52

 116 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 117 CR at III-3 & n. 4; PR at III-3 & n.4; CR/PR at Tables III-2, C-1. Additionally, *** reported that Hurricane

Katrina forced it to move production equipment overseas for much of the period examined. CR at III-3; PR at III-3. 

 118 CR at VI-11 n.4; PR at VI-4 n.4.

 119 CR at VI-11 n.4; PR at VI-4 n.4.

 120 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14. 2010)/PR at Table C-4.

 121 CR at VII-3; PR at VII-2; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010), at VII-5; PR at VII-2.

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

percent of total imports during the 2006-08 period. CR at II-9; PR at II-7.

 123 CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1. On October 21, 2009, the Commission initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping

duty order on PRCBs from China, Malaysia. and Thailand, and these reviews are currently ongoing. CR at I-4 &

n.6; PR at I-4 n.6. 

 124 Derived by Commission staff from proprietary Customs data. See EDIS Document No. 422010.

 125 CR/PR at Tables IV-3-4; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4.

 126 See CR at II-21, 22-23; PR at II-15.

 127 CR at II-27; PR at II-20; CR/PR at Table II-12.

 128 CR/PR at Table II-13.

21
responding purchasers ranked price among their top three factors, more than any other factor, and 15

responding purchasers reported that price was the most important factor.129 Twenty-three of 46

purchasers reported that they always or usually purchase the lowest-priced PRCBs.130 When asked to rate

the importance of 18 factors relevant to selecting among different suppliers of PRCBs, 46 of 51

responding purchasers reported that “price” was a “very important” factor, second only to “product

consistency,” which was reported to be a “very important” factor by 47 responding purchasers.131

Two additional conditions of competition inform our analysis in the final phase of these

investigations. First, at the hearing, witnesses from Hilex and Superbag testified that their PRCB

production facilities must operate around the clock to reduce unit costs to an economical level, and that

this factor has compelled them to defend their key high-volume customers, their “baseload business,” by

meeting low subject import prices.132 Customers lost to subject imports, the witness from Hilex stated,

may only be regained by undercutting the new incumbent supplier’s price.133

Second, we note that raw materials, principally polyethylene resin, accounted for 70.7 percent of

the total cost of goods sold reported by domestic producers in 2008.134 The price of polyethylene resin

was volatile over the period examined, decreasing irregularly during 2006 before trending higher through

August 2008, when it peaked, declining sharply through January 2009, and then trending higher through

February 2010.135 ***, and a witness for Superbag testified at the hearing that many of Superbag’s

agreements with customers include terms or informal understandings that adjust PRCB prices to account

for changes in resin prices.136 

C. Volume of Subject Imports

We find that subject import volume was significant over the period examined, both in absolute

terms and relative to apparent U.S. consumption and domestic industry production, and that the increase

in subject import volume and market share also was significant.137 Cumulated subject imports increased

 129 CR at II-22; PR at II-16; CR/PR at Table II-9.

 130 CR at II-22; PR at II-16 (with 20 purchasers reporting “sometimes” and three reporting “rarely”).

 131 CR at II-23; PR at II-17; CR/PR at Table II-10.

 132 Hearing Tr. at 25-26 (Bazbaz), 35-37 (Daniels); see also id. at 49 (Dorn); Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 31.

 133 Hearing Tr. at 36-37 (Daniels); see also Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 32.

 134 CR at V-1; PR at V-1.

 135 CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 136 CR at V-1; PR at V-1; Hearing Tr. at 26 (Bazbaz) (“With many customers we have agreements that tie our

price to the cost of resin as measured by publicly-available index. With other customers, we have an informal

understanding that our price will be adjusted to reflect changes in the price of resin, . . .”). There is no evidence on

the record that importers’ contracts include similar terms. See CR at V-4; PR at V-3.

 137 In a final phase investigation, the statute requires the Commission to consider whether changes in volume,

price effects, or impact are related to the pendency of the investigation. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I). If the Commission

determines that such changes are related to the pendency of the investigation, it has the discretion under the statute to

reduce the weight accorded to such information but is not required to do so. Id. In the final phase of these

investigations, petitioners argue that the Commission should discount post-petition data because these data were

distorted by the pendency of these investigations, as market participants altered their buying patterns to the benefit of

the domestic industry. Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 34-39; Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at 5. Respondents argue

that the Commission should not discount post-petition information because, in their view, the filing of the petition

had no “meaningful effect” on subject import volume. Hearing Tr. at 165 (Morgan); Respondents’ Final Comments

at 2-3. 

We recognize that the filing of the petitions on March 31, 2009 had some effect on subject import volume

and the condition of the domestic industry. Subject import volume was 13.5 percent lower and subject import

market share was 2.0 percentage points lower in interim 2009 as compared to interim 2008. Memorandum INV-HH22
by 100.3 percent between 2006 and 2008, from 7.3 billion bags in 2006 to 14.7 billion bags in 2007 and

14.6 billion bags in 2008, but were 13.5 percent lower in interim 2009, at 9.5 billion bags, than in interim

2008, at 11.0 billion bags.138 At the same time, the ratio of subject import volume to apparent U.S.

consumption increased from 6.7 percent in 2006 to 13.9 percent in 2007 and 14.4 percent in 2008, but

was 12.7 percent in interim 2009, down from 14.8 percent in interim 2008.139 The ratio of subject imports

to domestic industry production increased from 10.4 percent in 2006 to 20.3 percent in 2007 and 22.0

percent in 2008, but was 18.4 percent in interim 2009, down from 21.5 percent in interim 2008.140

We recognize that domestic producers themselves imported subject PRCBs over the period

examined. The domestic industry’s share of total subject imports increased from *** percent in 2006 to

*** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008, and was 18.6 percent in interim 2009, down from 23.7

percent in interim 2008.141 We nevertheless reject respondents’ argument that we should discount these

volumes of subject imports.142 We note that subject imports by one domestic producer may be injurious

to other domestic producers and to the domestic industry as a whole, which includes domestic workers.143

Moreover, when domestic producers import subject merchandise to remain competitive and avoid losing

customers, this action may itself be evidence of the material injury the industry is sustaining.144 Thus, as

in previous investigations, we have assessed the significance of total subject imports.145

037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4. At the same time, the domestic industry’s performance improved in interim

2009 relative to interim 2008 according to most measures. See CR/PR at Table VI-1. Nevertheless, the record

indicates that several factors other than subject imports also influenced the domestic industry’s performance over the

interim period, including fluctuations in raw material prices, the recession, and *** lagging performance. See CR at

II-15, VI-1, VI-11 n.4; PR at II-10-11, VI-1, VI-4 n.4. Because we cannot conclude that the filing of the petition

contributed significantly to the domestic industry’s improved performance in interim 2009, we do not exercise our

discretion to discount post-petition information. 

 138 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4. We rely on subject import data adjusted to

reflect *** importation of PRCBs from Indonesia under both HTS 3923.21.0085 and HTS 3923.21.0095, as reported

in the proprietary customs data under both statistical reporting numbers. See id. at IV-2. We do so because ***

explanation for the adjustment is credible and the adjustment is significant. 

 139 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4.

 140 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4.

 141 Compare CR/PR at Table III-5 with Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4. 

 142 See Respondents’ Prehearing Br. at 7-14, 19. 

 143 Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443 and 731-

TA-1095-1097 (Final), USITC Pub. 3884 (Sept. 2006) at 38-39; Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China,

Malaysia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final), USITC Pub. 3710 (Aug. 2004) at 27; see, generally,

Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1338 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004) (remanding the

Commission’s sunset determination for failure to examine the likely competitive behavior of foreign producers

toward the domestic industry as a whole, especially those domestic producers unrelated to subject importers, in its

volume and price effects analysis). Further, we note that petitioners Hilex and Superbag, which together accounted

for *** percent of domestic PRCB production in 2008, imported *** PRCBs from subject countries during the

period examined, ***. CR/PR at Tables III-1, 5. 

 144 S. Rep. No. 100-171, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 117 (1988); see also H. Rep. 100-40, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 128-

29 (1988). Indeed, petitioners have claimed that domestic producers were forced to import PRCBs as a means of

sustaining their higher-cost domestic operations. See Petitioners’ Post-Conference Br. at 22; Conference Tr. at 20

(Bazbaz) (“[S]ome domestic producers are using blended sales programs. That is a domestic producer will commit

to sell a customer its higher priced domestic bags and lower priced imported bags at a single average price.”). They

also claim ***. Petitioners’ Responses to Commissioner Questions, at 40.

 145 See, e.g., Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443

and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Final), USITC Pub. 3884 (Sept. 2006) at 38-39; Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China,

Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final), USITC Pub. 3743 (December 2004), at 26-27; Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from

China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final), USITC Pub. 3710 (Aug. 2004) at 27; see also

23
Based on the preceding analysis, we find that cumulated subject import volume is significant,

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

increase in subject import volume and market penetration was also significant. We also find that this

significant rate of increase in the volume and market penetration of cumulated subject imports during the

period of investigation indicates the likelihood of substantially increased imports in the imminent future

for the following reasons.

With respect to our threat analysis, we initially note that we have limited information concerning

the subject foreign industries in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, given the failure of a significant number

of subject foreign producers to cooperate and respond to the Commission's foreign producers'

questionnaire.146 Therefore, we have relied on the facts otherwise available when appropriate in the final

phase of these investigations, which consists primarily of information submitted in the investigations and

information available from public sources.147 148 

Responding subject foreign producers in Taiwan and Vietnam increased their capacity *** during

the period examined and responding subject foreign producers in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam

possessed *** excess capacity at the end of the period with which to resume increasing their exports of

PRCBs to the U.S. market at a significant rate. On a cumulated basis, responding subject foreign

producers increased their capacity by *** percent between 2006 and 2008, from *** billion bags in 2006

to *** billion bags in 2008, and their capacity was slightly higher in interim 2009, at *** billion bags,

HEDP from China and India, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1146-1147 (Final), USITC Pub. 4072 (April 2009), at 21 n.127

(“[W]e are not permitted under the statute to . . . count subject imports imported by a domestic producer toward

domestic industry shipments.”).

 146 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). We recognize that data reported by responding foreign producers likely understate

subject country capacity and production to a significant degree. See Petitioners’ Prehearing Br., at 68-72, Exhibits

30-39. 

 147 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “:use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

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

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

manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to 19

U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) are applicable only to Commerce. See

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

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

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

 148 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in original

investigations, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record

evidence as a while in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts

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

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

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

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

makes determination by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the

domestic industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” 

SAA at 869.

24
than in interim 2008, at *** billion bags.149 Two of three responding Taiwan producers and most

responding Vietnamese producers only began producing PRCBs during the period examined.150 

A substantial proportion of the capacity reported by subject foreign producers in Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam *** at the end of the period examined. On a cumulated basis, responding subject

foreign producers reported a capacity utilization rate of only *** percent in interim 2009, yielding excess

capacity of *** billion bags.151 In that same period, responding subject Indonesian producers reported a

capacity utilization rate of *** percent, yielding excess capacity of *** bags; responding subject Taiwan

producers reported a capacity utilization rate of *** percent, yielding excess capacity of *** bags; and

responding subject Vietnamese producers reported a capacity utilization rate of *** percent, yielding

excess capacity of *** bags.152 The cumulated excess capacity of responding subject foreign producers in

interim 2009, *** bags, was equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption during the period.153 

Although we place only limited weight on projections, cumulated subject foreign producers

project that their excess capacity will increase over the 2008 level of *** billion bags to *** billion bags

in 2009 and *** billion bags in 2010.154 Responding Taiwan and Vietnamese producers project that they

will possess excess capacity of a *** greater magnitude in full years 2009 and 2010,155 while responding

Indonesian producers project excess capacity of a *** lower magnitude.156 157

 149 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-4. Responding subject Taiwan producers

reported a *** percent increase in their capacity between 2006 and 2008, from *** bags in 2006 to *** bags in 2007

and *** bags in 2008, and stable capacity when comparing interim periods, at *** bags. CR/PR at Table VII-2. 

Responding subject Vietnamese producers reported a *** percent increase in their capacity between 2006 and 2008,

from *** bags in 2006 to *** bags in 2007 and *** bags in 2008, with reported capacity *** higher in interim 2009,

at *** bags, than in interim 2008, at *** bags. Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-3. 

 150 CR at VII-3, 5; PR at VII-1-2.

 151 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-4.

 152 CR/PR at Tables VII-1-2; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-3. 

 153 CR/PR at Tables IV-3, VII-1-2; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Tables VII-3, 4. We find

that actual excess capacity is likely higher than reported excess capacity based on the reportedly low coverage of the

foreign producers’ questionnaire responses in the final phase of these investigations. CR at VII-1, 3; PR at VII-1-2;

Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010), at VII-5; PR at VII-2. The record contains evidence that subject

foreign producers of PRCBs in Vietnam that did not complete questionnaire responses in the final phase of these

investigations possess significant PRCB capacity and exported a significant share of their shipments to the United

States during the period examined. See Petitioners’ Prehearing Br., at 68-72, Exhibits 30-39. 

 154 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-4.

 155 Responding Taiwan producers project that their capacity utilization rate will be *** percent in full year 2009,

yielding *** bags of excess capacity, and *** percent in 2010, yielding *** bags of excess capacity. CR/PR at

Table VII-2. Responding Vietnamese producers project that their capacity utilization rate will be *** percent in full

year 2009, yielding *** bags of excess capacity, and *** percent in 2010, yielding *** bags of excess capacity. 

Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-3. Moreover, *** Vietnamese producers reported

producing other products using the same resources used to produce PRCBs, and could therefore shift production

from other products to PRCBs in order to increase production of PRCBs. Id. at VII-6. 

 156 Responding Indonesian producers project that their capacity utilization rate will be *** percent in full year

2009, yielding *** bags of excess capacity, and *** percent in 2010, yielding *** bags of excess capacity. CR/PR

at Table VII-1.

 157 The reported ratio of inventories to shipments remained under *** percent throughout the period examined in

all three subject countries. See CR/PR at Tables VII-1-2; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table

VII-3. PRCB producers tend to maintain relatively low inventories because most PRCBs are printed with companyspecific names or logos and hence cannot be shifted from one customer to another. CR at II-8; PR at II-6. Importers

held larger inventories of subject imports in the United States, with end-of-period inventories increasing from 2.2

billion bags in 2006, equivalent to 14.1 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports, to 3.7 billion bags in 2007,

equivalent to 22.9 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports, and 4.1 billion bags in 2008, equivalent to 23.2

25
Subject Indonesian, Taiwan, and Vietnamese producers not only possess the ability to increase

exports to the United States significantly in the imminent future, but also the incentive to do so given their

dependence on exports to the United States during the period examined and the absence of significant

home or third country markets. On a cumulated basis, responding subject foreign producers reported that

their exports to the United States constituted *** percent of their total shipments in 2008, and *** percent

in interim 2009, while their shipments to home market customers constituted only *** percent of their

total shipments in 2008, and *** percent in interim 2009.158 Exports to third country markets constituted

*** percent of their total shipments in 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.159 Responding producers in

each subject country project that *** or more of their total shipments will continue to be exported to the

United States in full year 2009 and 2010.160 Only by significantly increasing their exports to the United

States will producers in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam be able to fill their excess capacity.161 

Consequently, we conclude that the cumulated volume of subject imports, which was significant

during the period of investigation, is likely to increase substantially in the imminent future.162

percent of shipments of subject imports. CR/PR at Table VII-5. Importer end-of-period inventories were 4.1 billion

in interim 2009, equivalent to 25.9 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports, and 4.2 billion bags in interim

2008, equivalent to 25.1 percent of U.S. shipments. Id. We note that inventories held by importers, like inventories

held by domestic producers, are largely customized for specific customers, as petitioners estimate that only ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption consists of “generic” PRCBs. Petitioners’ Responses to Commissioner

Questions at 5. Thus, we recognize that subject imports inventoried by importers may be earmarked for specific

customers pursuant to sales that have already taken place. 

 158 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-4.

 159 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-4. Responding subject producers in Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam reported that in 2008, their exports to the United States constituted ***, ***, and *** percent

of their total shipments, respectively. CR/PR at Table VII-1-2; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at

Table VII-3. By contrast, responding subject producers in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam reported that their

shipments to home market customers constituted only ***, ***, and *** percent, of their total shipments,

respectively, while their shipments to third country export markets constituted ***, ***, and *** percent of their

total shipments, respectively. Id. 

 160 CR/PR at Table VII-1-2; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-3. 

 161 In this regard, we note that responding producers in Taiwan and Vietnam project that their rate of capacity

utilization will decline with the share of their total shipments exported to the United States in full year 2009 and

2010. See CR/PR at Table VII-2; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-3. This suggests that

responding producers in Taiwan and Vietnam anticipate that their excess capacity will grow absent increased exports

to the United States. We also note that two major subject foreign producers of PRCBs, ***, have reportedly

suspended production of PRCBs pending the outcome of these investigations. CR at VII-3 n.3; PR at VII-1 n.3;

Foreign Producers’ Questionnaire Response of ***, at question II-6. There is evidence on the record that some

plants in Vietnam were built solely to serve the U.S. market. See Hearing Tr. at 50-51 (Dorn) (testifying that “many

factories from China and other countries and territories have moved to Vietnam to circumvent antidumping orders

from the U.S. government.”), 109-10 (Dorn) (testifying that “the industry in Vietnam in particular is very new” as

“plants that had sprung up by producers in other countries subject to the duties on Malaysia, China and Taiwan who

had moved to Vietnam to circumvent the duties in place.”); Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010), at VII-5;

PR at VII-2.

 162 We have considered the nature of the subsidies received by PRCB producers in Vietnam that Commerce has

found to be countervailable. CR at I-5; PR at I-4. Commerce found the following five programs in Vietnam to be

countervailable: income tax preferences for encouraged industries, income tax preferences for FIEs, land rent

reduction or exemption for exporters, import duty exemptions for raw materials, and exemption of import duties on

imports of spare parts and accessories for industrial zone enterprises. Id. On the basis of these programs, Commerce

calculated final countervailable subsidy rates ranging from 0.44 percent, which is de minimis, to 52.56 percent. 

CR/PR at Table I-1. 

26
D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

As addressed in section V.B.2.c. above, the record indicates that there is a high degree of

substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product and that price is an important

consideration in purchasing decisions.163 The record also indicates that bidding events, including bidding

events conducted over the internet, were a factor in the U.S. market during the period examined, and that

price was often the determinative factor in such events. Sixteen of 49 responding purchasers reported that

they had participated in bidding events and provided data on 29 bidding events, whose winning bids

accounted for 11.4 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in interim 2009.164 The country with the lowest

bidder was the country with the winning bid in 20 of the 23 bidding events for which such data were

reported.165 

Thirteen domestic producers, 8 importers of PRCBs from Indonesia, 10 importers of PRCBs from

Taiwan, and 18 importers of PRCBs from Vietnam provided usable quarterly net U.S. f.o.b. selling price

data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all

quarters.166 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 69.7 percent of the domestic

industry’s U.S. shipments of PRCBs, 19.5 percent of PRCBs imported from Indonesia, 32.2 percent of

PRCBs imported from Taiwan, and 58.7 percent of PRCBs imported from Vietnam during the period of

investigation, by quantity.167 These data indicate that subject imports undersold the domestic like product

in 150 quarterly comparisons and oversold the domestic like product in 107 quarterly comparisons.168 169

 163 See CR at II-21-22, 27-33; PR at II-15, 20-26; CR/PR at Tables II-9-10, 12-14.

 164 CR at V-5; PR at V-3.

 165 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010), at V-5; PR at V-3-4. Most bids were won by domestic

producers, though five bids were won, at least partly, by subject imports. Id.

 166 CR at V-10; PR at V-5. 

 167 See CR at V-10-11; PR at V-5.

 168 CR/PR at Table V-11. We rely on pricing data reported on a per-pound basis to control for the wide range of

sizes, and hence weights, encompassed by each pricing product definition. CR at V-11-12; PR at V-5-6. PRCB

prices vary with bag weight given that raw material costs represented 70.7 percent of the total cost of producing

PRCBs in 2008. CR at V-1; PR at V-1. The probative value of average unit value data is questionable, given

evidence that PRCBs range in price from 1 cent to 27 cents per bag, and reportedly up to 65 cents per bag,

depending on their weight and other physical attributes. See CR/PR at Appendix D; Preliminary Views at 21 n.144;

see also CR at V-11-12; PR at V-5-6. We therefore do not rely on such data in our pricing analysis.

 169 Chairman Aranoff concurs with the majority for purposes of her no present injury determination that no price

depression is evident based on the record information. She also agrees that price comparisons were mixed

throughout the period for those products comprising the majority of the price data collected, due to differences in

product mix, different volumes of sales, and differences in the levels of trade at which prices were reported. While

she recognizes the price sensitive nature of the PRCB market and that the industry faced a cost-price squeeze toward

the end of the period of investigation, she is unable to conclude on this record that subject import prices suppressed

price increases that otherwise would have occurred and thus contributed to price suppression during this timeframe. 

Chairman Aranoff notes that, during the period of investigation subject imports gained market share largely

at the expense of non-subject imports from China, Malaysia and Thailand, which recently became subject to

antidumping duty orders. She finds that the substitution in the market between previously low-priced PRCBs from

non-subject countries and PRCBs from the subject countries likely limited the degree to which subject import prices

affected prices for the domestic like product during this period. She concurs with the majority, however, that subject

foreign producers have the ability and incentive to send a significantly greater volume of PRCBs to the United States

in the imminent future. In light of the price sensitive nature of the PRCB market, importers are likely to price

subject product aggressively in order to gain sales. Since the U.S. market has had five years to adjust to the

antidumping duty orders on imports from China, Malaysia and Thailand, reducing the likelihood of further

displacement of non-subject imports by subject imports, she finds that the rising volume of subject imports is more

likely in the imminent future to take sales directly from domestic producers than was the case during the period of

27
Subject imports generally oversold the domestic like product with respect to products 2-5, with 

subject import shipments of these products overselling the domestic like product in 92 quarterly

comparisons and underselling the domestic like product in 38 quarterly comparisons.170 Products 2-4 are

“T-shirt style” PRCBs, accounting for 97.0 percent of reported domestic like product sales, by weight,

while product 5 is a “die cut handle style” PRCB, accounting for 0.8 percent of reported domestic like

product sales, by weight.171 Product 3 alone accounted for 86.0 percent of reported domestic like product

sales, by weight, and the pattern of over- and underselling was more mixed with respect to this product,

with subject imports overselling the domestic like product in 24 quarterly comparisons and underselling

the domestic like product in 20 quarterly comparisons with respect to this product.172

We observe that the prevalence of subject import overselling with respect to products 2-5 is

likely, at least in part, a function of the much lower volume of reported subject import sales relative to

reported domestic like product sales for these products.173 The record indicates that, in general, higher

volume sales tend to be sold at a lower average unit price. Nine of 12 producers and 10 of 29 importers

reportedly offered their customers volume discounts of some kind,174 and the lower unit fixed costs made

possible by large production runs would permit domestic producers to make higher volume sales at a

lower average unit price with no effect on operating income margins.175 Thus, the relatively higher

volume of reported domestic like product sales of product 2-5 would tend to reduce the average unit price

of domestic like product sales relative to the average unit price of subject import sales of these products. 

For this reason, we place reduced weight on these data with respect to products 2-5.

We have also considered the higher volume import pricing data provided by large retailers that

directly imported PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam for their own use. They reported

delivered purchase prices for their direct imports of products 2, 3 and 5, and these data indicate that

subject import delivered prices were lower than domestic producers’ prices in 49 quarterly comparisons

investigation. She therefore concludes that subject imports are likely to enter at prices that will have a significant

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

imminent future.

 170 CR/PR at Table V-11.

 171 See CR/PR at Tables V-2-9.

 172 CR/PR at Table V-4.

 173 See CR/PR at Tables V-3-6. For product 2, the average quarterly volume of reported sales was 14.3 million

pounds with respect to the domestic like product, but only 55,000 pounds with respect to subject imports from

Indonesia, 1.3 million pounds with respect to subject imports from Taiwan, and 690,000 pounds with respect to

subject imports from Vietnam. See CR/PR at Table V-3. For product 3, the average quarterly volume of reported

sales was 137.2 million pounds with respect to the domestic like product, but only 585,000 pounds with respect to

subject imports from Indonesia, 1.6 million pounds with respect to subject imports from Taiwan, and 3.9 million

pounds with respect to subject imports from Vietnam. See CR/PR at Table V-4. For product 4, the average

quarterly volume of reported sales was 3.2 million pounds with respect to the domestic like product, but only 19,500

pounds with respect to subject imports from Indonesia, 19,000 pounds with respect to subject imports from Taiwan,

and 460,000 pounds with respect to subject imports from Vietnam. See CR/PR at Table V-5. For product 5, the

average quarterly volume of reported sales was 1.2 million pounds with respect to the domestic like product, but

only 17,000 pounds with respect to subject imports from Indonesia and 210,000 pounds with respect to subject

imports from Vietnam, with no reported sales of subject imports from Taiwan. See CR/PR at Table V-6.

 174 CR at V-4-5; PR at V-3; Domestic Producers’ Questionnaire Responses of ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***,

***, ***, and ***, at question IV-4; Respondents’ Responses to Commissioner Questions, at Q-15 (“Large volume

purchasers often receive a lower average price than purchasers of smaller volumes.”).

 175 See Hearing Tr. at 25-26 (Bazbaz), 35-37 (Daniels); see also id. at 49 (Dorn) (testifying that domestic PRCB

production facilities must operate around the clock to reduce unit fixed costs to an economical level); Petitioners’

Prehearing Br. at 31.

28
and higher than domestic producers’ prices in 11 quarterly comparisons.176 Although delivered subject

direct import prices are at a different level of trade than domestic producers’ prices, we nevertheless find

that these data have some relevance to our analysis. Subject direct import delivered prices are overstated

relative to domestic producers’ prices, if anything, because subject direct import delivered prices include

transportation costs from the port to the purchaser’s facility, whereas domestic producers’ prices are

reported f.o.b. the factory gate, excluding transportation costs to the purchaser.177 Moreover, direct

import pricing data cover a substantial proportion of subject imports, having been reported by purchasers

accounting for 76.8 percent of subject imports from Indonesia, 48.0 percent of imports from Taiwan, and

22.8 percent of imports from Vietnam, by quantity.178 Direct import pricing data also cover a much larger

proportion of subject imports of product 3 from Indonesia and Taiwan than import sales pricing data, by

weight, making these data more comparable to domestic like product sales pricing data in terms of sales

volume and potential volume discounts.179 

Subject imports generally undersold the domestic like product with respect to products 1 and 6-8,

with subject import shipments of these products underselling the domestic like product in 112 quarterly

comparisons and overselling the domestic like product in 13 quarterly comparisons.180 Apart from

product 1, which is a “T-shirt sack” style PRCB, these products consist of lower-volume and higher-value

PRCBs, and together accounted for only 2.3 percent of reported domestic like product sales, by weight.181

Purchasers confirmed three of petitioners’ *** lost sales allegations, amounting to lost sales of

$***, and one of petitioners’ *** lost revenue allegations, amounting to lost revenue of $***.182 We note,

however, that many purchasers disagreed with petitioners’ lost sales and revenue allegations not because

the allegations were untrue, but because the purchasers lacked the documentation necessary to confirm

 176 Compare CR/PR at Tables V-3-4, 6 with Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Tables E-1-3. 

With respect to product 2, delivered subject direct import prices were lower than domestic producers’ prices in 10

quarterly comparisons and higher than domestic producers’ prices in one quarterly comparison. Compare CR/PR at

Table V-3 with Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table E-1. With respect to product 3, subject

direct import prices were lower than domestic producers’ prices in 28 quarterly comparisons and higher than

domestic producers’ prices in two quarterly comparisons. Compare CR/PR at Table V-4 with EDIS Document No.

423799 (correcting the subject direct import pricing data for product 3 contained in Memorandum INV-HH-037

(Apr. 14, 2010), at Table E-2); PR at Table E-2. With respect to product 5, subject direct import prices were lower

than domestic producers’ prices in 14 quarterly comparisons and higher than domestic producers’ prices in eight

quarterly comparisons. Compare CR/PR at Table V-6 with Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at

Table E-3.

 177 CR at V-9; PR at V-4. Contrary to respondents’ argument, the domestic producers’ reported prices, similar to

reported direct import prices, do not include a distributor mark-up. See Respondents’ Responses to Commissioner

Questions, at Q-15. Domestic producers and distributors are separate and distinct channels of distribution at

different levels of trade. See CR at I-19, II-1; PR at I-15, II-1.

 178 CR at V-11 n. 18; PR at V-5 n.18. By comparison, pricing data cover 19.5 percent of subject imports from

Indonesia, 32.2 percent of imports from Taiwan, and 58.7 percent of imports from Vietnam. CR at V-11; PR at V-5.

 179 Compare CR/PR at Table V-4 (covering Indonesian subject import shipments of 8.8 million pounds and

Taiwan subject import shipments of 24.1 million pounds) with Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at

Table E-2 (covering Indonesian subject import shipments of 59.7 million pounds and Taiwan subject import

shipments of 40.7 million pounds). Delivered prices for product 3 imported directly from Indonesia were lower than

domestic producers’ prices in seven of seven quarterly comparisons, and delivered prices for product 3 imported

directly from Taiwan were lower than domestic producers’ prices in nine of ten quarterly comparisons. 

Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table E-2.

 180 CR/PR at Table V-11.

 181 See CR/PR at Tables V-2-9.

 182 CR at V-34; PR at V-16; CR/PR at Table V-12.

29
whether the allegations were true.183 In addition, two purchasers that denied petitioners’ lost sales

allegations, ***, nevertheless reported that they switched from the domestic like product to subject

imports during the period examined at least partly due to price, and one, ***, reported that domestic

producers reduced their prices in order to compete with subject imports.184

Based on both the significant increase in subject import market share in the price-sensitive PRCB

market over the period examined and direct import pricing data, we find some evidence that subject

import prices were lower than domestic producers’ prices during the period.185 

We find no evidence that subject imports depressed the domestic producers’ prices during the

period examined. Although domestic producers’ prices were generally lower at the end of the period

examined as compared to the beginning of the period,186 domestic producers’ prices followed the trend of

polyethylene resin prices,187 as would be expected given the reported prevalence of sales agreements that

adjust PRCB prices to account for changes in the cost of raw materials.188 

We do find some evidence, however, that subject imports suppressed domestic producers’ prices

over the period examined. In 2008, the domestic industry experienced the early stages of a cost-price

squeeze, as it was unable to increase the unit value of its net sales sufficiently to cover the increased unit

cost of raw materials.189 This resulted in a 2.9 percentage point increase in the domestic industry’s ratio

of cost of goods sold to net sales and a corresponding 2.9 percentage point decline in the domestic

industry’s ratio of gross profits to net sales.190 

We find that the domestic industry’s inability to pass its higher raw material prices along to

customers through higher prices was due in part to low-priced subject import competition. As noted

above, there is a high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product,

and price is an important factor in purchasing decisions. Because domestic producers must operate their

 183 See CR at 38-44. Purchasers that denied petitioners’ lost sales or revenue allegations based on their inability

to ascertain the accuracy of the allegations, due to the absence of documentation, include ***. 

 184 *** conceded that it purchases imported PRCBs from ***, one of the largest importers of subject PRCBs, and

that “price is a factor” in its purchasing decisions. CR at V-40; PR at V-17. *** reported in the preliminary phase of

the investigations that it had shifted purchases from U.S. producers to subject imports since January 1, 2006, and that

price was one of several considerations. CR at V-43; PR at V-18. Also in the preliminary phase of the

investigations, *** reported that U.S. producers reduced their prices in order to compete with the prices of subject

imports, while opining that domestic producers may have reduced their prices for reasons other than subject imports. 

CR at V-43-44; PR at V-19. 

 185 Commissioner Lane finds, based on the significant increase in subject import market share and all pricing data

contained in the record of these final phase investigations, that there is evidence of significant underselling by the

subject imports during the period of investigation. As noted above, the staff report indicates that there is a

predominance of overselling with respect to pricing products 2-5. She finds the direct import data to be more

reflective of pricing levels in the general market, particularly with respect to pricing product 3, regarding which the

vast majority of domestic like product sales occurred. As explained above, the higher volume sales tend to be made

at discounted prices, which is substantiated by the direct import data for that product. Compare Memorandum INVHH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table E-2 with CR/PR at Table V-4.

 186 See CR/PR at Tables C-2-9. Domestic producers’ prices per pound were lower in the third quarter of 2009

than in the first quarter of 2006 with respect to products 2-6 and 8, but higher in the third quarter of 2009 than in the

first quarter of 2006 with respect to products 1 and 7. See id. at Table V-10.

 187 CR at V-32; PR at V-14.

 188 CR at V-1; PR at V-1; see also Hearing Tr. at 41 (Rizzo) (“The prices that Hilex and other U.S. producers

charge are grounded in reality. They move up and down with the changes in the price of polyethylene resin.”)

 189 CR at VI-1; PR at VI-1; CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 190 CR at VI-1; PR at VI-1; CR/PR at Table VI-1. We recognize that the filing of the petitions on March 31,

2009 may have had some effect on subject import market share volume and market share. Nevertheless, we do not

exercise our discretion to discount post-petition information for the reasons addressed above. 

30
PRCB production facilities continuously to reduce unit fixed costs to an economical level, domestic

producers facing low-priced subject import competition for higher-volume customers, known as their

“baseload” business, can either meet the competition by lowering their prices or lose the customers and

suffer a lower rate of capacity utilization and higher unit costs. The record contains some evidence that

subject import prices were generally lower than domestic producers’ prices, and subject imports could not

have increased their share of the U.S. market so significantly between 2006 and 2008 without extremely

competitive pricing. We therefore conclude that low-priced subject imports played some role in the

domestic industry’s cost-price squeeze in 2008. 

Interim period data provide further support for our finding that subject imports suppressed the

domestic producers’ prices to some degree in 2008. In interim 2009, subject import market share in terms

of quantity was 2.1 percentage points lower than in interim 2008, and domestic industry market share 1.9

percentage points higher.191 As the domestic industry gained market share at the expense of subject

imports, its cost of goods sold declined by more than its net sales value, resulting in higher gross

profits.192 The domestic industry’s ratio of cost to goods sold to net sales was 86.6 percent in interim

2009, down from 92.2 percent in interim 2008, due largely to a decline in raw material costs.193 The

domestic industry’s cost-price squeeze in 2008, when subject import market share peaked, and the

subsequent reversal of its cost-price squeeze in interim 2009, when the domestic industry captured market

share from subject imports, indicate that subject imports suppressed the domestic producers’ prices to

some extent in 2008.194 These trends also indicate that small changes in raw material costs relative to net

sales value can have a significant impact on the domestic industry’s financial performance, magnifying

the vulnerability of the domestic industry to the effects of subject imports in the imminent future.195 

Based on the evidence during the period examined, we find that subject imports 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, in the imminent future. As subject foreign producers seek

to fill their excess capacity by significantly increasing their exports to the United States, they are likely to

do so by underselling domestic producers, given the high degree of substitutability between subject

imports and the domestic like product, the importance of price to purchasing decisions, and evidence of

low subject import prices during the period examined. As in 2008, domestic producers will likely be

compelled to defend their baseload business by meeting low-priced subject import competition, making it

likely that the cost-price squeeze experienced by the domestic industry that year will recur. This is

particularly so in light of projected flat to declining demand and the volatility of resin prices. 

Thus, we conclude that subject foreign producers are likely to engage in significant underselling

as a means of significantly increasing their exports to the U.S. market in the imminent future, creating

further demand for subject imports in the U.S. market and likely depressing and suppressing domestic

prices to a significant degree.

 191 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4.

 192 CR at VI-1; PR at VI-1; CR/PR at Table VI-1. 

 193 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 194 At the same time, we note, the price of polyethylene resin reached its highest level of the period examined in

August and September of 2008, declined sharply through January 2009, and then increased moderately thereafter to

a level still well below that of August and September 2008. CR at V-1; PR at V-1; CR/PR at Figure V-1. 

 195 Between 2007 and 2008, the domestic industry’s unit raw material costs increased by 21.0 percent while the

unit value of its net sales increased by only 12.6 percent, contributing to a 26.7 percent decline in the domestic

industry’s gross profits. CR/PR at Table VI-1. In interim 2009, the domestic industry’s unit raw material costs were

37.6 percent lower than in interim 2008, while the unit value of its net sales was only 24.4 percent lower,

contributing to gross profits that were 33.6 percent higher in interim 2009 than in interim 2008. Id.

31
E. Impact of the Subject Imports196

Based on the record of the final phase of these investigations, we find that the domestic industry’s

performance declined between 2006 and 2008 according to most measures, but improved in interim 2009

relative to interim 2008. 

Domestic industry production increased 3.0 percent between 2006 and 2007, from 70.2 billion

bags to 72.3 billion bags, but declined 8.4 percent to 66.3 billion bags in 2008, a level 5.6 percent below

that in 2006.197 Domestic industry production was 51.5 billion bags in interim 2009, up from 51.1 billion

bags in interim 2008.198 Domestic PRCB capacity was flat in 2006 and 2007, at 83.2 billion bags, but

declined 4.2 percent in 2008 to 79.7 billion bags, a level 4.1 percent below that in 2006.199 This capacity

reduction resulted in large part from the closure of four domestic PRCB production facilities, three by

Hilex and one by Europackaging.200 The domestic industry’s capacity was 67.4 billion bags in interim

2009, up from 60.9 billion bags in interim 2008.201 

Corresponding to these trends in production and capacity, the domestic industry’s rate of capacity

utilization increased from 84.4 percent in 2006 to 86.9 percent in 2007 before declining to 83.1 percent in

2008, a level lower than that in 2006.202 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization was 76.5 percent in

interim 2009, down from 83.8 percent in interim 2008.203 Given that domestic producers reportedly must

operate their facilities continuously to reduce their unit costs to economical levels, it is particularly

noteworthy that domestic producers were unable to boost their capacity utilization even as they shuttered

four production facilities.204 

Domestic industry employment declined throughout the period, from 3,495 workers in 2006 to

3,160 workers in 2007 and to 2,971 workers in 2008, for a 15 percent decline over the period.205

 196 We have considered the magnitude of the dumping margins found by Commerce. In its final determinations

of sales at LTFV, Commerce issued weighted-average LTFV margins ranging from 69.64 to 85.17 percent with

respect to subject imports from Indonesia, from 36.54 to 95.81 percent with respect to subject imports from Taiwan,

and from 52.30 to 76.11 percent with respect to subject imports from Vietnam. CR/PR at Tables I-2-4;

Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table I-2.

 197 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 198 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 199 CR/PR at Tables III-2, C-1.

 200 CR at III-3 & n.4; PR at III-3 & n.4. We recognize that Mr. Daniels of Hilex testified at the conference that

his company’s capacity reductions resulted “to some degree” from efforts to consolidate its production facilities after

the acquisition of Sonoco and Vanguard. Conference Tr. at 95 (Daniels).

 201 CR/PR at Tables III-2, C-1.

 202 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 203 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 204 See Hearing Tr. at 26 (Bazbaz), 35 (Daniels) (“But even this large reduction in capacity did not enable us to

align our capacity with demand. Our reduction in capacity has been matched by an equivalent drop in our sales and

production due to the surge of imports from subject countries. That left us with as much excess capacity as we had

before we closed the three plants.”); see also Conference Tr. at 20 (Bazbaz), 26-27 (Daniels) (“closing the three

plants. This is a major problem because our facilities, like those of Superbag, are designed to operate

continuously.”)

 205 CR/PR at Table III-6. Hours worked declined from 7,597,000 in 2006 to 7,154,000 in 2007 and to 6,903,000

in 2008. Id. Labor productivity in bags per hour initially increased from 9,242 bags in 2006 to 10,109 bags in 2007,

but declined to 9,601 bags in 2008. Id.

32
Domestic industry employment was 2,874 workers in interim 2009, down from 3,011 workers in interim

2008.206

The domestic industry’s net sales trended lower with production, increasing 6.1 percent between

2006 and 2007, from 68.7 billion bags to 72.9 billion bags, but declining 7.8 percent in 2008 to 67.2

billion bags, a level 2.2 percent below that of 2006.207 The domestic industry’s net sales were 51.2 billion

bags in interim 2009, up from 49.9 billion bags in interim 2008.208 The domestic industry’s U.S.

shipments of PRCBs followed a similar trend, increasing 4.5 percent between 2006 and 2007, from 66.8

billion bags to 69.8 billion bags, before declining 6.7 percent to 65.1 billion bags in 2008, a level 2.5

percent below that of 2006.209 The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments were 49.8 billion bags in interim

2009, up from 48.3 billion bags in interim 2008.210 The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S.

consumption, by quantity, increased from 61.4 percent in 2006 to 66.3 percent in 2007, but declined to

64.2 percent in 2008, a level 2.7 percentage points higher than in 2006.211 The domestic industry’s share

of apparent U.S. consumption, by quantity, was 66.8 percent in interim 2009, up from 64.9 percent in

interim 2008.212 

The domestic industry’s financial performance was weak in 2006 and 2007 and deteriorated

sharply in 2008. As domestic producers increased their prices in an effort to recoup higher raw material

costs, their net sales value fluctuated within a narrow band during the period, declining 2.5 percent

between 2006 and 2007, from $996.1 million to $971.2 million, but increasing 3.8 percent to $1.0 billion

in 2008, a level slightly higher than that in 2006.213 The domestic industry’s operating income, however,

was only $4.9 million in 2006, equivalent to 0.5 percent of net sales, and $6.8 million in 2007, equivalent

to 0.7 percent of net sales, and swung to an operating loss of $32.0 million in 2008, equivalent to 3.2

percent of net sales, as the increase in the domestic industry’s unit COGS outstripped the increase in the

unit value of total net sales.214 The domestic industry’s capital expenditures also declined markedly from

$38.8 million in 2006 to $17.6 million in 2007 and to $14.5 million in 2008, a level 62.5 percent lower

than that in 2006.215 Its return on investment, *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007, *** to ***

percent in 2008.216

In interim 2009, however, the domestic industry’s performance improved relative to interim

2008. Because raw material prices, and hence PRCB prices, were lower in interim 2009 than in interim

2008, the domestic industry’s net sales value was $580.1 million in interim 2009, down from $747.4

million in interim 2008.217 But because domestic producers’ prices declined by less than their raw

material costs, the domestic industry’s operating income was $24.6 million, equivalent to 4.2 percent of

 206 CR/PR at Table III-6. Hours worked were 4,903,000 in interim 2009, down from 5,108,000 in interim 2008. 

Labor productivity was 10,508 bags per hour in interim 2009, up from 10,001 bags per hour in interim 2008. Id.

 207 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1.

 208 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1.

 209 CR/PR at Table III-3, C-1.

 210 CR/PR at Table III-3, C-1.

 211 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4.

 212 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4.

 213 CR/PR at Table VI-1; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-1.

 214 CR/PR at Table VI-1; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-1. The 14.2 percent

increase in SG&A expenses between 2007 and 2008 also contributed to the decline in operating income. CR/PR at

Table VI-1.

 215 CR/PR at Table VI-5. R&D expenses also declined from $1.7 million in 2006 and 2007 to $1.2 million in

2008. Id. 

 216 CR/PR at Table VI-6.

 217 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

33
net sales, in interim 2009, up from a loss of $4.6 million, equivalent to 0.6 percent of net sales, in interim

2008.218 The domestic industry’s capital expenditures and R&D expenses were lower in interim 2009, at

$6.0 million and $696,000, respectively, than in interim 2008, at $10.3 million and $1.0 million,

respectively.219 

We recognize that the domestic industry performed poorly in 2008, when subject import market

share peaked, although subject import volume declined, and the domestic industry benefitted from

improved financial performance in interim 2009, when subject import market share was down relative to

interim 2008. However, we also note that when the volume and market share of subject imports increased

substantially from 2006 to 2007, the domestic industry’s financial performance remained relatively

unchanged.220 Subject imports had some adverse impact on the domestic industry in that they contributed

to the cost-price squeeze experienced by the industry in 2008, as addressed above. But the record

indicates that factors other than subject imports also adversely impacted the domestic industry’s

performance over the period, which prevents us from finding a sufficient causal nexus between the

subject imports and material injury. Thus, we cannot conclude that subject imports materially injured the

domestic industry over the period examined.221 

First, fluctuations in the price of raw materials, which accounted for 70.7 percent of the domestic

industry’s total cost of goods sold in 2008,222 also had a significant impact on the domestic industry’s

performance in 2008 and over the interim periods. In 2008, the average monthly price of resin escalated

to a period high in August 2008, significantly contributing to the cost-price squeeze experienced by the

domestic industry in that year.223 After September 2008, however, the average monthly price of resin fell

sharply through January 2009 and then remained at levels well below that of August 2008, reducing the

domestic industry’s ratio of cost of goods sold to net sales and contributing to the industry’s improved

performance in interim 2009 relative to interim 2008.224 

Second, the 6.7 percent decline in apparent U.S. consumption between 2006 and 2008, resulting

from the weakening economy and other factors, has adversely impacted the domestic industry’s

 218 CR at VI-1; PR at VI-1; CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 219 CR/PR at Table VI-5. Return on investment data are unavailable for the interim period. See CR/PR at Table

VI-6. 

 220 Commissioner Pinkert acknowledges these trends but does not find them dispositive with respect to causation

or noncausation of present material injury. He notes that the domestic industry performed poorly every year from

2006 to 2008. Because -- as discussed in the text -- factors other than the subject imports adversely affected the

domestic industry’s performance overwhelmingly during that timeframe, he is unable to conclude that the subject

imports caused the poor performance.

 221 Commissioner Lane finds that cumulated subject imports did injure the domestic industry during the period of

investigation. As noted above, cumulated subject imports increased by 100.3 percent between 2006 and 2008. 

Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4. Nonsubject import volume declined during the

period. At the same time, many indicators of the condition of the domestic industry declined as well. While she is

mindful of the fact that, during part of the period, there was a recession and one major domestic producer was under

bankruptcy protection, these occurrences took place toward the end of the period. While these occurrences certainly

exacerbated the domestic industry’s poor condition, they do not explain it. This is also true for raw material costs,

which decreased at the beginning of the period before rising towards the end. It is clear to her that the doubling of

significantly low-priced subject imports over the period is a cause of injury to the domestic industry. In view of the

other matters occurring during the period, however, it is difficult to pinpoint this injury in a manner that would show

that cumulated subject imports are more than a minimal, or tangential, cause of injury.

 222 CR at V-1; PR at V-1.

 223 See CR at V-1,VI-1; PR at V-1, VI-1; CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 224 See CR at V-1,VI-1; PR at V-1, VI-1; CR/PR at Figure V-1; see also Hearing Tr. at 63 (Daniels) (“In the tail

end of 2008, we saw some de-escalation in resin prices, and you always have a bit of a lag effect on that, so we had

some wind in our sails and profitability that way.”)

34
performance.225 Conversely, the stabilization of apparent U.S. consumption in interim 2009 relative to

interim 2008 has benefitted the domestic industry.226

Third, the domestic industry’s declining performance over the 2006-2008 period partly reflects

***, which accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2008.227 *** financial performance over

the 2006-2008 period was ***, and ***.228 There is no clear relationship between *** and subject

imports because *** in 2006, before subject import volume and market share had increased

significantly.229 Conversely, the domestic industry’s improved performance in interim 2009 relative to

interim 2008 partly reflects ***.230 Although we conduct our analysis with reference to domestic

producers as a whole, and recognize that domestic producers other than *** also suffered declining

performance over the 2006-2008 period, we cannot ignore the evidence that ***.231

Finally, we also recognize that nonsubject imports232 commanded a larger share of apparent U.S.

consumption than subject imports throughout the period examined. We recognize that the record

indicates there is a high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product,

on the one hand, and nonsubject imports, on the other.233 Nonsubject imports also maintained a

significant presence in the U.S. market, and a larger share of apparent U.S. consumption than subject

imports, throughout the period of investigation.234 Unlike subject imports, however, nonsubject imports

declined significantly in absolute terms and as a share of apparent U.S. consumption between 2006 and

2008.235 Moreover, nonsubject import prices were generally higher than subject import prices, though

lower than domestic producers’ prices.236 

 225 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4; CR at II-15; PR at II-10 (8 of 9 responding

domestic producers attributed the decline in PRCB demand to the weakening economy). 

 226 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4.

 227 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 228 CR/PR at Table VI-2; ***.

 229 CR/PR at Table VI-2 (***); Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4.

 230 CR/PR at Table VI-2 (***); ***.

 231 See Tables VI-1-2. We note that *** of 13 domestic producers reported that their operating income margin

worsened over the 2006-2008 period, and the number of domestic producers reporting an operating loss increased

from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007 and *** in 2008. CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 232 The principal sources of nonsubject imports, as discussed above, are subject to antidumping duty orders

imposed in 2004.

 233 The majority of responding domestic producers, importers, and purchasers reported that nonsubject imports

are “always” or “frequently” used interchangeably with both subject imports and the domestic like product. CR at

II-27; PR at II-20; CR/PR at Table II-12. The majority of responding domestic producers, importers, and purchasers

also reported that factors other than price are “sometimes” or “never” important to purchasers choosing between

subject imports, nonsubject imports, and the domestic like product, with one exception. See CR/PR at Table II-13. 

A slight majority of importers reported that factors other than price are “frequently” or “always” important to

purchasers choosing between nonsubject imports and the domestic like product. Id.

 234 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4.

 235 Nonsubject imports declined from 34.7 million bags in 2006, equivalent to 31.8 percent of apparent U.S.

consumption, to 21.8 million bags in 2008, equivalent to 21.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption. Memorandum

INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4. Between the interim periods, nonsubject imports remained stable at

a level well below that of 2006, at 15.1 million bags in interim 2008, equivalent to 20.3 percent of apparent U.S.

consumption, and 15.2 million bags in interim 2009, equivalent to 20.4 percent of apparent U.S. consumption. 

Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4. 

 236 CR at F-3; PR at F-3 (nonsubject import prices were higher than subject import prices in 260 of 430 possible

comparisons, or 60.5 percent of the time, and lower than domestic producers’ prices in 111 of 196 possible

comparisons, or 56.6 percent of the time.).

35
Given the many factors other than subject imports that influenced domestic industry performance

over the period examined, we cannot conclude that subject imports contributed more than marginally or

tangentially to any material injury suffered by the domestic industry over the period.

We do find that the domestic industry is threatened with imminent material injury by reason of

cumulated subject imports, however. As an initial matter, we find that the domestic industry is vulnerable

to material injury. We base our vulnerability finding on evidence that PRCB demand will stagnate or

decline in the imminent future, as addressed above, and also on evidence that the domestic industry’s

nascent recovery is fragile. The domestic industry’s performance deteriorated over the 2006-2008 period

according to most measures, with weak profitability in 2006 and 2007 and substantial operating losses in

2008. Although the domestic industry’s performance improved in interim 2009 relative to interim 2008

according to most measures, its operating income margin remained an anemic 4.2 percent, and other

measures of the domestic industry’s performance declined, including its rate of capacity utilization,

employment, hours worked, capital expenditures, and R&D expenditures.237 Even a small increase in the

domestic industry’s cost of raw materials relative to its net sales value could reverse much of the domestic

industry’s apparent progress.238 

The record indicates that foreign producers in all three subject countries possessed substantial

excess capacity at the end of the period examined, and that the vast majority of their shipments was

exported to U.S. market over the period. Indeed, most PRCB capacity in Taiwan and Vietnam was

installed during the period examined, with most shipments from these new facilities exported to the U.S.

market.239 Much of this capacity currently lies unused, and at least two major foreign producers have

suspended production pending the outcome of these investigations.240 Absent relief, we find that these

subject foreign producers are likely to fill their excess capacity by significantly increasing their exports to

the U.S. market. In order to do so, they are likely to undersell domestic producers to a significant degree,

given the high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product, the

importance of price to purchasing decisions, and the already low subject import prices during the period

examined. As in 2008, domestic producers will likely be compelled to defend their baseload business by

meeting low-priced subject import competition, making it likely that the cost-price squeeze experienced

by the domestic industry that year will recur in the imminent future. This is particularly so in light of

projected flat to declining demand, the volatility of resin prices, and the sensitivity of the domestic

industry’s financial performance to even a small increase in the domestic industry’s cost of raw materials

relative to its net sales value.

We have considered whether there are other factors that might threaten the domestic industry with

injury in the imminent future.241 As addressed above, apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs declined 6.7

 237 See CR/PR at Tables III-2, 6, VI-1, 5.

 238 Petitioners claim that raw material costs increased throughout 2009 and into 2010, and are likely to continue

to increase in the imminent future with the economic recovery. See Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at 15; Hearing Tr. at

63 (Daniels). 

 239 See CR/PR at Table VII-2; Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-3.

 240 See CR at VII-3 n.3; PR at VII-1 n.3; Foreign Producers’ Questionnaire Response of ***, at question II-6. 

 241 Although the domestic industry will likely continue to import a significant proportion of subject imports in the

imminent future, as it did over the period examined, CR/PR at Table III-5, this likelihood does not detract from our

finding that the domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports. As addressed

above, subject imports by one domestic producer may be injurious to other domestic producers and to the domestic

industry as a whole. ***, which together accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2008, imported

practically no PRCBs from subject countries during the period examined, with the exception of a small quantity

imported by *** in 2007. CR/PR at Tables III-1, 5. We also note that the domestic industry accounted for a lower

share of subject imports in interim 2009, at 18.6 percent, than in interim 2008, at 23.7 percent, CR/PR at Table III-5,

lending some credence to petitioners’ contention that domestic producers will reduce their reliance on subject

imports if granted relief from the injurious effects of subject imports. Petitioners’ Responses to Commissioner

36
percent between 2006 and 2008 due to both the weakening economy and environmental concerns,

including the enactment of laws regulating the use and disposal of PRCBs, but was stable when

comparing the interim periods.242 Petitioners project that PRCB demand will remain flat or decline in the

imminent future due to environmental laws and increased acceptance of reusable bags.243

We find that the likelihood of flat to declining PRCB demand in the imminent future, though

increasing the domestic industry’s vulnerability, does not break the causal link between subject imports

and the threat of material injury. Although apparent U.S. consumption declined over the 2006-2008

period, due in part to the economic downturn, apparent U.S. consumption stabilized when comparing the

interim periods as the economy began to recover.244 There is no information on the record indicating that

laws regulating the use and disposal of PRCBs that would significantly reduce apparent U.S. consumption

of PRCBs are likely to be enacted in the imminent future.245

We also find that *** during the 2006-2008 period, with no clear connection between *** and

subject imports, is unlikely to continue in the imminent future, given ***.246 Although *** remains

vulnerable to material injury for the same reasons that domestic producers as a whole are vulnerable,247

*** has apparently addressed the factors responsible for its *** in 2006, prior to the significant increase

in subject import volume and market share. Accordingly, *** is unlikely to suffer any performance

issues going forward that might sever the causal link between subject imports and the threat of material

injury.

Finally, we have also considered the role of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market and concluded

that they do not break the causal link between subject imports and the threat of imminent material injury

to the domestic industry by reason of subject imports. As addressed above, nonsubject import volume

and market share declined between 2006 and 2008, unlike subject import volume and market share, and

nonsubject import prices were generally higher than subject import prices over the period.248 The

antidumping duty orders imposed on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, in 2004 will likely

have some restraining effect on nonsubject imports in the imminent future, given that China, Malaysia,

and Thailand are among the largest sources of nonsubject imports.249

We find it unlikely that nonsubject import volume and market share will increase significantly in

the imminent future given their declining trend and relatively higher prices over the period examined, and

Questions, at 40. 

 242 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4; CR at II-15; PR at II-10-11; CR/PR at Table II7.

 243 Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 58 (citing CR at Table II-7). When asked whether PRCB demand had been

affected by the passage of laws regulating use and disposal of PRCBs, nine of 13 responding domestic producers

answered yes, with an average estimated demand decline of 6 percent; 10 of 26 responding importers answered yes,

with an average estimated demand decline of 16 percent; and 10 of 49 responding purchasers answered yes, with an

average estimated demand decline of 5 percent. CR/PR at Table II-7. 

 244 Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4.

 245 See CR at II-20-21; PR at II-13-14. Although *** reported that “if national regulation on bags and the taxing

of bags happen then it would reduce the usage of bags by ***%,” and a national plastic bag bill was introduced in

the House of Representatives on April 22, 2009, there is no information on the record that the bill has progressed

through the legislative process or that the bill would impose the kind of “national regulation” that *** references. 

CR at II-20-21; PR at II-14-15.

 246 CR at VI-11 n.4; PR at VI-4 n.4.

 247 We note that ***. CR/PR at Table VI-2. 

 248 See Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table C-4; CR at F-3; PR at F-3 (subject import prices

were lower than nonsubject import prices in 260 of 430 quarterly comparisons, or 60.5 percent of the time).

 249 CR at I-4, II-13; PR at I-3, II-9.

37
the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.250 We recognize that, just as

the imposition of antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand reportedly

resulted in the emergence of new PRCB producers in Vietnam,251 PRCB production equipment could be

shifted from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam to nonsubject countries.252 New sources of nonsubject

imports, however, are unlikely to result in a significant increase in nonsubject imports in the imminent

future. Some subject foreign producers utilize large, high-volume PRCB production equipment that is

difficult to transport.253 And even with respect to subject foreign producers that utilize smaller, modular

PRCB production equipment that is easier to transport,254 there is no evidence on the record that such

equipment would likely be moved and fully operational in the imminent future. We note that to the

contrary, there was a two-year lag between the imposition of the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from

China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and the establishment of new PRCB production facilities in Vietnam.255

Thus, nonsubject imports do not sever the causal link between subject imports and the threat of material

injury.

In sum, the record indicates that there is a causal nexus between subject imports and the threat of

material injury to the domestic industry. We conclude that the likely significant increase in subject

import volume and market share, and their likely significant adverse price effects, will imminently cause

material injury to the domestic industry absent antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam, and the countervailing duty order on PRCBs from Vietnam. Accordingly, we

determine that the domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of cumulated subject

imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam.

 250 The record contains no information on the capacity and export orientation of PRCB producers in nonsubject

countries. CR at VII-11-12; PR at VII-6. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that nonsubject import volume and market

share would have declined so significantly over the period examined if nonsubject producers possessed significant

excess capacity and lacked significant home and third country markets. This is particularly so given that a

substantial proportion of imports from China and Malaysia was imported from producers not subject to the

antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China and Malaysia. See EDIS Document No. 422010. Although these

orders are currently subject to five-year reviews that could result in the revocation of one or more of the orders, we

cannot and will not speculate as to the outcome of the reviews. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii) (providing that “a [threat]

determination may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition”). 

 251 See Hearing Tr. at 50-51 (Dorn) (“You also know that many factories from China and other countries and

territories have moved to Vietnam to circumvent anti-dumping orders from the U.S. government.”); Conference Tr.

at 6 (Dorn) (“Producers in China also began to move production equipment to Vietnam where they could obtain

substantial subsidies from the socialist government.”). 

 252 See Hearing Tr. at 145 (Dorn) (“In the Asian market where they have very small bubbles and they actually do

them floor by floor going up, it's much less expensive to move those assets around from one country to the next.”)

 253 Hearing Tr. at 145 (Dorn) (“For the domestic part, it’s rather an expensive cost to do it because once again to

Mr. Bazbaz’s points, we have rather large extrusion equipment and large converting equipment.”), 207 (Lin) (“So

our equipment is very giant, so I would say it is not easy to move these machines.”).

 254 See Hearing Tr. at 145 (Dorn) (“In the Asian market where they have very small bubbles and they actually do

them floor by floor going up, it’s much less expensive to move those assets around from one country to the next.”);

Conference Tr. at See Tr. at 95-96 (Mr. von Schriltz: “[H]ow difficult and expensive is it for a producer to shift

production from one country or another?” Mr: Bazbaz: “I believe it’s a very simple operation. You just pick up the

equipment. The equipment is modular so you have different extrusion lines and different bag machines and just put

it onto a truck and get it elsewhere.”).

 255 Although antidumping duty orders were imposed on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand on August 9,

2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 48201; 69 Fed. Reg. 48203; 69 Fed. Reg. 48204, PRCB capacity in Vietnam did not increase

significantly until 2007. See Memorandum INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010)/PR at Table VII-3 (capacity reported by

responding foreign producers in Vietnam increased from *** bags in 2006 to *** bags in 2007 and *** bags in

2008). 

38
We further determine, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(4)(B) and 1673d(b)(4)(B), that we

would not have made material injury determinations but for Commerce’s suspension of liquidation on

subject imports from Taiwan on October 27, 2009 and on subject imports from Indonesia and Vietnam on

November 3, 2009.256 Since our interim January-September 2009 data predate the suspension of

liquidation, and there is no evidence that the pendency of these investigations significantly influenced

subject import trends, the suspension of liquidation did not materially affect our material injury analysis.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the domestic industry producing PRCBs is

threatened with material injury by reason of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam found by

Commerce to be sold in the United States at LTFV and by PRCBs from Vietnam found by Commerce to

be subsidized by the Government of Vietnam.

 256 See 74 Fed. Reg. 55183 (Oct. 27, 2009), 74 Fed. Reg. 56807 (Nov. 3, 2009).

39

DISSENTING VIEWS OF VICE CHAIRMAN DANIEL R. PEARSON

I concur with the majority’s discussions of the domestic like product in Section II, of the

domestic industry in Section III, of cumulation for purposes of both the material injury and threat

determinations in Section IV, of the applicable legal standards in Section V.A., of the conditions of

competition and the business cycle in Section V.B. I also concur with the majority’s determination that

the domestic industry producing certain polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) is not materially injured

by reason of imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam that Commerce has found to be

sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of PRCBs from Vietnam that Commerce has

found to be subsidized by the Government of Vietnam, and so I join the applicable parts of Sections V.C.

(volume), V.D. (price), and V.E. (impact). However, I dissent from the majority’s determination that the

domestic industry producing PRCBs is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of PRCBs

from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam that Commerce has found to be sold in the United States at less

than fair value and imports of PRCBs from Vietnam that Commerce has found to be subsidized by the

Government of Vietnam, and I instead find that the domestic industry is not threatened with material

injury by reason of such imports. As such, I do not join those parts of Sections Sections V.C. (volume),

V.D. (price), and V.E. (impact) of the majority’s views and instead provide the following dissenting

views.

I. NO THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF IMPORTS OF PRCBs FROM

INDONESIA, TAIWAN, AND VIETNAM

I find that there is not a threat of material injury to a domestic industry producing PRCBs by

reason of imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam that Commerce has found to be sold in

the United States at less than fair value and imports of PRCBs from Vietnam that Commerce has found to

be subsidized by the Government of Vietnam.1

A. Volume of the Subject Imports

Subject imports of PRCBs grew rapidly between 2006 and 2007, both absolutely2 and in terms of

market share.3

 However, the trend in subject imports for the remainder of the period examined was

relatively flat. There is no reason to expect that, in the absence of antidumping and countervailing duty

orders, there will be an imminent and substantial increase in subject import volumes that would lead to a

loss of market share for the U.S. industry.

 1 For a discussion of the legal standards to be used in threat determinations, see Section V.A.3. of the Majority’s

Views. I concur with the majority regarding cumulation for purposes of a threat determination and cumulate all

three subject countries. See Section IV.C. of the Majority’s Views.

 2

 I concur with the majority and will also use volume data from Table C-4 in my analysis. Majority’s Views at

21 n.141. U.S. shipments of subject imports of PRCBs initially increased from 7.28 billion bags in 2006 to 14.67

billion bags in 2007, before decreasing slightly to 14.59 billion bags in 2008, an overall increase of 100.3 percent. 

U.S. shipments of subject imports of PRCBs decreased to 9.50 billion bags in interim 2009, compared with 10.98

billion bags in interim 2008. Staff Memorandum, INV-HH-037 (Apr. 14, 2010) at Table C-4.

 3

 The share of U.S. shipments of subject imports in apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs increased from 6.7

percent in 2006 to 13.9 percent in 2007, and to 14.4 percent in 2008, an overall increase of 7.7 percentage points. 

U.S. shipments of subject imports of PRCBs decreased to 12.7 percent in interim 2009, compared with 14.8 percent

in interim 2008. Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4.

41
I base this conclusion on the reality that subject imports primarily gained market share from

nonsubject imports, not from domestic producers.4

 Nonsubject imports from China, Malaysia, and

Thailand have been under antidumping orders since 2004.5

 The only significant increase in subject

imports, coming between 2006 and 2007, occurred at the same time as a dramatic decrease in nonsubject

imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and both subject and nonsubject imports have been

relatively stable since that time. U.S. market shares of subject imports stabilized between 2007 and 2008

and interim 2009 market shares showed that subject imports had declined slightly. Because subject and

nonsubject imports appear to compete with each other more directly than with the domestic like product,6

I do not expect there to be a substantial increase in subject imports that leads to a decline in U.S. market

share for domestic producers in the imminent future.

These six Asian countries (China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam) are the

largest sources of U.S. imports of the subject product and, together, they made up between 86.6 and 91.9

percent of total U.S. imports, by quantity, over the period of full years from 2006 to 2008.7

 Evidence on

the record indicates that production was redirected to the three subject countries after the imposition of

the orders against China, Malaysia, and Thailand in 2004.8

 Evidence also shows that there is some degree

of common ownership between a Malaysian producer of PRCBs and a large Indonesian producer.9

The only significant change in the subject imports’ U.S. market share occurred at the beginning

of the period when subject imports increased from 6.7 percent of U.S. consumption in 2006 to 13.9

percent in 2007, or by 7.2 percentage points. The context of this increase is important, however, as it was

 4 Domestic producer’s share in U.S. consumption increased irregularly over the period from 61.4 percent in

2007, to 66.3 percent in 2007, before declining somewhat to 64.2 percent in 2008, resulting in a 2.7 percentage point

increase over the period of full years. The share of the domestic industry was 66.8 in interim 2009, as compared

with 64.9 percent in interim 2008. Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4.

 5

 CR/PR at I-1.

 6 Respondents’ Posthearing Br. at Q-33 to Q-34 (characterizing their conclusion as economic intuition but noting

that necessary data on elasticities of substitution between subject and nonsubject imports are lacking). There are

indications that more importers and purchasers see limitations to interchangeability between U.S. and imported

PRCBs than between subject and nonsubject imports. When U.S.-produced PRCBs are compared against subject

imports, the responses of importers and purchasers indicating that the products are either “sometimes” or “never”

interchangeable ranges between 14 and 40 percent, with a simple average of 24 percent. When U.S.-produced

PRCBs are compared against nonsubject imports, those percentages range between 26 and 41 percent with a simple

average of 33 percent. But when subject imports are compared against nonsubject imports, the percentage

responding either “sometimes” or “never” interchangeable ranges between 0 and 23 percent, with a simple average

of only 8 percent. CR/PR at Table II-12.

 7

 Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4; CR at II-9; PR at II-7; CR at VII-12; PR at VII-6. Over the entire period

examined, from 2006 through interim 2009, imports from the six Asian source countries accounted for 88.4 percent

of total aggregate U.S. imports. Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4. For 2008, among these six Asian countries,

Vietnam was the second-largest source of PRCB imports, Taiwan was the fourth-largest source, and Indonesia was

the sixth-largest source. CR at II-9; PR at II-7. In every full year period and in the interim periods, the combined

imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand were larger than the combined subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan,

and Vietnam. Respondents’ Prehearing Br. at 6. Canada was the seventh-largest source of U.S. imports of PRCBs,

with about 2 percent of total U.S. imports. CR at II-9; PR at II-7; Majority’s Views at 30 n.125.

 8

 Tr. at 50-51 (Mr. Dorn) (“You also know that many factories from China and other countries and territories

have moved to Vietnam to circumvent antidumping orders from the U.S. government.”); Tr. at 169 (Ms. Lin) (“Most

of the Vietnamese factory are [sic] set up by Chinese people, after they had this anti-dumping order imposed in

China.”); Respondents’ Posthearing Br. at Q-6 (“Like Vietnam, Taiwan was a viable alternative country for Chinese

PRCB producers looking to relocate, as Taiwan is not only geographically close to China, but also shares a common

language (Mandarin Chinese).”).

 9

 Petitioners’ Prehearing at 62 n.282; Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at 46 & n.119.

42
contemporaneous with a significant decline in the U.S. market share of nonsubject imports from China,

Malaysia, and Thailand, which declined from 26.7 percent of U.S. consumption in 2006 to 15.3 percent in

2007, or by 11.4 percentage points.10 Therefore, despite the increased imports from the three subject

countries, the aggregate U.S. market share of these six Asian countries actually declined from 33.4

percent in 2006 to 29.2 percent in 2007, or by 4.2 percentage points; U.S. producers gained 4.9

percentage points of market share over that same period.11

After this initial readjustment, the market share of imports from the six Asian countries increased

by 3.7 percentage points, from 29.2 percent in 2007 to 32.9 percent in 2008. Thus, over the period of full

years from 2006 to 2008, the combined U.S. market share for imports from the six countries declined

irregularly from 33.4 percent to 32.9 percent, or by 0.5 percentage points.12 The combined U.S. market

share for the six Asian countries in interim 2009 was 29.4 percent, compared with 32.1 percent in interim

2008.13 Both the full year data and the comparison between the interim periods show total imports of

PRCBs from the six Asian source countries to be steady, perhaps trending slightly downward. And,

despite the significant increase in subject import volumes and market share between 2006 and 2007,

further increases did not occur. Thus, there is no trend that would suggest an imminent significant

increase in subject import volume. And, if such an increase did occur, it likely would come at the

expense of nonsubject imports.

Nothing on this record indicates a likelihood that different conditions of competition would

prevail in the immediate future such that changes in the market share of subject imports would cause

changes in the market share of domestic producers. Rather, the empirical evidence suggests that the six

primary Asian exporting countries compete with each other for roughly 30 percent of the U.S. market,

while domestic producers serve roughly 65 percent.

While production capacity in the cumulated subject countries grew rapidly from 2006 to 2008, it

should be noted that capacity started from a relatively low level. Total known capacity in the subject

countries in 2006 was only *** percent of the reported capacity of the domestic industry in that same

year.14 Also, projected capacity figures for 2009 and 2010 do not show growth, and perhaps even indicate

a downward trend.15 Even if all the known excess capacity in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam in 2008

were to have been employed, with all the resulting output being sent to the U.S. market, this would have

resulted in an increase in subject imports representing only *** percent of U.S. consumption in 2008.16

Excess capacity in the subject countries, by itself, does not constitute an imminent threat of significantly

 10 Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4.

 11 Calculated from Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4.

 12 Calculated from Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4.

 13 Calculated from Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4.

 14 Compare CR/PR at Table III-2 with Memo INV-HH-037 at Table VII-4.

 15 Memo INV-HH-037 at Table VII-4 (indicating a less than *** percent decline in capacity between 2008 and

2009, and a further *** decline in 2010). I acknowledge, however, that some of the projected decline in capacity

may be related to the pendency of these orders and that, were the orders not be put in place, that some of this idled

capacity may return. Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 66.

 16 Reported production capacity in the subject countries increased from *** billion bags in 2006 to *** billion

bags in 2008, an increase of *** percent. Reported excess capacity increased throughout the period, from ***

billion bags in 2006 to *** billion bags in 2008. The capacity utilization rate in the subject countries was ***

percent in interim 2009, as compared to *** percent in interim 2008. Memo INV-HH-037 at Table VII-4. Despite

the responding foreign producers’ low estimates of their own importance within their country’s industry, it appears

that these responses do account for a representative share of U.S. imports from the subject countries. Responding

Indonesian producers account for *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Indonesia in 2008;

responding Taiwanese producers account for *** percent of U.S. imports from Taiwan; and responding Vietnamese

producers account for *** percent of U.S. imports from Vietnam. CR at VII-1, -3, & -5; PR at VII-1 to VII-2.

43
increased import volumes; while excess capacity grew by *** percent in the subject countries between

2007 and 2008,17 subject import volumes actually declined by 0.6 percent while the share of U.S.

consumption held by subject imports increased by only 0.4 percentage points.18 Producers in the subject

countries showed a propensity during the period examined not to use all of their available capacity. 

Nothing in this record suggests a change in that pattern in the imminent future.

Inventories held in the United States by U.S. importers are not a significant factor.19 Despite a

steady increase in the ratio of inventories held to U.S. shipments of subject imports, inventories held in

the United States typically are already imprinted with the logo of the ultimate purchaser; thus, such

inventories are not fungible and thus are not likely to affect the U.S. market share held by the domestic

industry.20 Inventories held by subject foreign producers in subject countries remained a small percentage

of total shipments throughout the period.21

The potential for product shifting by producers in subject countries is minimal as some of the

equipment used to make the subject product is product-specific.22 Additionally, there were no known

trade remedies in third countries, either now in-place or being considered, against PRCBs from any of the

subject countries.23

To summarize, the evidence indicates that: (1) the increase in subject import volumes between

2006 and 2007 occurred primarily in response to a decrease in nonsubject import volumes from China,

Malaysia, and Thailand that may have been related to antidumping orders issued in 2004; (2) after this

initial readjustment, U.S. market shares for subject imports steadied, and then showed declines in interim

2009; (3) when viewed in the aggregate, the U.S. market share of imports from the six significant Asian

suppliers, accounting for about 88 percent of total U.S. imports, remained relatively steady, if slightly

declining, over the entire period examined; (4) despite rapid growth in capacity in subject countries,

known capacity remains small in comparison to the capacity of the domestic industry; (5) increasing

excess capacity in the subject countries did not result in increased subject import volumes or any

significant increase in subject imports’ U.S. market share; and (6) other factors, such as inventories of

PRCBs, product-shifting by foreign producers, and trade remedies in third countries are not likely to

result in significantly increased U.S. imports of the subject product. Thus, I find that no significant

 17 Memo INV-HH-037 at Table VII-4 (excess capacity increased from *** billion bags in 2007 to *** billion

bags in 2008).

 18 Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4.

 19 I note that inventories of subject imports held by U.S. importers increased over the period, and represented

14.0 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports in 2006, 14.4 percent in 2007, and 18.9 percent in 2008. 

Importers’ inventories of subject imports were 22.1 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports in interim 2009,

compared with 22.3 percent in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table VII-5.

 20 See, e.g., Tr. at 156 (Mr. Morgan) (“[O]nce the import . . . enters the market, the sale has already been made. 

The target has already been printed on the bag.”); Tr. at 174 (Mr. Lee) (“Bags are often printed with companyspecific logos, and thus are not freely transferrable to other customers.”)

 21 Inventories held by subject foreign producers increased from *** percent of total foreign producer shipments

in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. Inventories held by subject foreign producers was *** percent of total foreign

producer shipments in interim 2009, compared to *** percent in interim 2008. Memo INV-HH-037 at Table VII-4.

 22 CR at I-17; PR at I-13 (stating that converting equipment is product-specific). *** stated that they produce

other polyethylene products using the same resources. CR at VII-6 & n.9; PR at VII-2 & n.8. The “majority

product” for respondent Indonesian producer P.T. Super Exim Sari is industrial packaging bags. Tr. at 164 (Ms.

Lin). Only 5 of 14 domestic producers reported making other products on the same equipment as PRCBs. CR at II9; PR at II-6.

 23 CR at VII-11; PR at VII-6.

44
increase in subject import volume is imminent,24 and if such an increase should occur, it likely would be

at the expense of nonsubject imports.

B. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Among the eight pricing products, there are two different pictures of subject import pricing

presented. Within products 1 through 4, the more basic “t-shirt” bags, subject imports oversold the U.S.-

produced PRCBs in 88 of 146 quarterly comparisons, or in 60.3 percent of comparisons. Within products

5 through 8, which are bags with more sophisticated features, subject imports undersold the U.S.-

produced PRCBs in 92 of 111 quarterly comparisons, or in 82.9 percent of comparisons.25 It is important

to note that products 1 through 4 account for almost 98 percent, by weight, of the total volume of pricing

products sold.26 Therefore, I place more emphasis on the predominant pattern of overselling in products 1

through 4 as I assess the price effects of subject imports. The volume of sales of products 2 and 3 alone

account for fully 94 percent, by weight, of total sales of the eight pricing products; within these two

pricing products, subject imports oversold U.S.-produced PRCBs in 62 out of 87 quarterly comparisons,

or in 71.3 percent of comparisons.27 28 Given that there is a predominant pattern of subject import

overselling in the two pricing products that account for the vast majority of the U.S. market for PRCBs, it

does not seem likely that subject imports would cause significant negative price effects in the U.S. market

in the imminent future.

Petitioners have pointed out that direct imports by retailers played an important role in the market

and that, in this market segment, subject imports were frequently priced lower than both the subject

imports sold by importers and the domestic like product.29 Subject imports entering as direct imports

 24 I have taken into consideration the nature of the subsidies received by PRCB producers in Vietnam that

Commerce found to be countervailable, pursuant to statutory threat factor (I). CR at I-5; PR at I-4. Commerce

found that, with respect to Vietnam, the following five programs were countervailable: (1) income tax preferences

for encouraged industries; (2) income tax preferences for export-oriented Foreign-Invested Enterprises (“FIEs”); (3)

land rent reduction or exemption for exporters; (4) import duty exemptions for raw materials; and (5) the exemption

from import duties for imports of spare parts and accessories for industrial zone enterprises. Id. On the basis of

these findings, Commerce calculated final countervailable subsidy rates ranging from 0.44 percent, which is de

minimis, to 52.56 percent. PR/CR at Table I-1.

 25 CR/PR at Table V-11. I concur with the majority’s adoption of pricing data as expressed in price per pound. 

Majority’s Views at 40 n.169. 

 26 Calculated using volume data from all eight pricing tables for the U.S. and all three subject countries. CR/PR

at Tables V-2 to V-9. The coverage afforded by the eight pricing products was good, covering 69.7 percent of U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments, 19.5 percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, 32.2 percent of U.S. imports

from Taiwan, and 58.7 percent of U.S. imports from Vietnam. CR at V-10 to V-11; PR at V-5.

 27 I note that even if the price comparisons are made using the price-per-bag data from Appendix D of the staff

report, a majority of quarterly comparisons for products 2 and 3, in 45 of 87, or 51.7 percent, of available quarterly

comparisons, still show overselling by subject imports in a majority of the comparisons. 

 28 Petitioners are correct in pointing out that pricing data from the *** was not provided to the Commission in the

final phase of these investigations. Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at 10; CR at V-10 n.16; PR at V-5 n.16. *** did

however, provide pricing data in the preliminary phase of these investigations, Respondents’ Posthearing Br. at Q24, and there the Commission found “pronounced” overselling by subject imports in the “highest volume pricing

products.” The Commission found that “[w]ith respect to products 1 and 2 [which in the final phase are divided

among products 1, 2, and 3], . . . subject imports oversold the domestic like product in 64 of 72 quarterly

comparisons, or 88.9 percent of the time.” Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam,

Inv. No. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Preliminary) (Public Version), Pub. 4080 (May 2009) at 21. 

 29 Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 45; Tr. at 122 (Mr. Dorn).

45
were only recorded for three of the eight pricing products (products 2, 3, and 5).30 Of those, only pricing

product 3 had significant levels of direct imports of the subject product.31 While the Commission has

traditionally compared prices at the same level of trade, it may be observed that direct import prices for

product 3 were usually between 5 and 33 percent lower than the prices paid by those buyers for the

domestic like product.32 Knowing that direct imports were largely accounted for by ***,33 it is likely that

these direct imports are simple designs. This is potentially significant because respondents have provided

evidence that prices, even within the defined dimensions of product 3—albeit with prices expressed in

terms of 1,000 bags, may range by *** depending on the dimensions of the bag and the complexity of the

printing.34 This raises the possibility that some of these observed price differences may be accounted for

by product mix variations, even within product 3.

Furthermore, even with the favorable pricing of direct imports, total direct imports from subject

countries have declined significantly over the period, from *** pounds in 2006, to *** pounds in 2007, to

*** pounds in 2008, before increasing to *** in interim 2009.35 And, consistent with the majority’s

observation36 that lower prices depend on higher volumes, there is a correlation, at least for product 3,

between the price differentials between direct imports and U.S.-produced PRCBs and the quarterly

volumes of direct imports.37 Therefore, with direct imports declining over the period examined, and with

the expectation that price differentials between direct imports and U.S.-produced PRCBs will therefore

also decline, it does not seem likely that direct imports would lead to negative price effects in the

imminent future.

It also does not appear that subject imports are likely to have significant price-depressing or

price-suppressing effects in the imminent future. The domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales has

not been correlated with either subject import volume or market shares, but instead has been driven

 30 Memo INV-HH-037 at Table E-2. Direct imports accounted for 76.8 percent of U.S. imports from Indonesia,

48.0 percent of U.S. imports from Taiwan, and 22.8 percent of imports from Vietnam. CR at V-11 n.18; PR at V-5

n.18.

 31 The volume of direct imports of product 3 from subject countries was about twice the volume of importers’

sales of product 3. Memo INV-HH-037 at Table E-2. While the volume of direct imports of product 5 from subject

countries was about equal to the volume of importers’ sales of product 5, direct imports were never more than 1

million pounds per year. CR/PR at Table E-4. The volume of direct imports of product 2 from subject countries was

only about 3 percent of the volume of importers’ sales of product 2 and never exceeded 600,000 pounds per year. 

CR/PR at Table E-2. 

 32 Compare CR/PR at Table V-4 with Memo INV-HH-037 at Table E-2.

 33 CR at V-11 nn. 18 & 20; PR at V-5 nn. 18 & 20. For support for the proposition that *** use simpler bag

designs, see CR at II-5; PR at II-3.

 34 Respondents’ Posthearing Br. at Q-17 (showing prices, per 1,000 bags, not per pound, may range from $*** to

$***). But see Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at Exhibit 3 (showing that smaller, thinner bags have a higher

manufacturing cost per pound).

 35 Calculations based on CR/PR at Tables E-2 & E-4; Memo INV-HH-037 at Table E-2.

 36 Majority’s Views at 41 (“The record indicates that, in general, higher volume sales tend to be sold at a lower

average unit price.”).

 37 The two largest quarterly volumes of direct imports from Indonesia were in QI & QII 2006, which were also

the two quarters with the highest percentage differences between Indonesian direct import and U.S. prices. The two

largest quarterly volumes of direct imports from Taiwan were in QIII & QIV 2006, which were also the two quarters

with the highest percentage differences between Taiwanese direct import and U.S. prices. The largest quarterly

volume of direct imports from Vietnam was in QIII 2007, which was also the quarter with the highest percentage

difference between Vietnamese direct import and U.S. prices. Compare Memo INV-HH-037 at Table E-2 with

CR/PR at Table V-4.

46
largely by raw material prices, specifically the price of polyethylene resin.38 At the time of the significant

increase in subject imports, between 2006 and 2007, with subject imports gaining 7.2 percentage points of

U.S. market share, the ratio of COGS to net sales stayed unchanged. Then, between 2007 and 2008,

when subject imports had leveled off, gaining only 0.4 percentage points of U.S. market share, the ratio of

COGS to net sales increased by 2.9 percentage points to 92.9 percent. Finally, with the U.S. market share

of subject imports 2.0 percentage points lower in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008, the ratio of

COGS to net sales declined by 5.6 percentage points.39 This indicates that the increase in the ratio of

COGS to net sales in 2008 was not a reflection of price suppression relating to competition from subject

imports, but rather reflected a rapid increase in the price of polyethylene resin that peaked in August and

September 2008.40 Raw material prices rose so quickly in the summer of 2008 that even agreements used

by the domestic industry allowing for increases in raw material costs to be passed on to the customer were

not effective in maintaining producers’ margins.41 Likewise, the decline in the ratio of COGS to net sales

between the interim periods was caused by the steep decline in the price of polyethylene resin that

bottomed out in January and February 2009, but remained below typical levels through interim 2009.42 

Nor was there evidence that price depression would be a factor in the imminent future; although prices

did show some declines in interim 2009, this was more a function of significantly reduced raw material

costs that allowed U.S. producers to increase their profitability while still passing along savings to their

customers.

Petitioners also argue that, even though subject imports essentially replaced nonsubject imports in

the U.S. market, had this not happened, and had nonsubject imports instead remained as they were, this

would have benefitted the domestic industry because subject import prices are lower than nonsubject

prices.43 This may seem to be supported by data from the pricing products showing that a majority of

quarterly comparisons between subject and nonsubject prices show lower subject import prices.44 But, if

the focus is put on the highest-volume products, the comparative pricing of subject and nonsubject

imports is more ambiguous. For instance, with respect to product 3—again the highest-volume

product—when comparing five of the six Asian source countries, although *** is almost always the

highest-priced source country, *** is the lowest-priced Asian source country in more than 90 percent of

quarterly comparisons. Also, the volume of U.S. imports of product 3 from Thailand is significantly

larger, in every quarter, than the comparatively negligible U.S. imports from China, and is larger, in many

quarters, than the cumulated subject imports of product 3.45

Of the *** lost sales allegations involving subject imports of PRCBs totaling $***, only three

allegations totaling $*** were confirmed.46 Of the *** lost revenue allegations involving subject imports

totaling $***, only one allegation totaling $*** was confirmed.47 When considering such allegations, it is

 38 Tr. at 41 (Mr. Rizzo) (“The prices . . . move up and down with the changes in the price of polyethylene

resin.”). Raw material costs accounted for 70.7 percent of the total cost of goods sold during 2008. CR/PR at V-1.

 39 Memo INV-HH-037 at Tables C-1 & C-4.

 40 CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 41 CR/PR at V-1; Tr. at 26-27 &113-14 (Mr. Bazbaz).

 42 CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 43 Tr. at 106 (Mr. Dorn) (basing observation on average unit values).

 44 CR/PR at F-3 (showing that subject imports prices were lower than nonsubject prices in 260 of 430, or in 60.5

percent of, quarterly comparisons).

 45 CR/PR at Figure F-3.

 46 CR at V-34; PR at V-16; CR/PR at Table V-12.

 47 CR at V-34; PR at V-16; CR/PR at Table V-13. I note that *** of the *** lost revenue allegations were

reported to have occurred in the fourth quarter of 2008. CR/PR at Table V-13. That prices for PRCBs were

(continued...)

47
worth remembering that, when *** is implicated in a lost sale,48 *** also is *** importer of nonsubject

imports.49 Considering that the value of net sales for the domestic industry averaged about $1 billion per

year,50 the value of those confirmed allegations are of an insignificant magnitude and do not indicate any

unusual pricing disadvantage experienced by the domestic industry in this competitive marketplace.

To summarize, the evidence relating to price effects indicates that: (1) while there was some

subject import underselling in the pricing products, it was mostly confined to the very low volume

products 5 through 8; (2) for the four higher volume “t-shirt bag” products, 60.3 percent of the quarterly

comparisons showed overselling by subject imports, and for products 2 and 3 that made up 94 percent, by

weight, of the total volume of pricing products, 71.3 percent of the quarterly comparisons showed subject

import overselling; (3) while direct import prices were frequently lower than domestic prices, such nontraditional price comparisons could be influenced by other factors such as product mix and volume

discounting; (4) to the extent that direct imports may have had an adverse influence on prices, this threat

has been reduced since the beginning of the period examined as volumes of direct imports declined

steadily, by about 80 percent, between 2006 and 2008; (5) subject imports did not have either a pricedepressing or a price-suppressing effect on domestic prices during the period examined and that modest

changes in the ratio of COGS to net sales were simply following changes in raw material costs; (6)

although subject import prices were lower than nonsubject import prices in a majority of quarterly

comparisons across all pricing products, for the highest-volume pricing product, product 3, nonsubject

imports from Thailand were almost always priced lower, and entered in larger volumes, than subject

imports; and (7) that there was *** evidence of lost sales or lost revenues. Thus, I find that there is no

imminent threat of significant price-depressing or price-suppressing effects relating to subject imports.

C. Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry

Because I find neither an imminent threat of significantly increased volumes of subject imports

nor an imminent threat that subject imports will be entering at significantly price-depressing or pricesuppressing prices, I therefore find that there is no imminent threat of a negative impact by reason of

subject imports on the domestic industry producing PRCBs.

Other evidence supporting this conclusion includes the fact that the domestic industry did succeed

in gaining market share lost by nonsubject imports. The share of U.S. consumption held by the domestic

industry increased irregularly by 2.5 percentage points over the period examined, initially increasing from

61.7 percent in 2006 to 66.3 percent in 2007, before declining to 64.2 percent in 2008. The domestic

industry’s share of the U.S. market in interim 2009 was 66.8 percent, as compared with 64.9 percent in

interim 2008.51

U.S. production of PRCBs declined by 5.6 percent over the period of full years from 2006 to

2008.52 The magnitude of this decline was consistent with decreasing U.S. consumption, which declined

 47 (...continued)

declining in this quarter is not unexpected, given what was happening contemporaneously with resin prices. CR/PR

at Figure V-1.

 48 E.g., Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 42-43.

 49 CR/PR at IV-1.

 50 Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-1.

 51 Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4.

 52 Production by U.S. producers rose from 70.2 billion bags in 2006 to 72.3 billion bags in 2007, but then

declined to 66.3 billion bags in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

48
by 6.7 percent over the period of full years from 2006 to 2008.53 Domestic production capacity also

declined by a similar amount, 4.1 percent.54 As a result, capacity utilization by the domestic industry was

relatively flat, declining by only 1.3 percentage points over the period of full years from 2006 to 2008.55

The propensity for domestic production trends to follow U.S. consumption trends continued in the interim

periods: as U.S. consumption steadied between the interim periods,56 so did production by the domestic

industry.57 Capacity utilization by the domestic industry decreased when comparing the interim periods,

but only because the domestic industry added capacity in interim 2009.58 Additionally, petitioners are not

predicting any imminent significant decline in demand.59 The data on production capacity, production, or

capacity utilization, together with projection of demand, do not indicate any imminent threat of material

injury to the domestic industry as a result of subject imports.

As emphasized by respondents, the financial trends for the domestic industry “do not correlate to

the subject import volumes in any meaningful way.”60 The ratio of operating income to net sales initially

improved slightly from 0.5 percent in 2006 to 0.7 percent in 2007 at the same time that the volume of

subject imports doubled from 7.3 billion to 14.7 billion bags. The operating ratio then declined to

negative 3.2 percent in 2008 as the volume of subject imports slipped 0.6 percent to 14.6 billion bags. 

Then, with the volume of subject imports 13.5 percent lower in interim 2009 than it was in interim 2008,

declining from 11.0 billion bags in interim 2008 to 9.5 billion bags in interim 2009, the ratio of operating

income to net sales improved by 4.9 percentage points between the interim periods.61

While the movements in the ratio of operating income to net sales do not correlate with the

changes in subject import volumes, they do correlate with movements in the price of its raw material,

polyethylene resin. The rapid increase in resin prices in 2008, followed by the collapse of those same

prices at the end of 2008, with prices remaining below typical levels throughout interim 2009,62 appears

to offer an essentially complete explanation for the movements in the domestic industry’s operating

margin. The unit value of raw materials in interim 2009 was $6.19, as compared to $9.92 in interim 2008,

a decline of 37.6 percent.63 This is how, even with the value of net sales in interim 2009 being 22.4

percent lower than in interim 2008, and with the average unit value of those sales having declined by even

more, by 24.4 percent, the domestic industry was still able to increase its operating margin by 4.9

 53 Apparent U.S. consumption declined steadily from 108.7 billion bags in 2006 to105.3 billion bags in 2007 to

101.4 billion bags in 2008. Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4.

 54 Domestic production capacity was flat between 2006 and 2007 at 83.2 billion bags, but then declined to 79.7

billion bags in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 55 Capacity utilization by the domestic industry initially increased from 84.4 percent in 2006 to 86.9 percent in

2007, before declining to 83.1 percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 56 Apparent U.S. consumption was 74.5 billion bags in interim 2009, as compared with 74.4 billion bags in

interim 2008. Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4.

 57 Production by U.S. producers was 51.5 billion bags in interim 2009, as compared with 51.1 billion bags in

interim 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 58 Capacity was 67.4 billion bags in interim 2009, as compared with 60.9 billion in interim 2008. As a result,

capacity utilization was 76.5 percent in interim 2009, as compared with 83.8 percent in interim 2008. CR/PR at

Table C-1.

 59 Tr. at 38 (Mr. Daniels) (predicting that as the economy recovers, demand for PRCBs will be “flat at best”); Tr.

at 100 (Mr. Daniels) (predicting “stagnant if not marginal declines” in demand).

 60 Respondents’ Posthearing Br. at 1; Tr. at 150-51 (Mr. Morgan).

 61 Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-4 (increasing from negative 0.6 percent to 4.2 percent).

 62 CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 63 CR/PR at Table VI-1 (the “unit” value is per 1,000 bags).

49
percentage points.64 Although the prices of polyethylene resin increased steadily throughout interim

2009,65 there is no indication that such gradual increases constitute an imminent threat of material injury

to the domestic industry,66 or render it vulnerable.

Another factor on which I have based my determination is the recent improvement in the

financial performance ***. I concur with the majority’s assessment of this market development,67 which

clearly played a role in the 4.9 percentage point improvement in the domestic industry’s operating margin

between the interim periods, and which was not related to subject imports. *** domestic producer,

constituting *** percent of domestic production in 2008, has ***.68 This development has contributed to

a healthier domestic industry that is neither vulnerable nor likely to experience imminent and significant

deterioration in its financial performance.69

To summarize, the evidence indicates that: (1) absent imminent threats of substantial increases in

subject import volumes and imminent pricing pressures caused by subject imports, the threat of imminent

negative impact on the domestic industry caused by subject imports is negligible; (2) the market share of

domestic producers within U.S. consumption increased by 2.5 percentage points over the period of full

years from 2006 to 2008, and increased further over the interim periods; (3) trends in domestic production

capacity and domestic production closely followed trends in U.S. consumption and show no negative

impacts resulting from subject imports, nor any threat of such negative impacts; (4) adverse trends in

domestic capacity utilization in interim 2009 were caused solely by an increase in domestic production

capacity as production remained flat between the interim periods; (5) trends in the domestic industry’s

operating margins show no correlation with trends in subject imports and, further, show signs of dramatic

improvement in interim 2009, and so do not suggest vulnerability or a threat of material injury by subject

imports; and (6) the decline in the domestic industry’s operating margin in 2008 and its subsequent

improvement in interim 2009 is instead almost entirely explained by significant movements in raw

material prices and by company-specific factors that had no relation to subject imports. Thus, I find that

there is no likelihood of any imminent significant negative impacts on the domestic industry from subject

imports.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, I determine that an industry producing PRCBs in the United States

is not materially injured nor threatened with material injury by reason of imports of PRCBs from

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam that Commerce has found to be sold in the United States at less than fair

value and imports of PRCBs from Vietnam that Commerce has found to be subsidized by the Government

of Vietnam.

 64 Memo INV-HH-037 at Table C-1.

 65 CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 66 Petitioners stated that they expected raw material prices in 2010 “to plateaux and then have a slight decline.” 

Tr. at 142 (Mr. Daniels).

 67 Majority’s Views at 52-53.

 68 CR/PR at Table VI-2; CR at VI-11 n.4; PR at VI-4 n.4.

 69 In total, 8 of the 13 domestic producers showed improvement in their operating margins between the interim

periods. CR/PR at Table VI-2.

50
PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from petitions filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by Hilex Poly

Co., LLC (“Hilex”), Hartsville, SC, and Superbag Corp. (“Superbag”), Houston, TX, on March 31, 2009,

alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by

reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags

(“PRCBs”)1

 from Vietnam and LTFV imports of PRCBs from Indonesia and Taiwan. Information

relating to the background of the investigations is provided below.2

Effective date Action

March 31, 2009 Petitions filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations (74 FR 16009, April 8, 2009)

April 27, 2009 Commerce’s notices of initiation (74 FR 19049 (AD); 74 FR 19064 (CVD))

May 15, 2009 Commission’s preliminary determinations (74 FR 25771, May 29, 2009)

September 4, 2009 Commerce’s preliminary countervailing duty determination (74 FR 45811)

October 27, 2009 Commerce’s preliminary antidumping duty determination (74 FR 55183) (Taiwan)

October 27, 2009 Scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations (74 FR 63410, December 3,

2009)

November 3, 2009

December 4, 2009

Commerce’s preliminary antidumping duty determination (74 FR 56807) (Indonesia)

and amended determination (74 FR 63720)

November 3, 2009 Commerce’s preliminary antidumping duty determination (74 FR 56813) (Vietnam)

March 16, 2010 Commission’s hearing1

March 26, 2010 Commerce’s final antidumping duty determination (75 FR 14569) (Taiwan)

April 1, 2010 Commerce’s final antidumping duty determination (75 FR 16431) (Indonesia)

April 1, 2010 Commerce’s final antidumping duty determination (75 FR 16434) (Vietnam)

April 1, 2010 Commerce’s final countervailing duty determination (75 FR 16428)

April 15, 2010 Commission’s vote

April 26, 2010 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses that appeared at the hearing may be found at App. B.

 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

 Selected Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1
STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission–

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and . . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

Section 771(7)(c)) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(c))) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

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.

I-2
Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidy rates 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. Part IV 

presents the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, and Part V presents the pricing of domestic

and imported subject merchandise. Part VI presents information on the financial experience of U.S.

producers. Part VII presents the statutory requirements and information obtained for use in the

Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material injury as well as information regarding

nonsubject countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

PRCBs are generally used by retail customers to package and carry their purchased products

home from the point of sale. The leading U.S. producers of PRCBs are Advance Polybag, Inc. (“API”),

Hilex, Inteplast Group Ltd. (“Inteplast”), and Superbag, while leading reporting producers of PRCBs in

subject countries include *** in Indonesia, *** in Taiwan, and *** in Vietnam. The leading U.S.

importer of PRCBs from Indonesia is ***, while the leading importers from Taiwan are *** and *** and

the leading importers from Vietnam are *** and ***. Leading importers of PRCBs from nonsubject

countries (primarily China, Malaysia, and Thailand) include ***. 

Apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs totaled approximately 101 billion PRCBs ($1.5 billion) in

2008. Currently, at least 17 firms are known to produce PRCBs in the United States. U.S. producers’

U.S. shipments of PRCBs totaled 65 billion PRCBs ($983 million) in 2008, and accounted for 64.2

percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 66.1 percent by value. U.S. imports from subject

sources totaled approximately 15 billion PRCBs ($186 million) in 2008 and accounted for 14.4 percent of

apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 12.5 percent by value. U.S. imports from nonsubject

countries also subject to antidumping duties3

 totaled approximately 19 billion PRCBs ($255 million) in

2008 and accounted for 18.6 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 17.2 percent by value. 

U.S. imports from other nonsubject sources totaled approximately 3 billion PRCBs ($63 million) in 2008

and accounted for 2.9 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 4.2 percent by value.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigations on all PRCBs is presented in appendix C, table

C-1, a summary of data collected in the investigations specifically on high-end PRCBs is presented in

appendix C, table C-2, a summary of data collected in the investigations excluding data from U.S.

producer Inteplast is presented in appendix C, table C-3,4

 and a summary of data collected in the

investigations incorporating late submissions received from importer Wal-Mart is presented in appendix

C, table C-4. Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 13 firms that

accounted for nearly 100 percent of U.S. production of PRCBs during 2008.5

 U.S. imports are based on

official import statistics of Commerce.

 3 China, Malaysia, and Thailand. 

 4

 Petitioners contend that Inteplast should be excluded from the domestic industry under the related parties

provision. Petitioners’ prehearing brief, pp. 17-21.

 5

 Thirteen U.S. producers of PRCBs provided useable questionnaire responses during this phase of the

investigations. Based upon preliminary phase questionnaire data, two companies not providing responses during the

final phase, *** and ***, collectively represented less than *** percent of U.S. PRCB production in 2008.

I-3
PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

PRCBs have been the subject of prior antidumping duty investigations in the United States. In

2004, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason

of imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand that were found by Commerce to be sold in the

United States at less than fair value. Those orders are currently the subject of 5-year sunset reviews.6

Hilex and Superbag, the two petitioners in these current investigations, were also petitioners in

the 2004 investigations.7

The product scope used in the prior investigations was the same as the scope used in the current

investigations involving Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam.8

 The ongoing 5-year reviews of the

antidumping duty order on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand also have the same product scope

as the current investigations.

In addition to the aforementioned Title VII investigations, Superbag filed a complaint in 2004

alleging infringement of one of the firm’s patents under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 related to

the importation into the United States, sale for importation, and/or sale within the United States after

importation of certain “T-styled” plastic grocery and retail bags. An administrative law judge of the

Commission found that a violation had occurred and recommended that the Commission issue a general

exclusion order on these bags.9

 Settlements and consent orders were entered into with some respondents,

and the Commission entered a general exclusion order against all other covered imports.10

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Subsidies

On April 1, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final determination

of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of PRCBs from Vietnam.11 Commerce found

the following five programs in Vietnam to be countervailable: Income Tax Preferences for Encouraged

Industries, Income Tax Preferences for FIEs, Land Rent Reduction or Exemption for Exporters, Import

Duty Exemptions for Raw Materials, and Exemption of Import Duties on Imports of Spare Parts and

Accessories for Industrial Zone Enterprises. Table I-1 presents Commerce’s final subsidy rates with

respect to countervailable subsidies of PRCBs from Vietnam.

 6 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 74 FR 54069, October 21, 2009. 

 7 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 69 FR 47957, August 6, 2004. Inteplast

Group, Ltd.; PCL Packaging, Inc.; and Vanguard Plastics, Inc. (purchased by Hilex in October 2005) were copetitioners with Hilex (the High Density Film Division of Sonoco Products Co., which was purchased by Hilex in

2003) and Superbag in the 2004 investigations.

 8

 Petition, p. 5.

 9 In the Matter of Certain Plastic Grocery and Retail Bags; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review

an Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Written Submissions on Remedy, the

Public Interest, and Bonding, 69 FR 31638, June 4, 2004.

 10 Petition, p. 3.

 11 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination, 75 FR 16428, April 1, 2010.

I-4
Table I-1

PRCBs: Commerce’s final countervailable subsidy rates with respect to imports from Vietnam

Entity

Final countervailable subsidy

rates (percent)

Advance Polybag Co., Ltd. 52.56

Chin Sheng Company, Ltd. 0.44 (de minimis)

Fotai Vietnam Enterprise Corp. and Fotai Enterprise Corp. 5.28

All others 5.28

Source: 75 FR 16428, April 1, 2010.

Sales at LTFV

On March 26, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final

determination of sales at LTFV with respect to imports of PRCBs from Taiwan.12 On April 1, 2010,

Commerce published notices in the Federal Register of its final determinations of sales at LTFV with

respect to imports from Indonesia13 and Vietnam.14 Tables I-2, I-3, and I-4 present Commerce’s dumping

margins with respect to imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, respectively.

Table I-2

PRCBs: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from

Indonesia

Producer/exporter Final dumping margins (percent)

P.T. Sido Bangun Indonesia 85.17

P.T. Super Exim Sari Ltd./P.T. Super

Makmur 69.64

All others 69.64

Source: 75 FR 16431, April 1, 2010.

 12 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 14569, March 26, 2010.

 13 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75

FR 16431, April 1, 2010.

 14 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 75 FR 16434, April 1, 2010.

I-5
Table I-3

PRCBs: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from Taiwan

Producer/exporter Final dumping margins (percent)

Ipsido Corporation 95.81

TCI Plastic Co., Ltd. 36.54

All others 36.54

Source: 75 FR 14569, March 26, 2010.

Table I-4

PRCBs: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from Vietnam

Producer/exporter

Final dumping

margins (percent)

Alpha Plastics (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. 52.30

Alta Company 52.30

Ampac Packaging Vietnam Ltd. 52.30

BITAHACO 52.30

Chin Sheng Co., Ltd. 52.30

Chung Va (Vietnam) Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. 52.30

Hanoi 27-7 Packaging Company Limited, aka Hanoi 27-7 Packing Company

Limited, aka HAPACK Co., Ltd., aka HAPACK 52.30

Hoi Hung Company Limited/Kong Wai Polybag Printing Company 52.30

Kinsplastic Vietnam Ltd. Co. 52.30

Loc Cuong Trading Producing Company Limited, aka Loc Cuong Trading

Producing Company, aka Loc Cuong Trading Producing Co. Ltd. 52.30

Ontrue Plastics Co., Ltd. (Vietnam) 52.30

Richway Plastics Vietnam Co., Ltd. 52.30

RKW Lotus Limited Co., Ltd., aka RKW Lotus Limited, aka RKW Lotus Ltd. 52.30

VINAPACKINK Co., Ltd. 52.30

VN K’s International Polybags Joint Stock Company/K’s International Polybags

MFG Ltd. 52.30

VN Plastic Industries Co., Ltd. 52.30

Vietnam-wide entity 76.11

Source: 75 FR 16434, April 1, 2010.

I-6
THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

The merchandise subject to these investigations is polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs),

which also may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The

subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings),

without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of

polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035

inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches

(101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). 

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

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

restaurants to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of these

investigations excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are

closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in

consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying

merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.15

Tariff Treatment

PRCBs are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under

subheading 3923.21.00 and reported for statistical purposes under statistical reporting number

3923.21.0085. Table I-5 presents current ad valorem tariff rates for PRCBs. Imports of PRCBs from

Indonesia are eligible for duty-free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences, upon proper

importer claim, but are otherwise dutiable at the general rate. Imports of PRCBs from Taiwan and

Vietnam are dutiable at the general rate of 3 percent ad valorem.

 15 Ibid. 

I-7
Table I-5

PRCBs: Tariff rates, 2010

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2

Column

23

Rates (percent)

3923.21

3923.21.00

3923.21.0085

Sacks and bags (including cones):

 Of polymers of ethylene..............................................

 Polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) with 

 handles (including drawstrings), with no length 

 or width shorter than 6 inches (152.4 mm) or 

 longer than 40 inches (1,016 mm)....................

 

3% Free (A*,

AU, BH,

CA, CL,

E, IL, J,

JO, MA,

MX, OM,

P, PE,

SG) (4

)

80%

 1 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate, applicable to Taiwan and Vietnam.

 2

 Imports from Indonesia are duty-free pursuant to the Generalized System of Preferences, upon proper importer claim, but are

otherwise dutiable at the general rate. Taiwan and Vietnam are not eligible for special rates of duty.

 3

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

 4

 General note 3(c)(i) defines the special duty program symbols enumerated in this column. 

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010).

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

PRCBs are non-sealable plastic sacks or bags of polyethylene with carrying handles, and are

intended to be dispensed free of charge to consumers by retail establishments in order to carry purchased

merchandise.16 PRCBs, whether domestically produced or imported, consist principally of FDAapproved high-density polyethylene (“HDPE”) resin films, low-density (“LDPE”) resin films, or

combinations thereof varying in size, shape, thickness, and strength characteristics depending on their

intended use,17 and may contain single or double-sided printing in single or multiple colors.18 19 PRCBs

produced in the United States generally carry a printed manufacturer’s identification or logo on the bag

surface along with a recycling symbol encouraging recycling and disclosing the predominate form of

plastic, #2 for HDPE and #4 for LDPE,20 while imported PRCBs usually carry the recycling symbol but

not necessarily the producer logo or country-of-origin identification.21 All PRCBs, domestically

produced and imported, are equipped with carrying handles of various types (including drawstrings)

ranging from die-cut handles formed in the bag surface to applied handles of various types, and may be

designed with side or bottom pleats (gussets), square bottoms, or bottom and side seals depending upon

the intended use.22 

 16 Information in this paragraph is from the petition unless otherwise noted.

 17 Transcript of the April 21, 2009 conference in the preliminary phase of these investigations (“conference

transcript”), p. 78 (Daniels).

 18 Petitioners’ postconference brief, Petitioners’ Responses to Questions from Staff, pp. 5-6. 

 19 ***. 

 20 Staff examination of samples exhibited during the conference in the preliminary phase of the investigations.

 21 Conference transcript, pp. 16-17 (Bazbaz) and p. 33 (Rizzo).

 22 Ibid., pp. 37-38 (Halimi), together with examination of samples exhibited during the conference.

I-8
PRCBs are generally dispensed free of charge to customers by a wide range of retail outlets,

including grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, and discount stores, together with

restaurants.23 T-shirt bags (which derive their name from the fact that they resemble sleeveless

undershirts that have two straps that rest on the shoulders) are the highest-volume type of PRCBs24

dispensed in a wide variety of retail outlets. Such PRCBs range from so-called low-end thin-walled

HDPE bags found in grocery and many other stores, to larger and thicker t-shirt bags found in department

stores.25 T-shirt merchandise bags may also be made of softer, glossier, and more puncture-resistant

LDPE resins, especially linear low-density polyethylene (“LLDPE”).26 In contrast, so-called higher-end

bags of either HDPE, LDPE, or LLDPE range from medium-scale die cut bags of various configurations

dispensed at restaurant and merchandise outlets to higher-scale die-cut, drawstring, and soft loop handle

shopping bags found in more fashionable chain and upscale department stores. Other upscale bags 

contain detailed high quality multicolored printing and graphics, complete with attached soft loop or

trifold handles, flat bottoms and the like, and are typically dispensed to customers in boutiques and other

specialty stores. According to petitioners, the full range of bags is reportedly produced in both the United

States and the subject countries.27

Manufacturing Process

The process for manufacturing PRCBs is generally the same everywhere in the world. It is

basically a four-step process consisting of (1) blending polyethylene resin pellets, color concentrates, and

other additives; (2) extrusion and film forming; (3) printing; and (4) bag conversion.28 In the United 

States, producers run high-volume plants on a 24/7 basis when in operation, due to the capital intensive

and competitive nature of the business. The major costs are ***.29

The following diagram illustrates the fundamentals of the typical blown film extrusion process

employed by PRCB producers worldwide.

 23 Petition, p. 5.

 24 Conference transcript, pp. 83-84 (Dorn).

 25 Ibid., p. 37 (Halimi), together with examination of samples exhibited during the conference.

 26 Conference transcript, p. 77 (Daniels), together with examination of samples exhibited during the conference.

 27 Conference transcript, p. 15 (Dorn).

 28 Ibid., pp. 15-16 (Bazbaz), and ***.

 29 ***.

I-9
Figure I-1

PRCBs: Typical production process

Source: “10 Steps to Plastic Bags,” J.T. McWilliams, President, Multi-Pak USA, 2006, found at

http://www.multipakUSA.com (accessed April 2009).

In the process, a polyethylene resin blend is fed to a screw extruder or a series of coextruders

where the plastic mix is formed into a homogeneous molten mixture. After exiting the extruder, the

plastic melt is forced through an annual (circular) die and air-blown into a large cylindrical film bubble of

the desired thickness and diameter. The plastic film bubble cools and solidifies as it continues to rise, and

upon reaching the desired thickness at the top of the cooling tower, the bubble is collapsed and formed

into a two-sided plastic film up to 6 feet or more in width. On the way down to ground level, the plastic

film sheet runs through rollers, which smooth it out, before being fed onto large spools where several

thousand pounds of film can be wound. The film is now ready to be sent through the printing and bag

conversion processes. Extrusion and bag conversion in the United States are generally separate

continuous automated processes employing different equipment and usually a selected set of trained

employees.30

In the bag conversion section, a continuous run of wide film sheet is first surface-treated to better

accept ink, and then fed into a flexographic ink printing press where the sheet is printed on one or both 

sides in up to eight colors in multiple parallel sets of the desired logos and identification, depending upon

how many individual bags are to be produced. The flexographic printing process employed in the United

States is an environmentally friendly water-based system which eliminates undesirable toxic volatile

organic compound (VOC) emissions into the atmosphere, whereas certain subject country producers of

imported bags can employ the organic solvent-based rotogravure printing process, which they claim

produces superior print quality.31 32 The printed film roll next proceeds in a continuous fashion to a

 30 ***.

 31 Conference transcript, p. 119 (Gitlin).

 32 According to questionnaire responses, all U.S. producers of PRCBs with the exception of *** use only the

flexographic printing process. *** reported using the rotogravure process in addition to the flexographic process. 

Regarding the type of ink used, all U.S. producers with the exception of *** reported using only water-based inks in

(continued...)

I-10
slitter sealer which cuts and seals the wide film strips into a selected number of individual bag sections. If

the film is to have side or bottom pleats (gussets), the parallel sections of individual bag film pass though

gusseting equipment to form the pleats. Following this operation, a handle of the desired configuration is

either die cut into or attached to the bag film to complete the bag conversion process.33 High volume tshirt or die-cut bags are typically boxed in quantities of 500 to 2,000 bags by an operator at the end of the

line. Most scrap is recycled, and following bag inspection the boxes are loaded onto pallets, warehoused,

and shipped, usually by truck in the United States.34 35 The international standard units of measurement

for bag film thickness are generally expressed in terms of microns (one-millionth of a meter) or mils

(0.001 inches).36 One mil is equal to 25.4 microns.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6) price. Information regarding these factors is

discussed below.

During the preliminary phase of the investigations on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam, the Commission defined a single domestic like product coextensive with the scope of these

investigations.37 The Commission cited “a lack of sufficient evidence on the record of the preliminary

phase investigations demonstrating a clear dividing line separating high-end PRCBs from other types of

PRCBs on the continuum of PRCB products.”38 Counsel on behalf of certain producers of PRCBs in

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and certain U.S. importers had contended at the conference and in their 

postconference brief that the Commission should find two distinct domestic like products in these

investigations: (1) custom-made high-end shopping bags39 and (2) low-end commodity type t-shirt bags

and medium end die-cut handle bags and drawstring bags.40 41 The definition of high-end PRCBs was

modified at the beginning of the final phase investigations to reflect suggestions made by the same

 32 (...continued)

production of PRCBs; *** producers use solvent-based inks. 

 33 ***. 

 34 ***.

 35 ***. 

 36 Conference transcript, p. 83 (Daniels).

 37 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA1156-1158 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4080, May 2009, p. 4. 

 38 Ibid, p. 10. 

 39 Custom-made high-end shopping bags were defined by the respondents as polyethylene retail carrier bags that

“are made from thick gauge polyethylene of at least 2.25 mil, going up to 3 or 4 mil, making them reusable items. 

High end shopping bags also incorporate value added materials such as cardboard inserts, handles of various

materials, and plastic or metal grommets, all of which must be applied by hand.” Postconference brief of Garvey

Schubert Barer, p. 3.

 40 Low-end commodity type t-shirt bags and medium end die-cut handle bags and drawstring bags were defined

by the respondents as “all disposable, designed for the single time use of carrying merchandise home from the store. 

They are made from thin gauge polyethylene. T-shirt bags are made from the thinnest possible polyethylene. Die

cut and draw string bags are made from a heavier gauge of polyethylene, but are still too thin to be considered a

reusable plastic bag.” Ibid.

 41 E.g., conference transcript, pp. 116-124 (Gitlin).

I-11
respondents during the process of drafting questionnaires.42 This revised definition did not cite

differences in gauge (thickness) as a means for differentiating low-end and high-end PRCBs, as was the

case during the preliminary phase investigations.43 Instead, the high-end PRCB definition that was

included in the final phase questionnaires is as follows:

“Custom-made high-end shopping bags that incorporate value added

materials such as cardboard inserts (top or bottom) and/or manually

applied handles of various material (i.e., rope handle, rope drawstring,

ribbon handle, tri-fold handle, rigid plastic molded handle), and plastic or

metal grommets.”

At the hearing in the final phase investigations, respondents stated that for the purposes of the

current investigations they were no longer contesting the Commission’s definition of the domestic like

product as it was determined in the preliminary phase investigations and in the related review

investigations.44 Petitioners have contended that all PRCBs constitute a single domestic like product,

coextensive with the scope of the investigations,45 as was found by the Commission in the preliminary

phase of these investigations and the final phase of the investigations of PRCBs from China, Malaysia,

and Thailand in 2004.46 Petitioners also maintained during the preliminary phase investigations that

nothing had changed since the 2004 investigations that would warrant the Commission’s adoption of a

different like product definition in these investigations.47

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Petitioners note that all PRCBs are made of polyethylene film, whether high-density, low-density,

and/or linear low-density, and that the end uses for all PRCBs are the same, i.e., to package and carry

goods from retail establishments. In addition, they note, all such bags are given away for free.48

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, respondents asserted that high-end shopping bags

are different from t-shirt bags and medium-end die-cut handle bags and drawstring bags in that they

incorporate value-added materials such as cardboard or hard plastic bottoms and tops, applied handles

made of either hard plastic, rope, ribbon or paper, and hard plastic or metal grommets and fasteners.49

High-end shopping bags also reportedly possess high-register full-color graphics, with some covering

100-percent of the bag, including side gussets. According to respondents in the preliminary phase, highend bags are viewed by customers as more attractive and decorative, serving as a walking billboard for

establishments such as high-end specialty or boutique retailers.50 High-end PRCBs are not good

candidates for recycling, respondents claimed, because such bags are constructed of non-recyclable

 42 However, on February 10, 2010, counsel for these respondents withdrew its notice of appearance in the

investigations.

 43 Respondents’ comments on draft final phase questionnaires, attachment 1, p. 1.

 44 Transcript of the Commission’s March 15, 2010 hearing (“hearing transcript”), p. 11, pp. 186-187 (Lee).

 45 Petitioners’ comments on draft final phase questionnaires, p. 2.

 46 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 5.

 47 Conference transcript, p. 8 (Dorn).

 48 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 5.

 49 Resondents’ postconference brief, p. 3.

 50 Ibid., p. 7.

I-12
materials, including affixed cardboard, hard plastic, rope, fabric, and metal, although consumers tend to

reuse them.51 By contrast, t-shirt, die-cut, and drawstring bags are either quickly discarded or recycled. 

Respondents in the preliminary phase of these investigations claimed that nearly all t-shirt bags

and die-cut bags are reportedly less than 1 mil in thickness, whereas high-end shopping bags

incorporating manually-applied materials are often of a thicker gauge.52 53 According to those

respondents, die-cut merchandise bags and drawstring bags are generally made in thicknesses of 1 mil (25

microns).54 Consequently, respondents contended, t-shirt bags reportedly use either exclusively highdensity polyethylene or a mixture using very high percentages of high-density polyethylene in order for

the maximum strength needed for the bags to hold the weight of a bag of groceries.55

The Commission determined during the preliminary phase investigations that:

“All PRCBs share the same general physical characteristics and uses. 

All are made from polyethylene film and have handles, and all are

provided by retailers to their customers free of charge to package and

carry goods from retail establishments.”56

Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees

Several domestic producers claim to produce higher-end PRCBs, but ***, ***, has indicated that

it produces high-end PRCBs as defined in the Commission’s questionnaire.57 58 Petitioners contend that

the raw materials, production processes, and equipment used to make PRCBs are essentially the same for

all types of PRCBs.59 For example, U.S. producer Command uses the same extrusion and printing

equipment to produce all of its t-shirt bags and higher-end bags.60 Hilex’s film extrusion and printing

equipment can be used to make die-cut merchandise bags, bottom gusset merchandise bags with side

seals, and header merchandise bags, while Command’s extrusion equipment and printing equipment are

used to make all of its ten PRCB product types. Command’s converting equipment is product-specific,

but its employees are trained to work on any of the converting lines.61 In addition to producing higherend t-shirt bags, Command reported that it was a major U.S. producer of other higher-end PRCBs,

including wave bags, high trundle bags, and soft knit bags. There is reportedly a significant overlap in

 51 Ibid., p. 8.

 52 Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 4 and 6, and conference transcript, p. 118 (Gitlin).

 53 Respondents’ comments on draft final phase questionnaires, attachment 1, p. 1.

 54 Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 6-7.

 55 Ibid., p. 7.

 56 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA1156-1158 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4080, May 2009, p. 6.

 57 *** producer questionnaire response, section II-14-A. *** has not exceeded *** dollars in commercial sales of

high-end PRCBs in any one year during the period for which data were collected. The product is described as a ***. 

E-mail from ***, January 28, 2010. 

 58 One other company, ***, was initially believed to produce high-end PRCBs based upon pricing data provided

in their questionnaire response. This company subsequently confirmed that it does not in fact produce high-end

PRCBs. E-mail from ***, February 26, 2010.

 59 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 7.

 60 Ibid., p. 7, and conference transcript, pp. 38-39 (Halimi) and ***.

 61 Petitioners’ postconference brief, Petitioners’ Responses to Questions from Staff, p. 6.

I-13
the equipment and employees that Command uses to make higher-end PRCBs and PRCBs other than

higher-end.62 

Petitioners also state that there is no PRCB production technology that is unique to the subject

countries; the very same type of equipment used there is also used by companies in the United States. If

necessary, they note, a bag producer can contract out the printing of the rolls of film to companies that

specialize in printing, in order to achieve any desired level of print quality.63

Respondents in the preliminary phase of these investigations argued that t-shirt bags, die-cut

bags, and drawstring bags are commodity products that are produced in huge production runs on capitalintensive, fully automated machinery, with no manual labor involved.64 In contrast, they argued that

high-end shopping bags, by definition, require manual labor or the incorporation of value-added materials

such as cardboard inserts that are only known to be incorporated using manual labor. In their prehearing

brief, respondents claim that there are two distinct sets of U.S. producers, those using their facilities to

produce t-shirt bags and those producing all other PRCBs.65 

In the preliminary phase investigations, the Commission found that:

“All types of PRCBs are generally produced in the same facilities with the same

employees, but not necessarily with the same overall production processes. 

While the first three steps of the four-step PRCB production process . . . are

shared by all types of PRCBs, the last production step, conversion, differs

according to the type of PRCB being produced.”66

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

Petitioners view PRCBs as a continuum of domestic like products, from lower-end t-shirt bags to

the medium-end t-shirt and die-cut merchandise bags to the high-end bag categories.67 Respondents in the

preliminary phase of these investigations contended that because high-end shopping bags and PRCBs

other than high-end are so vastly different, they are not interchangeable in the marketplace.68 They stated

that retail high-end shopping bags not only convey the merchandise to purchasers, but also serve as

advertising vehicles for brands or names.69 High-end shopping bags reportedly are “reusable,” providing

customers with the latitude to use them in other ways, e.g., providing a gift bag for a friend or the

carrying of shoes and lunch between home and the workplace.70 Further data regarding customer 

perceptions can be found in Part II of this report, entitled “Conditions of Competition in the U.S. Market.”

 The Commission stated in the 2004 final phase investigations that:

 62 Conference transcript, p. 38 (Halimi).

 63 Petitioners’ postconference brief, Petitioners’ Responses to Staff Questions, p. 5.

 64 Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 10-11.

 65 Respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 4-5.

 66 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA1156-1158 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4080, May 2009, p. 8.

 67 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 6.

 68 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 8, and conference transcript, p. 122 (Gitlin).

 69 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 10.

 70 Conference transcript, p. 154 (Levinson).

I-14
“Most responding purchasers reported that high-end and low-end PRCBs have the same

uses (both are handed out at the point of purchase) and are interchangeable if size and

gauge are comparable. Most purchasers also reported that there is no clear distinction

between high-end and low-end PRCBs. However, some purchasers noted differences

between high-end and low-end PRCBs with respect to customer perceptions, physical

characteristics, and price.”71

Channels of Distribution

Petitioners contend that all PRCBs are sold through the same channels of distribution, whether

directly to retail establishments or indirectly to retail establishments through distributors.72 In the

preliminary phase of these investigations, respondents reported that t-shirt bags, die-cut bags, and

drawstring bags are commodity products sold in large quantities directly to grocery store chains,

drugstore chains, mass merchandisers, and box store chains, and a significant share may be sold through

internet sales and reverse auctions. Respondents claimed that no high-end bags are sold via internet or

reverse auctions. According to them, high-end shopping bags are for “mom and pop” stores, retailers like

individual boutiques, or large upscale retailers. High-end shopping bags are also custom-made products 

and, they argued, are sold through packaging distributors and in much smaller quantities than other

PRCBs.73 In the preliminary phase investigations, the Commission found that “all types of PRCBs are

sold either directly to retailers or to distributors that ultimately sell the PRCBs to retailers.”74

 Information on the channels of distribution of domestically produced and imported PRCBs is

presented in Part II of this report, Conditions of Competition in the U.S. Market.

Price

Petitioners state that there is a broad price continuum for PRCBs, depending on factors such as

the blend of polyethylene film used, the thickness of such film, the design of the bag, the size of the bag,

the complexity of the print design, and the number of print colors used.75 

In the preliminary phase investigations, the Commission found that high-end PRCBs, as they

were defined in those investigations, had substantially higher average unit values than the prices of the

four pricing products for which data were collected, none of which were high-end PRCBs. On the other

hand, the Commission also found evidence that PRCBs exist on a broad price continuum, with high-end

PRCBs (as defined in the preliminary phase) not necessarily more expensive than other types of PRCBs.76

Pricing information obtained in the current investigations is presented in Part V of this report,

Pricing and Related Information. The Commission obtained pricing data on eight product categories of

PRCBs, two of which may be considered high-end PRCBs. The latter two product categories may

include features such as rope handles and/or cardboard bottoms that may or may not be manually applied. 

Domestic producers’ prices varied considerably among the eight categories for which pricing data were

 71 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final),

USITC Publication 3710, August 2004, p. 7.

 72 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 6.

 73 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 9.

 74 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA1156-1158 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4080, May 2009, p. 8.

 75 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 8.

 76 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA1156-1158 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4080, May 2009, p. 9.

I-15
obtained, but the two product categories which may be considered high-end PRCBs had the highest prices

of any product.

I-16
 1

 Hearing transcript, p. 21 (Bazbaz) and petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 25.

 2

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 25-26 and conference transcript, p. 31 (Rizzo).

 3

 Three purchasers indicated more than one category; for example, food retailer and other retailer.

 4

 Some purchasers did not provide data on their annual purchases, so these data are understated, and do not

include retailers’ direct imports of PRCBs.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Sales and distribution of PRCBs occur in a variety of ways, though most purchasers buy from a

domestic producer or a distributor. The market includes distributors of varying sizes that sell imported

and domestically produced PRCBs; these distributors may offer other packaging services (e.g., printing)

as well. Domestic producers also import or purchase PRCBs to complement their product offering. Some

large retailers import directly and also purchase from domestic producers. Some of these retailers, such

as *** and ***, have been among the largest importers of PRCBs since 2006. Mr. Bazbaz of Superbag

stated that some firms that both import and produce PRCBs, such as ***, use a blended sales program

wherein both domestic and imported bags are sold together at a single, averaged price.1

It is common for sales to be negotiated between producers and retailers, with producers actually

shipping the product to distributors, which then ship a bundle of items, including the PRCBs, to the end

user as needed.2

 The shares of shipments from producers and importers reported to go to distributors and

end users are presented in table II-1. 

PURCHASER CHARACTERISTICS

Purchaser questionnaires were sent to 112 purchasers of PRCBs identified by U.S. producers and

importers. Fifty-two purchasers responded to the purchaser questionnaire. Of the 52 purchasers, 19 firms

identified themselves as food retailers, 20 firms identified themselves as retailers of other products, 13

firms identified themselves as distributors of packaging suppliers, and 3 firms identified themselves as

distributors of food or other products.3

 

Responding purchasers reported purchases totaling 26.5 billion bags in 2008 ($434 million),

accounting for approximately 26.1 percent of the market during that year on a quantity basis (29.1 percent

on a value basis).4

 Fifteen purchasers buy PRCBs sourced from only one country, typically the United

States, and reported that they did so for reasons such as availability, lead time, pricing, quality control,

freight charges, service, and consistency of supply. Only 14 of 52 responding purchasers reported that

they had made significant changes to their purchasing patterns in the last three years. Such changes

included: changes in sourcing, increasing overall purchases, changes in purchasing frequency, using

reverse auctions, and a change in PRCB specifications. 

In addition to those firms that reported changing their general purchasing patterns, 23 purchasers

reported changes in the relative shares of PRCBs bought from different countries in the last three years. 

Nine firms reported decreasing their purchases of PRCBs from domestic producers (citing cost, quality,

ability to lock in a price, service, and supplier decision to source elsewhere), while eight firms reported an

increase in purchases from domestic sources (citing availability, domestic source, price, quality, and

shorter lead times). *** reported that it increased its domestic purchases relative to those from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam, because of quality and price. Two firms reported an increase in the share of

purchases from Indonesia, and two reported a decrease. Five firms reported a decrease in the share of

purchases from Taiwan, one reported an increase, one firm reported that its purchases increased 
II-2

Table II-1

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs, by sources and channels of

distribution, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

Item 2006 2007 2008

Jan.-Sept.

2008

Jan.-Sept.

2009

Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs to:

 Distributors 29.6 27.5 28.7 27.6 43.0

 End users 70.4 72.5 71.3 72.4 57.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs from:

Indonesia:

 Distributors 28.2 30.6 17.2 43.0 31.6

 End users 71.8 69.4 82.8 57.0 68.4

Taiwan:

 Distributors 33.2 44.8 34.7 37.1 41.4

 End users 66.8 55.2 65.3 62.9 58.6

Vietnam:

 Distributors 49.5 55.0 53.2 52.6 36.8

 End users 50.5 45.0 46.8 47.4 63.2

Note.–Data for domestic producers include only U.S. commercial shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

prior to 2009 then decreased, and one reported both increases and decreases based on resin prices. Seven

firms reported a decrease in the share of purchases from Vietnam, four reported an increase, and one

reported an increase until March 2009 when it stopped purchasing from Vietnam. With respect to PRCBs

from nonsubject countries, three firms reported increased purchases from China while one firm reported

decreased purchases from China; three firms reported decreased purchases from Thailand while two firms

reported increased purchases from Thailand; two firms reported decreased purchases from Malaysia; one

firm each reported increased purchases from Cambodia and Germany; and one firm reported decreased

purchases from the Philippines.

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

To serve the various categories of customers, PRCBs come in a variety of types, such as t-shirt

bags, die-cut handle bags, wave handle bags, patch handle bags, drawstring style bags, flat-bottom loop

handle bags, and a number of others. Differences in dimensions and printing further differentiate PRCBs. 

Imported high-end bags typically are printed using a solvent-based rotogravure process which reportedly

yields a higher-quality print job than the water-based flexographic printing typically found
 5

 Conference transcript, pp. 119 and 162 (Gitlin). At the conference, references to high-end bags were made with

regard to bags that are 2.25 mils or greater in thickness.

 6

 To a certain extent, many PRCBs function as advertising for retail establishments. See, e.g., conference

transcript, p. 190 (Dorn). However, high-end bags such as square-bottomed bags may be easier to read than t-shirt

bags because the thicker polyethylene film of high-end bags does not bunch up when carrying an item, whereas the

film in t-shirt bags bunches up and makes reading the store name or logo difficult. Respondents’ joint

postconference brief, p. 10. Also, respondents contend, “High-end bags are a piece of artwork that express the

image and the wishes of the retailer.” Conference transcript, p. 122 (Gitlin). 

 7

 Conference transcript, p. 31 (Rizzo).

 8

 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 9.

 9

 Conference transcript, pp. 122-123 (Gitlin).

 10 Responses of four purchasers that did not check off either the “yes” nor the “no” box to the first part of the

question asking about “bagvertising” were assumed to be “yes,” since they then indicated in their answers to the

second part of the question that “bagvertising” was somewhat important in determining the type of PRCBs they use.

II-3

among domestic producers of PRCBs.5

 So-called high-end bags may have printing that serves as a form

of advertising6

 for the firm (a.k.a. “bagvertising”). 

Petitioners contend that large portions of both the subject imports and the domestic like product

are shipped to distributors that warehouse them and then ship them to retailers along with other items

such as register tape.7

 Respondents in the preliminary phase of these investigations contended that this is

the case for t-shirt style bags sold through food service distributors to smaller stores, but often t-shirt style

bags are also sold directly to mass-market retailers, grocers, drug stores, and big box chain stores. Highend PRCBs, they claimed, are sold through packaging distributors which also sell other packaging

products such as tissue paper and ribbons.8

 Further, it was reported that high-end PRCBs used to be sold

through different channels of distribution than PRCBs other than high-end, but now food service and

retail packaging distributors have begun to sell high-end PRCBs.9

Most responding purchasers reported that they do not purchase high-end PRCBs; however, 11 of

52 responding purchasers reported purchasing high-end PRCBs and three of the 11 purchased only highend PRCBs. Purchasers were also asked to indicate the characteristics they believe to be consistent with

high-end PRCBs, and responses are shown in table II-2. Firms that purchased both high-end PRCBs and

other types of PRCBs were asked whether they request quotes for all types of PRCBs together. Responses

to this question were mixed: some firms said “yes,” while others said “no” or “sometimes;” one firm

stated that the suppliers of high-end PRCBs are not usually competitive on other PRCBs.

Thirty of 46 responding purchasers reported that they expect the PRCBs they provide to

customers to be reused in ways that might serve as “bagvertising.”10 When asked how important this is in

determining the type of PRCBs used, 13 firms indicated that it was “very important,” 14 indicated

“somewhat important,” and 2 indicated “not important.” Firms that indicated that the bagvertising value

was “very important” included clothing retailers that use high-end bags, as well as firms that use PRCBs

other than high-end such as ***. 

Retailers were asked how important it is that the PRCBs they purchase be of a quality that

enhances their store’s image, as opposed to simply enabling customers to carry their purchases out of the

store. In response to this question, 18 of 41 responding purchasers indicated it is “much more” important,

9 indicated “somewhat more,” 7 indicated “equally important,” 4 indicated “somewhat less,” 1 indicated

“much less,” and 2 replied it is “not at all important.”
 11 Conference transcript, p. 122 (Gitlin).

 12 Conference transcript, p. 112 (Perry). Data collected in the final phase of these investigations indicate that

high-end PRCBs, all of which appear to be imported, account for approximately 3 percent of the U.S. PRCB market.

 13 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 12-19.

II-4

Table II-2

PRCBs: Characteristics of high-end PRCBs, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Characteristic Number of firms reporting

Rope handles 30

Ribbon handles 28

Metal or plastic grommets 28

Rigid plastic molded handles 27

Rope drawstring 26

Cardboard inserts 26

Clipped rope ends 23

Tied rope ends 23

Six-color printing 20

String loop handle bags 20

Soft-loop handles 20

Drawstring-style bags 19

Tri-fold handles 17

Patch handle bags 14

Flat-bottom bags 13

Wave top bags 10

Die cut handle bags 7

T-shirt bags 6

Other 1 2

 1 One purchaser reported “side or bottom gusseted bags” and one reported “process printing.”

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

At the conference, respondents contended that the PRCBs produced by petitioners are commodity

t-shirt bags and that imported “high-end bags are a piece of artwork that express the image and the wishes

of the retailer out on the street”11 and account for about one percent of the U.S. PRCB market.12

Petitioners contend that t-shirt sacks or bags are commodity products that compete solely on the basis of

price.13
 14 One producer, ***, provided substantive answers to relatively few questions in its response to the

Commission’s producer’s questionnaire. Elsewhere in this report, tabulations of responses from producers only

make reference to its questionnaire response when an answer was provided.

 15 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 33-34. ***.

II-5

GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS

Nine U.S. producers reported selling PRCBs nationwide, whereas the other five reported that they

served regional markets.14 Twelve of 36 importers reported serving the national market, whereas the

remaining 24 reported serving regional markets as described further in table II-3.

Table II-3

PRCBs: Geographic market areas in the United States served by domestic producers and

importers of subject product

Region Producers Importers

National 9 12

Northeast 1 10

Midwest 4 10

Southeast 3 4

Central Southwest 5 5

Rocky Mountains 2 3

Pacific 2 12

Other 5 7

Note.–Fourteen producers and 36 importers responded to this question. Firms reporting serving all regions or all regions

except “other” were reported as selling nationally. Firms were not limited to the number of market areas that they could

report.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

Thirteen producers of PRCBs responded substantively to the Commission’s questionnaire. The

largest producer is ***, which accounted for *** percent of sales of domestically produced PRCBs in

2008 on a quantity basis. Petitioners reported that Hilex closed three facilities in California, North

Carolina, and Texas since the start of 2007, and Europackaging, LLC (“Europackaging”) has closed its

domestic operations.15 In addition, 8 of 13 U.S. producers reported that they imported PRCBs during the

period of investigation. Representatives of the three producers appearing at the preliminary conference

reported that their imports of PRCBs were due in part to not having the right equipment to make a certain
 16 Conference transcript, pp. 67-69 (Bazbaz, Daniels, and Halimi) and hearing transcript, pp. 97-98 (Bazbaz and

Daniels).

 17 Conference transcript, p. 105 (Daniels). In addition, Mr. Daniels reported that he believes Hilex does not make

any unprinted bags. Ibid. Petitioners estimated that generic bags account for *** percent of the market. Petitioners

posthearing brief, responses to Commission questions, p. 5. In general, respondents also agree that the generic bags

are a small portion of the market. Hearing transcript, pp. 174-175 (Lee).

II-6

size bag, and representatives of the two producers appearing at the hearing reported importing lightweight bags enables their equipment to produce bags of thicker plastic which yield a higher return.16

Domestic Production

Based on available information, U.S. producers have the ability to respond to changes in demand

with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced PRCBs to the U.S. market. The

main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of

unused capacity and the existence of some production alternatives; however, responsiveness is

constrained by small levels of interchangeable inventories and small levels of export shipments.

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ reported capacity utilization decreased unevenly, increasing from 84.4 percent in

2006 to 86.9 percent in 2007 before decreasing to 83.1 percent in 2008, and 76.5 percent in interim 2009

compared with 83.8 percent in interim 2008 (see table III-2). Accordingly, U.S. producers have some

excess capacity with which they could increase production of PRCBs.

Alternative markets

U.S. producers’ export shipments as a percent of total shipments increased from 3.2 percent in

2006 to 3.3 percent in 2007 and 2008 but were lower in January-September 2009 (2.7 percent) than in

January-September 2009 (3.2 percent) (see table III-3). This level of exports during the period indicates

that domestic producers are somewhat constrained in their ability to shift shipments between the United

States and other markets in response to price changes.

Inventory levels

In general, domestic producers do not keep more inventory on hand than is being prepared for

shipment. PRCBs are most often printed with company-specific names or logos, rather than being

generic “thank you”-type bags.17 As such, inventories held by producers tend to be relatively low and can

rarely be switched from one customer to another. U.S. producers’ inventories, as a ratio to total

shipments, decreased from 5.5 percent in 2006 and 2007 to 4.4 percent in 2008, and were 4.9 percent in

interim 2009 compared with 7.8 percent in interim 2008 (see table III-4). These data indicate that U.S.

producers are constrained in their ability to use inventories to increase shipments to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Five of the 14 responding producers reported that they produce other products using the same

equipment, machinery, and/or production and related workers that they use to produce PRCBs. 

Alternative products include: envelopes, food bags, garbage bags, industrial bags, custom LDPE bags,

non-PRCB merchandise bags, security bags, specialty film, and wickets.
 18 Data on industries in foreign countries is understated, since not all foreign producers and exporters responded

to the Commission’s questionnaire.

 19 These data are based on imports under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085.

 20 Petition, exhs. II-4, II-5, and II-6.

 21 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 38-43.

 22 As noted in Part VII of this report, these three firms accounted for *** percent of production of PRCBs in

Indonesia and *** percent of exports of PRCBs from Indonesia to the United States.

 23 The United States is Indonesia’s second-largest trading partner under HTS subheading 3923.21, which includes

sacks and bags of polymers of ethylene, some of which are nonsubject bags. Whereas Indonesia’s exports to the

United States under HTS subheading 3923.21 decreased from 20.8 million kg to 9.8 million kg over 2006-08,

Indonesia’s exports to Japan increased from 29.0 million kg to 31.7 million kg, and now account for 51.3 percent of

Indonesia’s total exports under this broader HTS subheading. The next-largest destination for Indonesia’s exports

under this HTS subheading is the United Kingdom, which accounted for just over half of what Indonesia exported to

the United States. Global Trade Atlas.

II-7

Foreign Supply18

Seven countries supplied 94.0 percent of the quantity of imported PRCBs in 2008: Thailand,

Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Canada, in descending order.19 Since 2004,

companies in Thailand, China, and Malaysia have been subject to antidumping duty orders in the United

States, which are currently being reviewed.

The quantity of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam increased by 114.9

percent (7.8 billion bags) between 2006 and 2007, then decreased by 0.6 percent in 2008, and were 13.5

percent lower in the first three quarters of 2009 compared with the same time period in 2008 (see table C1). Petitioners estimated that there are 90 manufacturers and exporters of PRCBs in Indonesia, Taiwan,

and Vietnam combined,20 and allege that many of these companies have been increasing their capacity,

have excess capacity, and are export-oriented.21

Indonesia

Industry Capacity--According to three foreign producer questionnaire responses received from

Indonesian producers in the final phase of these investigations, reported capacity in Indonesia increased

between 2006 and 2008 from *** billion bags to *** billion bags in 2007, was *** billion bags in 2008,

and was *** lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008 (*** billion bags in interim 2008 and *** billion

bags in interim 2009).22 Production decreased from 2006 to 2008 (from *** billion bags to *** billion

bags), and was lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008 (*** billion bags compared with *** billion

bags). Capacity utilization also decreased, from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008 and was

lower in interim 2009 (*** percent) than in interim 2008 (*** percent).

Alternative Markets--Indonesian producers’ reported shipments of PRCBs exported to the United

States, as a share of their total shipments, decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent

in 2008, and was lower in the first three quarters of 2009 (*** percent) than in the first three quarters of

2008 (*** percent).23 Principal alternative export markets identified by Indonesian producers and

exporters in the preliminary and final phases of these investigations include Africa, Canada, Denmark, the

EU, Hong Kong, Japan, the Middle East, the Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and the

United Kingdom. 
 24 As noted in Part VII of this report, these four firms accounted for *** percent of production of PRCBs in

Taiwan and *** percent of exports of PRCBs from Taiwan to the United States.

 25 The United States is Taiwan’s largest destination for exports classified under HTS subheading 3923.21, a

“basket” category including nonsubject bags, and was the destination for 80.2 percent of Taiwan’s exports in 2008. 

Taiwan’s exports to the United States under HTS subheading 3923.21 increased from 29.1 million kg to 38.0 million

kg over 2006-08, and increased the United States’ share from 70.3 in 2006 to 80.2 percent in 2008. The only other

large export market for Taiwan’s exports under this HTS subheading is Japan, which accounted for 16.8 percent of

Taiwan’s exports in 2008. Global Trade Atlas.

II-8

Inventory Levels--U.S. importers’ inventories of Indonesian PRCBs, as a ratio to their U.S.

shipments of PRCBs from Indonesia, increased irregularly from *** percent at the end of 2006 to ***

percent at the end of 2008, but were lower at the end of September 2009 (*** percent) than at the

end of September 2008 (*** percent). Inventories of PRCBs maintained by foreign producers and

exporters in Indonesia increased irregularly from *** percent of total shipments at the end of 2006 to ***

percent at the end of 2008, but were *** lower at the end of interim 2009 (*** percent) than at the end of

interim 2008 (*** percent).

Taiwan

Industry Capacity--According to three foreign producer questionnaire responses and one exporter

questionnaire response received by the Commission, reported capacity in Taiwan increased between 2006

and 2008, from *** billion bags to *** billion bags. Capacity was *** higher in interim 2009 than in

interim 2008, however (*** billion bags).24 Reported production increased *** from 2006 to 2008, from

*** billion bags to *** billion bags; production was *** in interim 2009 as in interim 2008 (*** billion

bags). Capacity utilization decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in

2008, but was *** in January-September 2009 (*** percent) as it was in January-September 2008 (***

percent).

Alternative Markets–The Taiwan producers’ and exporter’s reported shipments of PRCBs

exported to the United States, as a share of their total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2006 to

*** percent in 2008, and was higher in interim 2009 (*** percent) than in interim 2008 (*** percent). 

The share of shipments exported to alternative markets increased irregularly, from *** percent in 2006 to

*** percent in 2007 before declining to *** percent in 2008. It was lower in interim 2009 (*** percent)

than in interim 2008 (*** percent) as well.25 The responding Taiwan producers and exporter did not

identify their principal alternative export markets.

Inventory Levels–U.S. importers’ inventories of Taiwan PRCBs, as a ratio to their U.S.

shipments of PRCBs from Taiwan, decreased irregularly from *** percent at the end of 2006 to ***

percent at the end of 2008, and were higher at the end of September 2009 (*** percent) than at the end of

September 2008 (*** percent). Inventories of PRCBs maintained by foreign producers and exporters in

Taiwan as a share of total shipments increased irregularly from *** percent at the end of 2006 to ***

percent at the end of 2008, and were higher at the end of interim 2009 (*** percent) than at the end of

interim 2008 (*** percent).
 26 As noted in Part VII of this report, these seven firms accounted for *** percent of production of PRCBs in

Vietnam and *** percent of exports of PRCBs from Vietnam to the United States.

II-9

Vietnam

Industry Capacity--According to seven foreign producer questionnaire responses received from

Vietnamese producers in the final phase of these investigations, reported capacity in Vietnam increased

between 2006 and 2008, from *** billion bags in 2006 to *** billion bags in 2007 and to *** billion bags

in 2008.26 In addition, capacity was *** higher in the first three quarters of 2009 (*** billion bags) than

in the first three quarters of 2008 (*** billion bags). Production increased irregularly from 2006 to 2008

(from *** billion bags to *** billion bags), though production was lower in interim 2009 than in interim

2008 (*** billion bags, down from *** billion bags). Capacity utilization increased from *** percent in

2006 to *** percent in 2007 and to *** percent in 2008, but capacity utilization was lower in interim

2009 (*** percent) than in interim 2008 (*** percent).

Alternative Markets--Vietnamese producers’ shipments of PRCBs exported to the United States,

as a share of their total shipments, decreased irregularly, increasing from *** percent in 2006 to ***

percent in 2007 before decreasing to *** percent in 2008. This ratio was also lower in January -

September 2009 (*** percent) than in January -September 2008 (*** percent). Home market shipments

were ***. Principal alternative export markets identified by Vietnamese producers and exporters include

Australia, the EU, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, the Netherlands, Panama, South America, and the United

Kingdom. 

Inventory Levels--U.S. importers’ inventories of Vietnamese PRCBs, as a ratio to their U.S.

shipments of PRCBs from Vietnam, increased from *** percent at the end of 2006 to *** percent at the

end of 2008, but were lower at the end of September 2009 (*** percent) than at the end of September

2008 (*** percent). Inventories of PRCBs maintained by foreign producers and exporters in Vietnam as

a share of total shipments decreased from *** percent at the end of 2006 to *** percent at the end of

2008, and were even lower (*** percent) at the end of interim 2009 than at the end of interim 2008 (***

percent).

Nonsubject Imports

Thailand, China, and Malaysia, nonsubject countries subject to antidumping orders, were the first,

second, and fourth largest sources of imports of PRCBs, respectively, during 2006-08, on a quantity basis,

accounting for approximately 56 percent of the quantity of U.S. imports during that period. Imports from

these countries decreased by 44.6 percent (13.0 billion bags) between 2006 and 2007, with 85.9 percent

of the decrease attributable to a drop in imports from Thailand, and then increased by 16.9 percent (2.7

billion bags) between 2007 and 2008.

General Supply Conditions

When asked if there had been any changes in the product range or marketing of PRCBs, 12 of the

13 responding producers and the 27 of the 32 responding importers reported that there have not been any

significant changes. Producer *** noted that there has been a movement away from patch handle bags

towards wave top bags and an increased use of online auctions. Of the five importers reporting changes,
 27 One firm reported both more recycling and increased biodegradable bags.

 28 Respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 8 and 11. 

 29 Ibid., p. 11.

 30 Hearing transcript, pp. 94-95 (Dorn) and 96 (Bazbaz).

 31 Hearing transcript, pp. 97-98 (Bazbaz and Daniels).

 32 Conference transcript, p. 58 (Daniels).

 33 Petitioners’ postconference brief in the 2004 investigations on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, p.

23.

II-10

two reported changes in product selection, two reported that there had been a push towards recycling

PRCBs, and two importers reported that PRCBs are being changed so that they are more biodegradable.27

Respondents argue that the volume of subject imports that was imported by domestic producers

should be treated separately from that imported by other firms, because in their view, injury due to the

producers’ imports would be self-inflicted.28 Furthermore, respondents contend that Hilex was seeking

supply from Super Exim in Indonesia in April 2008.29 Petitioners respond that all subject imports are

injurious, regardless of which firm is importing the PRCBs, and note that some producer/importers such

as API maintain a blended sales program with prices averaged between the U.S. product’s price and the

imported product’s price.30 Mr. Bazbaz of producer Superbag testified that he imports a lightweight Tshirt bag that his firm could produce, but that it is more profitable to use the equipment he would employ

to produce these bags for bags of thicker plastic.31

Demand

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

Demand for PRCBs is derived primarily from retail and food service demand, as many retail and

food service firms provide PRCBs to their customers to carry home food and other merchandise. 

Petitioners stated that demand has not been hurt by the recent economic downturn, as people are still

shopping and needing PRCBs. In their view, consumers are simply shopping at lower-end stores like

Walmart more often.32 In the 2004 investigations, petitioners asserted that demand is dependent on

population growth, not the retail environment.33 From 2006 to 2008, however, apparent U.S.

consumption of PRCBs decreased by 6.3 percent in terms of quantity. 

Producers and importers were asked specifically how demand for PRCBs in the U.S. and

worldwide markets has changed since 2006. Nine of 13 responding producers and 12 of 26 responding

importers reported that U.S. demand decreased, 4 producers and 10 importers reported that demand was

unchanged, 2 importers reported that demand increased, and 2 importers reported that demand fluctuated. 

Five of 8 responding producers and 11 of 16 responding importers reported that demand outside the

United States was unchanged, while 3 producers and 5 importers reported that demand outside the United

States had decreased. 

Eight of the nine producers that explained why U.S. demand had decreased attributed the

decrease to the weakening economy. One of these producers also attributed the decline to increased use

of alternate types of bags, while another attributed the decline to pending or passed legislative actions

which may limit the use of PRCBs. Four producers explained why demand outside the United States had

decreased, with three firms attributing the decline to environmental concerns and two attributing it to the
 34 One producer reported that demand declined because of both environmental concerns and the economic

downturn.

 35 Hearing transcript, p. 100 (Rizzo).

 36 Domestic producers report that no state has banned PRCBs or required paper bags. Petitioners’ prehearing

brief, app. 1, p. 2.

 37 One of these reported that demand had also declined because of “consumer awareness.”

 38 One producer reported that non-PRCB bags were substitutes but did not report how common this substitution

was.

 39 One reported that paper bags were substitutes but did not report how common this substitution was. 

II-11

economic downturn.34 At the hearing, Petitioners noted that demand in the future looks, at best, stagnant,

if not marginally declining.35

 Importers attributed declining demand to environmental concerns (6 importers); the economic

recession (5 importers); increased use of alternative types of bags (4 importers); and the increased cost of

plastic bags and consumer perceptions (1 importer). In contrast, two importers reported that U.S. demand

had increased because of economic growth. *** reported that overall demand was unchanged since 2006,

despite the increased use of alternative/reusable bags. *** reported that demand had fluctuated,

increasing with the opening of new stores, but decreasing because some states required paper bags.36

Four importers explained why worldwide demand had declined, with two firms attributing it to the

economic downturn,37 one to environmental concerns, and one to increased regulation. 

Purchasers were asked how their firm’s sales in which they use PRCBs had changed since 2006. 

In response to this question, 23 purchasers reported that their sales increased, 7 reported that they

decreased, 6 reported no change, and 4 reported that they fluctuated. Most purchasers that reported an

increase in sales reported that their demand for PRCBs had also increased.

Substitute Products

Five of 11 responding producers, 16 of 22 responding importers, and 31 of 52 responding

purchasers reported that other products could be substituted for PRCBs. Purchasers listed the following

substitutes for PRCBs: paper bags (28 purchasers), reusable bags (17 purchasers), and boxes (3

purchasers). When asked if changes in the prices of substitute products affected the price for PRCBs, all

responding purchasers answered “no.”

Four of the 11 producers reported that paper bags were substitutes for PRCBs, with two reporting

that they were “frequently” substitutes and two reporting that they were sometimes substitutes.38 Two of

these producers also reported that reusable bags were either sometimes or rarely substitutes and one

reported that plastic bags without handles were sometimes substitutes. Thirteen of the 22 responding

importers reported that paper bags were substitutes for PRCBs, with three reporting that they were

“always” substitutes, two reporting that they were “frequently” substitutes, four reporting that they were

“sometimes” substitutes, and three reporting that they were “rarely” substitutes.39 Other substitutes

reported by importers included non-woven bags (reported as a substitute “always” by one importer,

“frequently” by another and “rarely” by two) and reusable bags (“sometimes” by one importer and

“rarely” by another). Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if the substitution of paper bags

for plastic bags had changed since 2006, and their responses are summarized in table II-4. 
 40 See, e.g., conference transcript, p. 12 (Levinson), pp. 57 and 62 (Daniels).

 41 Conference transcript, pp. 57-59 and 62 (Bazbaz, Daniels, and Halimi).

 42 Telephone interview with ***.

II-12

Table II-4

PRCBs: Number of producers, importers, and purchasers reporting that substitution of paper

bags for PRCBs had increased, decreased, or was unchanged since 2006

Type of firm Increased Unchanged Decreased

Producers 0 8 1

Importers 10 6 2

Purchasers 8 23 7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Producers, importers and purchasers were asked if paper bags could be used as substitutes for

different types of PRCBs. Responses are summarized in table II-5. Producers and importers were also

asked what shares of their sales of PRCBs were of high-end PRCBs compared with PRCBs other than

high-end. They were also asked to further describe the specific types of PRCBs that they sold. Their

responses to these questions are in table II-6.

Table II-5

PRCBs: Number of producers, importers, and purchasers reporting that paper bags were or were

not substitutes for different types of PRCBs

Type of PRCB

Producers Importers Purchasers

Yes No Yes No Yes No

T-shirt bags 5 9 16 15 29 16

Die cut handle bags 5 9 11 17 15 19

Patch handle 5 9 8 19 14 22

Drawstring bags 5 9 7 19 11 24

Flat-bottom bags 5 9 9 18 15 20

String loop handle bags 5 9 6 20 12 23

Other PRCBs 5 9 10 16 11 20

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

According to the parties, the demand for reusable heavy duty plastic, cloth, woven, or other bags

has been increasing.40 Petitioners contend that the effect on the market has been minimal and has reduced

demand by less than one percent.41 A representative from purchaser *** noted that his firm has

undergone advertising campaigns to get people to use the more than *** reusable bags that it has sold. 

According to him, *** efforts are paying off and people are reusing these bags “more and more and

more,” though the most recent data he has seen shows a decrease in usage of PRCBs by *** customers of

only *** percent.42 
 43 Conference transcript, p. 65 (Halimi), and “San Francisco Plastic Bag Ban Interests Other Cities,” retrieved

from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89135360, accessed March 22, 2010.

 44 “Westport First in State to Ban Plastic Bags,” New York Times, September 26, 2008, retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/nyregion/connecticut/28bagsct.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss, accessed March

22, 2010 and “N.C. Retailers Hurry to Prepare for Bag Ban,” Virginian-Pilot, August 23, 2009, retrieved from

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/08/nc-retailers-hurry-prepare-bag-ban, accessed March 22, 2010.

II-13

Table II-6

PRCBs: Number of producers and importers reporting shares of sales for different types of

PRCBs

Type of PRCB

Producers Importers

Number

reporting

any sales

Number

reporting

product was

100 percent

of sales

Percent of

sales

Number

reporting

any sales

Number

reporting

product was

100 percent

of sales

Percent

of sales

High-end bags1 1 *** 0.3 12 0 20.6

PRCBs other than highend 14 *** 99.7 22 11 79.4

T-shirt bags 7 3 51.1 24 10 55.4

Die cut handle bags 8 0 19.7 14 0 19.1

Patch handle 6 0 10.7 8 0 4.3

Drawstring bags 3 0 7.0 8 0 5.2

Flat-bottom bags 4 0 5.2 11 1 8.6

String loop handle bags 2 0 0.8 4 0 1.3

Other PRCBs 4 0 5.5 10 0 6.1

 1 *** reported that it produced high-end bags in this question, but in other questions it reported that it did not

produce these bags.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Legislation

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if demand has shifted from PRCBs to reusable

bags, paper bags, or if the passage of laws or the expected passage of laws regarding plastic bags has

affected or is expected to affect demand for PRCBs, and, if so, the percentage decline in demand for

PRCBs (table II-7). 

Presently, however, there are few bans or taxes on plastic bag use in effect. San Francisco

banned thin, non-compostable plastic bags in 2007 in supermarkets and pharmacies, leading to 5 million

fewer plastic bags being used per month, as of March 2008.43 Westport, CT and the Outer Banks of North

Carolina have also banned plastic bags,44and Los Angeles, CA will ban plastic bags effective July 2010 if

consumption goals are not met. Seattle, WA passed a 20-cent fee for plastic and paper bags in 
 45 “Plastic Bag Fee Passes Calif. Committee,” ABCNews, April 13, 2009, retrieved from

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=6759302, accessed March 22, 2010, and “D.C., Dublin

and Downtown Santa Barbara: The Bag Tax’s U.S. Premier, Progress Abroad and Possibilities in Our Own

Backyard,” Santa Barbara News Network, January 5, 2010, retrieved from http://www.thesbnn.com/?p=2707,

accessed March 22, 2010.

 46 “Moran Introduces National Plastic Bag Bill on Earth Day,” April 22, 2009, retrieved from

http://www.house.gov/list/press/va08_moran/Plastic.shtml, accessed March 22, 2010.

 47 Ibid., and “FACTBOX-Plastic Not Fantastic? -- Bag Bans Around the World,” Reuters, May 27, 2008,

retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSPEK170445, last accessed March 22, 2010. Petitioners also

described taxes in Ireland, and bans in parts of China and North Africa. Hearing transcript, p. 101 (Daniels).

 48 “D.C.’s left leanings confirmed in poll,” Washington Post, p. C-1, February 7, 2010.

II-14

Table II-7

PRCBs: Number of producers, importers, and purchasers reporting changes that have or have not

affected demand for PRCBs

 Change

Producers Importers Purchasers

No Yes

Percent

decrease

in demand1 No Yes

Percent

decrease

in demand1 No Yes

Percent

decrease

in demand1

Increased use of reusable bags 6 5 5 19 10 17 32 18 6

Increased use of paper bags 13 0 -- 18 12 20 42 8 6

Passage of laws regulating use

and disposal of PRCBs 9 4 6 16 10 16 39 10 5

Expect passage of laws

regulating use and disposal of

PRCBs 4 8 11 15 12 27 23 27 18

 1 Percentages are derived as simple averages from those firms that reported “yes” and also reported percentages. 

Not all respondents provided demand decrease estimates.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

2008, but it was subsequently voted down in August 2009. Plastic bag ban or fee proposals were

considered in 32 states or localities throughout the United States, particularly in California, though most

have not been enacted or have been overturned.45 Also, a national plastic bag bill was introduced to the

House of Representatives in 2009.46 Internationally, plastic bag taxes, fees, or bans have been

implemented in numerous countries and regions, ranging from Australia to Zanzibar.47 

Imposing fees or bans on plastic bags can reduce use of plastic bags. For example, on January 1,

2010, Washington DC enacted a 5-cent-per-bag tax on plastic and paper bags at certain types of

businesses including grocery stores, drug stores, and restaurants without seating areas. Since that time,

73 percent of D.C. residents reportedly have used a reusable bag when shopping, and of that 73 percent,

46 percent reported using reusable bags more than they had prior to January 1, 2010.48 When Ireland first
 49 Ibid.

 50 “One Year After Plastic Bag Ban, How is China Doing?” China Daily, May 26, 2009, retrieved from

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-05/26/content_7944466.htm, accessed March 22, 2010.

 51 Staff suggests that, based on the evidence submitted, the degree of substitution between high-end bags

manufactured domestically and those imported from the subject countries is lower due to print quality options,

handle options (rope, tape, grommets, and other hand-applied options), and cardboard insert options.

 52 In addition, purchasers listed the following nonsubject countries: China, Ecuador, Germany, India, Israel, 

Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.

II-15

added a fee on plastic bags in 2002, use decreased by 90 percent.49 China’s ban on plastic bags reduced

their use in supermarkets by 66 percent. In fact, “Statistics from the National Development and Reform

Commission showed that the 106 outlets of Wal-Mart China had reduced plastic bag usage by 80 percent

in the past year.”50 In response to a staff question, *** stated that “***.” 

Cost Share

Although high-end bags cost more than other PRCBs, the costs of either type of PRCB are very

small compared to most retail purchases, and retailers generally provide PRCBs free of charge to the final

consumer.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported products depends upon factors such 

as relative prices, quality, and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order

and delivery dates, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on producer and importer questionnaire

responses, staff believes that on the whole, there is likely to be a high degree of substitution between

PRCBs produced in the United States and those produced in Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam.51

Knowledge of Country Sources

Purchasers were asked to indicate the countries of origin for PRCBs for which they have actual

marketing/pricing knowledge. Forty-two of 52 responding purchasers were familiar with U.S.-produced

PRCBs, 6 were familiar with those from Indonesia, 12 were familiar with those from Taiwan, and 16

were familiar with those from Vietnam.52 Purchasers were also asked how often they are aware of

whether the PRCBs they purchased are imported or produced in the United States, how often they know

the manufacturer, and how often their customers are aware of, or interested in, the country of origin. The

majority of purchasers reported that they always or usually know the manufacturer of the PRCBs they

purchase and whether the PRCBs are produced domestically or imported, but that customers are less often

aware of, or interested in, the origin of the PRCBs they purchase (table II-8).
Table II-8

PRCBs: Certain purchaser responses to questions regarding the origin of their purchases

Purchaser/customer decision Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never

Purchaser aware of whether U.S.-produced or imported 32 10 6 4 0

Purchaser knows the manufacturer 25 11 8 4 4

Purchaser’s customer is aware of or interested in the

country of origin 17 9 10 7 5

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Major Factors in Purchasing

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding

from whom to buy PRCBs (table II-9). Forty-nine of 52 responding purchasers reported that price was

one of the top three factors, with price reported to be the most important factor by 15 firms. Forty-three

of 52 firms named quality as one of their top three factors in their purchasing decision, and quality was

the most-frequently cited most important factor (25 purchasers). Availability was listed as a top-three

factor by 18 purchasers and delivery was listed as a top-three factor by 10 purchasers. 

When purchasers were asked how frequently they purchased the lowest-priced PRCBs, 5

purchasers replied “always,” 18 replied “usually,” 20 replied “sometimes,” 3 replied “rarely,” and 1

replied “never.” Twenty-six purchasers listed reasons why they purchased higher-priced PRCBs even

though lower-priced PRCBs were available. Reasons reported by purchasers included: quality,

availability, lead times, reliability of supply, maintaining multiple suppliers, and minimum quantity

requirements. Several firms reported purchasing higher-priced PRCBs from U.S. producers because of

shorter lead times, and two firms reported purchasing higher-priced PRCBs from Taiwan because of the

higher quality of the product. 

II-16
II-17

Table II-9

PRCBs: Ranking factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

First Second Third Total

Price 15 19 15 49

Quality (including meeting or exceeding

specifications) 25 14 4 43

Availability 3 6 9 18

Delivery, delivery terms, lead times 0 1 9 10

Traditional supplier/supplier

relationship/prearranged contracts 4 1 1 6

Reliability 0 3 2 5

Consistency 0 1 4 5

Service 0 2 3 5

Extension of credit 0 1 2 3

Customer selects supplier 2 0 0 2

Supplier’s financial stability 2 0 0 2

Terms 0 0 1 1

Suppliers ability to make product 1 0 0 1

Suppliers ability to meet criteria 0 1 0 1

Product line 0 0 1 1

Capacity 0 0 1 1

Note.–Some purchasers listed more than three factors. Among those factors deemed important enough to rank, but

not in the top three, were delivery, product consistency, availability, and technical support. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Importance of Specified Purchase Factors

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 18 factors they consider when making their

purchasing decisions; their responses are summarized in table II-10. The factors listed as “very

important” by at least three-quarters of the 51 responding firms were product consistency (47 firms); price

(46 firms); availability and reliability of supply (45 firms each); and delivery time, print quality, and

quality meets industry standards (39 firms each). Conversely, over 70 percent of responding purchasers

(36 firms) rated the availability of high-end PRCBs as “not important,” though this may be due to the

smaller relative share of high-end PRCBs purchased in the market.
II-18

Table II-10

PRCBs: Importance of factors as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor1

Very important

Somewhat

important Not important

Number of firms responding 

Availability 45 5 1

Availability of high-end PRCBs 8 5 36

Customization of bags 25 21 5

Delivery terms 28 21 2

Delivery time 39 11 1

Discounts offered 26 21 4

Extension of credit 17 12 2

Minimum quantity requirements 18 16 17

Packaging 11 28 12

Price 46 5 0

Print quality 39 11 1

Product consistency 47 4 0

Product range 8 23 20

Quality meets industry standards 39 9 3

Quality exceeds industry standards 20 22 7

Reliability of supply 45 5 1

Technical support/service 14 24 13

U.S. transportation costs 30 15 6

Other 6 1 0

 1 The following “other” factors were listed as very important: life cycle cost, meet specifications, customer service,

ability to be flexible in demand changes, and research and development. One firm listed “reference checks” as a

somewhat important factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Determining Quality

Purchasers were asked to identify the factors that determine the quality of PRCBs. Purchasers

reported numerous specific factors including meeting industry standards and specifications; print quality,

color, and overall appearance; gauge; seam, handle, and overall bag strength; durability; and number of

tears and torn handles.

Purchasers were asked how often different country sources meet minimum quality specifications,

and their responses are summarized in table II-11.
II-19

Table II-11

PRCBs: Frequency of sources meeting minimum quality specifications, purchaser responses1

Country Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never

United States 16 20 7 0 0

Subject countries:

 Indonesia 65602

 Taiwan 7 8 6 1 1

 Vietnam 10 13 3 2 1

Nonsubject countries:

 China 6 4 1 0 0

 Malaysia 3 0 0 0 0

 Thailand 2 4 0 0 0

 1 Purchasers were asked how often domestic and imported PRCBs from subject and nonsubject countries meet

minimum quality specifications for their uses or their customers’ uses. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Certification/Qualification Issues

Purchasers were asked if they require their suppliers to be certified or prequalified. Thirty-one of

52 responding purchasers reported that they required prequalification, with nearly all of these firms

requiring it for all of their purchases. Qualification often involves testing samples for quality and

adherence to specifications and may also include on-site evaluations of PRCB factories. Suppliers may

also be evaluated for reliability of supply, financial stability, and customer service. Twenty-five firms

reported the time required for certification or qualification; specifically, 11 firms reported qualification

times of two weeks or less, 11 firms reported qualification times of one to three months, and 3 firms

reported qualification times up to six months. Ten of 50 responding purchasers reported that one or more

firms had failed to qualify. Specifically, seven purchasers listed U.S. producers as failing to qualify as

follows (reasons are identified in parentheses): ***. Two purchasers reported that producers in Vietnam

didn’t qualify due to failure to meet quality specifications, poor service, and inability to meet demand. 

One purchaser reported that one supplier of PRCBs from Indonesia and one from Taiwan failed to qualify

based on quality and price. In addition, four purchasers listed one producer each in nonsubject countries

China, India, Israel, and Thailand as failing to qualify. 

Supply Sources

Twenty-eight purchasers reported contacting between one and three suppliers for their PRCB

needs, and 13 purchasers reported contacting four or more suppliers. Twenty-nine of 52 purchasers

reported changing suppliers since 2006. A number of different PRCB suppliers were added or dropped

by individual purchasers; the sources named most often as added or dropped were Spectrum, API, and

Hilex. Six purchasers reported adding Spectrum because of price, quality, service, and being the “first to

cover the west coast supply chain,” while four reported adding API because of API’s consistent quality
 53 *** reported selling 100 percent produced to order and 100 percent from overseas inventories. Its response has

been included with those produced to order and not with overseas inventories. Using a simple average, 77.8 percent

of all responding importers’ sales were sold on a produced-to-order basis.

 54 ***.

II-20

and printing, and a desire to diversify sources. Four purchasers reported dropping Hilex as a supplier for

reasons which included product quality, pricing, service, and required monthly price reviews. Three

purchasers dropped Spectrum because of price and one firm dropped Spectrum because of quality and

price. Only two responding purchasers reported that they became aware of new suppliers since 2006. 

Lead Times

Seven of the 11 responding producers reported selling most of their PRCBs on a produced-toorder basis. Based on a simple average, 61.6 percent of PRCB sales were produced-to-order and lead

times for such orders averaged 26 days. Lead times for those producers that reported selling PRCBs out

of inventory ranged from 2 to 14 days and averaged 7 days.

Most responding importers (14 of 26) also reported selling exclusively on a produced-to-order

basis. Five importers reported selling mainly out of U.S. inventory, and one reported selling mainly out

of overseas inventories.53 Reported lead times for importers’ sales from inventory averaged 5.6 days. 

For importers’ sales that are produced-to-order, importers’ lead times averaged 84 days while lead times

averaged 92 days for product being shipped from overseas inventories.54

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess the interchangeability between PRCBs

produced in the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries; responses are presented in

table II-12. The majority of responding producers, importers, and purchasers reported that U.S.-produced

PRCBs are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with both subject and nonsubject imports. 

Producers, importers, and purchasers also reported that subject imports are “always” or “frequently”

interchangeable with each other, and that domestic PRCBs and subject imported PRCBs are “always” or

“frequently” interchangeable with PRCBs from nonsubject countries. Nine importers described specific

differences between domestic product and imports that limited their interchangeability. Their responses

cited factors such as: high-end bags which require hand labor are available from China, Indonesia, and

other countries but are not available from the United States; printing from Taiwan and artwork and

thickness of imported bags are superior to U.S. bags; and U.S. producers require very large minimum

orders. Five purchasers noted non-price differences that limit interchangeability, with several purchasers

noting print quality differences. Specific comments by these purchasers included: higher quality artwork

and thicker bags from subject and nonsubject overseas sources; inconsistency in strength, color, and

printing quality of domestic PRCBs compared to those manufactured in India, Taiwan, Thailand, and

Vietnam; and that flat-bottomed shopper bags cannot be manufactured domestically. 
Table II-12

PRCBs: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of

products produced in the United States and from other sources1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. Indonesia 10 1 0 0 6 3 6 0 13 4 3 0

U.S. vs. Taiwan 11 0 0 0 9 3 2 0 14 3 5 1

U.S. vs. Vietnam 11 1 0 0 8 3 4 0 17 5 5 1

U.S. vs. other sources2 11 0 0 0 6 4 6 1 28 4 11 0

Indonesia vs. Taiwan 10 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 12 4 1 0

Indonesia vs. Vietnam 10 0 0 0 7 3 1 1 12 4 2 0

Indonesia vs. other sources2 10 0 0 0 6 4 3 0 18 3 2 0

Taiwan vs. Vietnam 10 1 0 0 8 3 0 0 13 4 1 0

Taiwan vs. other sources2 10 1 0 0 7 3 0 0 18 2 0 0

Vietnam vs. other sources2 10 1 0 0 8 4 1 0 23 2 2 0

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if PRCBs produced in the United States and in other

countries are used interchangeably and to what degree.

 2

 Purchasers used Canada, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, 

Philippines, South Africa, and Thailand for comparisons. 

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In addition, producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how often differences

other than price were significant in sales of PRCBs from the United States, Indonesia, Taiwan, Vietnam,

and nonsubject countries; their responses are summarized in table II-13. A majority of producers reported

that differences other than price are “never” significant in their sales of PRCBs. Importers, however,

were much more likely to report differences other than price between U.S. product and imports. Specific

differences were reported by nine importers.55 Several purchasers noted differences as well.56

 55 The differences reported by importers include: differences in printing and thickness between U.S. bags and

bags from Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam; better print quality from Taiwan; high minimum order

quantities for U.S. bags; imported PRCBs from Indonesia and Vietnam have features such as clip loop handles, rope

handles, cardboard, top and bottom ribbon handles, PVC tops and bottoms, double turndown, and grommets; highend bags from Indonesia are better quality than those from the United States; Indonesia and “other countries” can use

hand labor that U.S. producers cannot use to produce PRCBs economically; product from Indonesia is made with

hand labor while U.S. and Vietnam products are not; quality of imports is consistently superior to U.S. product;

differences in lead times; Taiwan does not produce the labor-intensive product available from Vietnam and “other”

countries, and Vietnam does not produce print quality available from “other” countries; and U.S. producers do not

sell high-end PRCBs, while there is little difference between product from the countries listed. 

 56 These purchasers identified the following factors that limit interchangeability: high-end PRCBs not produced

domestically; domestic product more consistent; better availability and quicker delivery for domestic product than

(continued...)

II-21
 56 (...continued)

for subject and nonsubject imports; printing quality and thicker bags from subject and nonsubject sources; higher

quality bags and more flexible order volumes for PRCBs from Taiwan compared to domestically produced PRCBs;

and higher quality black bags from Thailand compared to domestic sources.

II-22

Table II-13

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales

of product produced in the United States and in other sources1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. Indonesia 011954426356

U.S. vs. Taiwan 0 0 2 9 3 2 7 2 6 3 6 7

U.S. vs. Vietnam 0 1 2 9 5 3 4 3 8 3 7 9

U.S. vs. other sources 0 0 2 9 5 4 4 4 11 4 24 7

Indonesia vs. Taiwan 001921533248

Indonesia vs. Vietnam 001911822259

Indonesia vs. other sources 0 0 1 9 1 1 7 4 0 1 6 18

Taiwan vs. Vietnam 0 0 2 9 1 1 6 3 2 2 4 10

Taiwan vs. other sources 0 0 2 9 1 1 6 2 0 1 3 18

Vietnam vs. other sources 0 0 2 9 1 2 7 3 3 1 6 18

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if differences other than price between PRCBs produced in

the United States and those produced in other countries were a significant factor in sales of the PRCBs.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factor Comparisons

Purchasers were asked to compare PRCBs produced in the United States, subject countries, and

nonsubject countries with respect to 19 different attributes. Thirty-seven purchasers provided responses;

details are provided in table II-14.
II-23

Table II-14

PRCBs: Comparisons of U.S. product, product from subject countries, and product from other

sources, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs Indonesia U.S. vs Taiwan U.S. vs Vietnam

SC I SC I SC I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 2 14 1 3 17 1 6 20 1

Availability of high-end PRCBs 1 8 2 3 11 2 3 15 3

Customization of bags 2 14 0 6 18 0 7 20 1

Delivery terms 3 12 1 5 16 1 9 15 2

Delivery time 9 5 2 10 6 2 12 7 3

Discounts offered 0 12 4 2 15 4 3 19 3

Extension of credit 1 12 1 2 16 1 5 16 2

Minimum quantity requirements 0 13 3 1 16 4 3 20 3

Packaging 0 16 0 0 20 1 5 21 0

Price1 2 8 4 3 9 7 5 10 9

Print quality 3 12 1 4 15 2 6 17 3

Product consistency 4 12 0 4 15 2 6 18 2

Product range 0 12 2 4 13 3 3 17 3

Quality meets industry standards 3 12 0 3 16 1 5 18 2

Quality exceeds industry standards 3 10 1 3 12 4 4 17 4

Reliability of supply 2 12 2 3 15 3 7 17 2

Strength of bag 2 13 1 4 15 2 6 19 1

Technical support/service 3 12 0 4 15 2 7 17 1

U.S. transportation costs1

 6 7 1 8 11 1 9 13 3

Table continued on following page.
II-24

Table II-14--Continued

PRCBs: Comparisons of U.S. product, product from subject countries, and product from other

sources, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Taiwan vs Vietnam

U.S. vs

nonsubject2

Indonesia vs

nonsubject3

SC I SC I SC I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 1 1 0 3 17 0 0 3 0

Availability of high-end PRCBs 2 0 0 1 11 1 0 2 0

Customization of bags 0 2 0 3 13 2 0 2 0

Delivery terms 0 2 0 8 12 0 0 2 0

Delivery time 1 1 0 12 8 0 0 2 0

Discounts offered 0 2 0 3 16 0 0 2 0

Extension of credit 0 2 0 3 14 1 0 2 0

Minimum quantity requirements 0 2 0 3 15 2 0 2 0

Packaging 2 0 0 2 14 4 0 2 0

Price1 011299020

Print quality 2 0 0 1 15 4 0 2 0

Product consistency 0 2 0 1 15 5 0 2 0

Product range 1 1 0 2 17 0 0 2 0

Quality meets industry standards 0 2 0 2 18 0 0 2 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 0 2 0 2 16 1 0 2 0

Reliability of supply 1105 13 1 0 2 0

Strength of bag 0 2 0 2 14 4 0 2 0

Technical support/service 1 1 0 8 11 0 0 2 0

U.S. transportation costs1

 020990020

Table continued on following page.
II-25

Table II-14--Continued

PRCBs: Comparisons of U.S. product, product from subject countries, and product from other

sources, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Taiwan vs nonsubject4 Vietnam vs nonsubject5

SC I SC I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 0 2 0 0 7 0

Availability of high-end PRCBs 010050

Customization of bags 110050

Delivery terms 1 1 0 0 7 0

Delivery time 1 1 0 0 7 0

Discounts offered 020070

Extension of credit 1 1 0 0 7 0

Minimum quantity requirements 110070

Packaging 1 1 0 0 7 0

Price1 101061

Print quality 0 2 0 0 7 0

Product consistency 200080

Product range 020070

Quality meets industry standards 200070

Quality exceeds industry standards 200070

Reliability of supply 0 2 0 0 7 0

Strength of bag 200070

Technical support/service 110070

U.S. transportation costs1

 010151

 1 A rating of superior means that the price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported

“U.S. superior,” it meant that the price of U.S. product is generally lower than the price of the imported product. 2 The nonsubject sources included in these comparisons were Cambodia, China, Germany, India, Korea, Macao,

Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.

 3 The nonsubject countries included in these comparisons were China, Germany, and Thailand. 4 The nonsubject countries included in these comparisons were China and Thailand. 5 The nonsubject sources included in these comparisons were China, Germany, India, Macao, Malaysia, and Thailand.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s product

is inferior. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The majority of firms comparing products from the United States and the subject countries

reported that the products were comparable for all factors (for one or more of the subject countries)

except delivery time, price, and U.S. transportation costs. With respect to delivery time, 9 of 16

purchasers reported that the U.S. product was superior to that from Indonesia, 10 of 18 purchasers

reported that the U.S. product was superior to that from Taiwan, and 12 of 22 purchasers reported that the

U.S. product was superior to that from Vietnam. In comparing the price of U.S.-produced PRCBs to 
 57 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

 58 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, app. 1, p. 3.

 59 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 32.

 60 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like product to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject product (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-26

those from subject countries, 4 of 14 firms reported that the PRCBs from Indonesia were priced lower, 7

of 19 firms reported that PRCBs from Taiwan were priced lower, and 9 of 24 firms reported that PRCBs

from Vietnam were priced lower. Finally, with regard to U.S. transportation costs, 6 of 14 firms rated the

U.S. product as superior to that from Indonesia, 8 of 20 firms rated the U.S. product as superior to that

from Taiwan, and 9 of 25 firms rated the U.S. product as superior to that from Vietnam.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

U.S. Supply Elasticity57

The domestic supply elasticity for PRCBs measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied to

changes in the U.S. market price of PRCBs. The elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors

including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability

to shift to and from production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the availability of

alternative markets for U.S.-produced PRCBs. 

In the short term, the domestic industry has a moderate degree of responsiveness to changes in

prices. Supply responsiveness is enhanced by possible available capacity and the ability to switch to

producing PRCBs instead of other products, but is limited by the quantity and type of inventory on hand

and ***. Domestic supply elasticity is likely in the range of 2 to 4. Petitioners commented that the

elasticity of supply should be 4, reflecting the U.S. industry’s available capacity.58

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for PRCBs measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded

to a change in the U.S. market price of PRCBs, and is likely to be low, in the range of -0.3 to -0.6. This

estimate is driven by factors discussed earlier, such as the low cost share of PRCBs relative to the cost of

most retail purchases and the limited substitutability of other products for PRCBs. Petitioners agree that

demand for PRCBs is price inelastic.59

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.60 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(both perceived and actual), specifications, availability, and conditions of sale. Most of the producers,

importers, and purchasers reported that PRCBs produced domestically are comparable to PRCBs

imported from subject and nonsubject countries with respect to most factors. Based on the above data,

substitution elasticity between domestic and imported PRCBs is high, and is likely to be in the range of 4

to 6.
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 margins of dumping was presented earlier in this report

and information on the volume of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Part IV. Information

regarding pricing of domestic and imported subject merchandise is presented in Part 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 13 firms that accounted for nearly 100 percent of U.S. production of PRCBs

during 2008.1

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to 58 U.S. companies identified in the petition and

through independent staff research. Out of these 58 companies, 13 provided useable data, 9 certified that

they had not produced PRCBs since January 1, 2006, and the remaining 36 provided no response,2 but

none of the 36 are known to account for more than a very minimal share of U.S. production, if they

produce PRCBs at all. Of the producers that provided useable data, petitioners (Hilex and Superbag)

together accounted for almost *** percent of U.S. production in 2008, with the two companies accounting

for approximately *** and *** percent of U.S. production, respectively, in that year. The remaining

production was accounted for almost exclusively by ***, which together with petitioners accounted for

over 90 percent of U.S. production in 2008. 

Presented in table III-1 is a list of current domestic producers of PRCBs and each company’s

position on the petition, production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms, and share of reported

production of PRCBs in 2008.

 1 Two producers, ***, provided questionnaire responses during the preliminary phase of these investigations but

not during the final phase. ***. E-mail from *** March 8, 2010. *** represented less than *** percent of U.S.

production in 2008.

 2

 One other *** producer, ***, provided answers to certain questions in its response to the Commission’s

questionnaire, but these data were not useable for the purposes of trade data tabulation.

III-1
Table III-1

PRCBs: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related and/or

affiliated firms, and shares of 2008 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position on

petition

U.S. production

location(s) Related and/or affiliated firms

Share of

production

(percent)

Ampac *** Cincinnati, OH *** ***

API ***

North Las Vegas,

NV

Oklahoma City, OK

Kenner, LA

Elkridge, MD *** ***

Bemis *** Terre Haute, IN *** ***

Command *** Los Angeles, CA None ***

Durabag *** Tustin, CA None ***

Genpak *** Bloomington, MN *** ***

Hilex ***

Carrollton, TX

Farmers Branch, TX

Jacksonville, FL

Jerome, ID

Milesburg, PA 

North Vernon, IN

Richmond, VA

Overland, MO *** ***

Inteplast ***

Livingston, NJ

Lolita, TX

N. Dighton, MA *** ***

Omega *** Lyndhurst, NJ *** ***

Poly-Pak *** Melville, NY None ***

Roplast *** Oroville, CA *** ***

Superbag *** Houston, TX None ***

Unistar ***

Harahan, LA

Houston, TX *** ***

Total

100.0

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total to 100.0 percent. Pan Pacific Plastics Mfg., Inc., (“PPPMI”) a

U.S. producer of PRCBs, did not provide a questionnaire response but gave estimated production of *** bags in

2008. E-mail from ***, December 18, 2009. Pak-Sher Packaging (“Pak-Sher”) another U.S. producer of PRCBs,

did not provide a questionnaire response but gave estimated production of *** PRCBs in 2008. E-mail from ***,

June 8, 2009. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Three U.S. producers are related to subject foreign producers of PRCBs and one is related to U.S.

importers of the subject merchandise. In addition, as discussed in greater detail under “U.S. producers’

III-2
imports and purchases” below, 6 U.S. producers directly import subject merchandise and 1 also purchases

subject merchandise from U.S. importers and or domestic producers. 

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Capacity, production, and capacity utilization all declined during the 2006-08 calendar year

period. During the January-September 2009 interim period, however, capacity increased relative to the

same period in 2008. The interim 2009 increase in capacity can be attributed to *** purchases of new

equipment and modification of the cycle time on existing equipment.3

 Much of the decrease in capacity

and production from 2006 to 2008 can be attributed to plant closures by Hilex (three facilities closed).4

Additionally, *** was forced to move production equipment overseas for much of this period due to

Hurricane Katrina. *** offset some of the 2006-08 decrease in capacity by purchasing additional

equipment due to the imposition of duties on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand. Additionally,

*** added *** new extruders in 2006, which led to an increase in capacity of approximately *** bags

annually. More recently, *** added or modified equipment in 2009 which led to an increase in capacity

of approximately *** for the 2009 interim period relative to the same period in 2008.5

 U.S. producers’

aggregate capacity was well below apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs in each year of the 2006-08

period and was lower to a lesser extent during the 2009 interim period relative to the same period in 2008.

Of the 13 U.S. producers, *** were the 5 U.S. producers reporting production of other products

using the same equipment and/or workers used to produce PRCBs. U.S. producers’ capacity, production,

and capacity utilization data for PRCBs are presented in table III-2 and figure III-1.

Table III-2

PRCBs: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and

January-September 2009

Item

Calendar year January-September--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Capacity (1,000 bags) 83,182,701 83,232,332 79,737,217 60,936,535 67,365,922

Production (1,000 bags) 70,212,269 72,320,872 66,276,349 51,085,031 51,516,891

Capacity utilization (percent) 84.4 86.9 83.1 83.8 76.5

Note. –*** reported having tolling agreements for PRCB production. *** and *** did not include tolled production in

their questionnaire responses as all tolled production was ***. *** reported tolled production by two U.S. companies,

*** and ***, and included this production in its questionnaire data. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 3 ***.

 4

 Hilex closed its Rancho Cucamonga, CA plant in February 2007, its Victoria, TX plant in January 2008, and its

Mount Olive, NC plant in October 2008. Hearing transcript, pp. 34-35 (Daniels). Additionally, based upon ***,

*** closed a production facility during this period.

 5

 ***. 

III-3
Figure III-1

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, JanuarySeptember 2008, and January-September 2009

Source: Table III-2.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of PRCBs are presented in table III-3. From 2006 to 2008,

total shipments decreased slightly on a quantity basis but increased slightly on a value basis. During the

2009 interim period, however, total shipments increased slightly on a quantity basis and decreased

substantially on a value basis when compared with the same period in 2008. Average unit values also

were lower during the 2009 interim period relative to the same period in 2008. There was no reported

internal consumption or transfers to related firms. 

III-4
Table III-3

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and JanuarySeptember 2009

Item

Calendar year January-September--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Commercial shipments 66,786,015 69,767,941 65,085,412 48,299,776 49,811,732

Internal consumption 0 0 0 0 0

Transfers to related firms 0 0 0 0 0

U.S. shipments 66,786,015 69,767,941 65,085,412 48,299,776 49,811,732

Export shipments 2,207,673 2,351,519 2,209,901 1,574,534 1,400,301

Total shipments 68,993,688 72,119,460 67,295,313 49,874,310 51,212,033

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments 958,691 922,941 983,006 725,586 563,808

Internal consumption 0 0 0 0 0

Transfers to related firms 0 0 0 0 0

U.S. shipments 958,691 922,941 983,006 725,586 563,808

Export shipments 37,645 38,575 30,330 21,908 16,549

Total shipments 996,336 961,516 1,013,336 747,494 580,357

Unit value (per 1,000 bags)

Commercial shipments $14.35 $13.23 $15.10 $15.02 $11.32

Internal consumption (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Transfers to related firms (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

U.S. shipments 14.35 13.23 15.10 15.02 11.32

Export shipments 17.05 16.40 13.72 13.91 11.82

Total shipments 14.44 13.33 15.06 14.99 11.33

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments 96.8 96.7 96.7 96.8 97.3

Internal consumption 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Transfers to related firms 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

U.S. shipments 96.8 96.7 96.7 96.8 97.3

Export shipments 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 2.7

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Not applicable.

Note. --Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-5
U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-4, which presents end-of-period inventories for PRCBs, shows that inventories

generally decreased during the period for which data were collected.

Table III-4

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and

January-September 2009

Item

Calendar year January-September--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Inventories (1,000 bags) 3,800,923 3,995,589 2,976,270 5,202,339 3,350,997

Ratio to production (percent) 5.4 5.5 4.5 7.6 4.9

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 5.7 5.7 4.6 8.1 5.0

Ratio to total shipments (percent) 5.5 5.5 4.4 7.8 4.9

Note.–Partial-year ratios are based on annualized production and shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Seven of the 13 responding U.S. producers imported directly and/or purchased PRCBs from one

or more of the subject countries during the period for which data were collected. U.S. producers’ imports

and purchases of PRCBs are presented in table III-5. In 2008, U.S. producers that imported directly or

purchased imports of PRCBs represented *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports from Taiwan and

*** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports from Vietnam. During the January-September 2009 period,

these companies represented *** and *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports from Taiwan and

Vietnam, respectively. 

Table III-5

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and JanuarySeptember 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for PRCBs are presented in table III-6. The data

reflect the plant closures mentioned earlier in this section, specifically the approximately *** positions

eliminated as a result of the three closures by Hilex.6

 During the period for which data were collected,

API, Command, and Inteplast increased the number of production and related workers employed at their

facilities, and these increases offset somewhat the effect of the aforementioned plant closures on the U.S.

industry as a whole. From 2006-08, hours worked per worker, hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor

costs increased, while the number of production related workers and total hours worked decreased. In

 6 The number of positions eliminated with *** closure of its U.S. operations is unknown because the company

did not complete a U.S. producers’ questionnaire response in the final phase of these investigations.

III-6
comparing the 2008 and 2009 interim periods, it is evident that employment-related measures were lower

in interim 2009 than in interim 2008, with the exception of hours worked per worker and productivity.

Table III-6

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and

January-September 2009

Item

Calendar year January-September--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Production and related workers (PRWs) 3,495 3,160 2,971 3,011 2,874

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 7,597 7,154 6,903 5,108 4,903

Hours worked per PRW 2,174 2,264 2,324 1,696 1,706

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 95,452 105,602 103,881 80,564 75,528

Hourly wages $12.56 $14.76 $15.05 $15.77 $15.41

Productivity (bags produced per hour) 9,241.6 10,108.7 9,600.8 10,000.6 10,507.9

Unit labor costs (per 1,000 bags) $1.36 $1.46 $1.57 $1.58 $1.47

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-7

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 97 firms believed to be importers of subject PRCBs, as well

as to all U.S. producers of PRCBs.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 42 companies,

representing approximately 60 percent of total 2008 imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam under

HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085.2

For subject countries, the leading U.S. importer of PRCBs from Indonesia is ***, while the

leading importers from Taiwan are *** and the leading importers from Vietnam are ***. Leading

importers of PRCBs from nonsubject countries (primarily China, Malaysia, and Thailand) include ***. 

U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-1 presents data for U.S. imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, Vietnam, and all

other sources.3

 From 2006 to 2008, total imports decreased on a quantity basis but increased on a value

basis.4

 Subject imports more than doubled during that period on both a quantity and a value basis. 

During the 2009 interim period, subject imports decreased on both a quantity and value basis compared to

the same period in 2008. Imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the three nonsubject countries that

are currently subject to antidumping duties resulting from unrelated investigations, decreased on a

quantity basis during the period for which data were collected, but increased on a value basis between

2006 and 2008 and then decreased between the interim periods. 

 1 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified during the preliminary phase investigations, along

with firms that, based on a review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have

imported greater than one percent of total imports under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085 in any one

calendar year from subject countries since 2006 or during the January-September 2009 period.

 2

 According to questionnaire responses, subject imports in 2008 totaled 8.8 billion PRCBs. U.S. Department of

Commerce statistics show total subject imports during 2008 of 14.6 billion PRCBs.

 3

 *** in 2006 *** imported PRCBs from *** under both HTS 3923.21.0085 and HTS 3923.21.0095. This

information was obtained by staff near the conclusion of the investigatory period and therefore was unable to be

included in the text of the staff report. Summary table C-4 to this report reflects 2006 imports from Indonesia by ***

as reported by proprietary customs data under both of the aforementioned statistical reporting numbers. 

 4

 U.S. producers accounted for *** percent of the quantity of PRCBs imported from subject countries in 2008, up

from *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007. Staff notes that these imports do not by themselves account for

the trends discussed in this section.

IV-1
Table IV-1

PRCBs: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

Source

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Indonesia 1,592,965 3,396,505 2,819,569 2,365,162 1,469,854

Taiwan 2,171,587 3,988,867 4,575,499 3,561,990 2,215,669

Vietnam 3,061,998 7,288,037 7,192,325 5,055,117 5,811,440

Subtotal 6,826,550 14,673,409 14,587,393 10,982,269 9,496,963

China, Malaysia, Thailand1 29,079,228 16,114,332 18,833,894 12,928,070 12,408,875

All other sources 5,575,003 4,748,210 2,942,934 2,212,148 2,829,145

Total 41,480,781 35,535,951 36,364,221 26,122,487 24,734,983

Value (1,000 dollars)

2

Indonesia 25,400 45,808 40,948 33,005 12,998

Taiwan 19,454 42,318 56,848 42,993 20,008

Vietnam 19,734 73,757 88,189 59,982 44,323

Subtotal 64,588 161,884 185,986 135,980 77,328

China, Malaysia, Thailand1 219,763 228,082 255,232 177,532 112,403

All other sources 51,774 76,586 63,180 46,116 39,907

Total 336,125 466,552 504,398 359,628 229,639

Unit value (per 1,000 bags)

2

Indonesia $15.95 $13.49 $14.52 $13.95 $8.84

Taiwan 8.96 10.61 12.42 12.07 9.03

Vietnam 6.44 10.12 12.26 11.87 7.63

Subtotal 9.46 11.03 12.75 12.38 8.14

China, Malaysia, Thailand1 7.56 14.15 13.55 13.73 9.06

All other sources 9.29 16.13 21.47 20.85 14.11

Average 8.10 13.13 13.87 13.77 9.28

Table continued on following page.

IV-2
Table IV-1--Continued

PRCBs: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September

2009

Source

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Share of quantity (percent)

Indonesia 3.8 9.6 7.8 9.1 5.9

Taiwan 5.2 11.2 12.6 13.6 9.0

Vietnam 7.4 20.5 19.8 19.4 23.5

Subtotal 16.5 41.3 40.1 42.0 38.4

China, Malaysia, Thailand1 70.1 45.3 51.8 49.5 50.2

All other sources 13.4 13.4 8.1 8.5 11.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Indonesia 7.6 9.8 8.1 9.2 5.7

Taiwan 5.8 9.1 11.3 12.0 8.7

Vietnam 5.9 15.8 17.5 16.7 19.3

Subtotal 19.2 34.7 36.9 37.8 33.7

China, Malaysia, Thailand1 65.4 48.9 50.6 49.4 48.9

All other sources 15.4 16.4 12.5 12.8 17.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 In the 2004 antidumping duty investigations on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, three firms were

found by Commerce to have de minimis dumping margins and thus were excluded from the antidumping duty

orders: Hang Lung Plastic Manufactory and Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (China), and Bee Lian

Plastic Industries (Malaysia). Imports of PRCBs from these firms are included in the category “China, Malaysia,

Thailand.”

 2

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether imports should be cumulated, the Commission determines whether U.S.

imports from the subject countries compete with each other and with the domestic like product and has

generally considered four factors: (1) fungibility; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same

geographic market; (3) common or similar channels of distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the

market. Issues concerning channels of distribution and fungibility are addressed in Part II of this report. 

The remaining factors are addressed below.

IV-3
Geographical Markets

With regard to geographical market overlap, U.S. imports of PRCBs from Indonesia entered

through multiple U.S. ports of entry, dispersed across the nation. The overwhelming majority of imports

entered via the ports of Los Angeles, CA, New York, NY, and Norfolk, VA. U.S. imports of PRCBs

from Taiwan also entered through multiple U.S. ports of entry, dispersed across the nation. The

overwhelming majority entered via the ports of Los Angeles, CA, Galveston, TX, and New York, NY. 

Lastly, U.S. imports of PRCBs from Vietnam also entered through multiple U.S. ports of entry, dispersed

across the nation, and the overwhelming majority entered via the ports of Los Angeles, CA, Baltimore,

MD, New York, NY, and Galveston, TX. At the conference, petitioners argued that imports from the

three subject countries are sold in the same geographic markets as each other and as the domestic like

product.5

Simultaneous Presence in the Market

Commerce statistics and pricing data submitted to the Commission show that imports from

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam entered the United States in every month of the period for which data

were collected.

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.6

 Negligible imports are generally defined in the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic

like product where such imports account for less than 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.7

 Imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam accounted

for 6.5, 11.2, and 19.6 percent of total imports of PRCBs by quantity during the 12-month period

beginning in March 2008 and ending in February 2009 (the month preceding the filing of the petition),

respectively, and therefore none of the three subject countries’ imports could be considered negligible.8

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs during the period of investigation are

shown in table IV-2 and figure IV-1.

 5 Conference transcript, pp. 42-43 (Narkin).

 6

 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)).

 7

 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

 8

 Data compiled using official Commerce statistics.

IV-4
Table IV-2

PRCBs: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

Item

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 bags)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 66,786,015 69,767,941 65,085,412 48,299,776 49,811,732

U.S. of imports from–

Indonesia 1,592,965 3,396,505 2,819,569 2,365,162 1,469,854

Taiwan 2,171,587 3,988,867 4,575,499 3,561,990 2,215,669

Vietnam 3,061,998 7,288,037 7,192,325 5,055,117 5,811,440

 Subtotal 6,826,550 14,673,409 14,587,393 10,982,269 9,496,963

China, Malaysia, Thailand1 29,079,228 16,114,332 18,833,894 12,928,070 12,408,875

All other sources 5,575,003 4,748,210 2,942,934 2,212,148 2,829,145

Total U.S. imports 41,480,781 35,535,951 36,364,221 26,122,487 24,734,983

Apparent U.S. consumption 108,266,796 105,303,892 101,449,633 74,422,263 74546715

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 958,691 922,941 983,006 725,586 563,808

U.S. imports from--

Indonesia 25,400 45,808 40,948 33,005 12,998

Taiwan 19,454 42,318 56,848 42,993 20,008

Vietnam 19,734 73,757 88,189 59,982 44,323

 Subtotal 64,588 161,884 185,986 135,980 77,328

China, Malaysia, Thailand1 219,763 228,082 255,232 177,532 112,403

All other sources 51,774 76,586 63,180 46,116 39,907

 Total U.S. imports 336,125 466,552 504,398 359,628 229,639

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,294,816 1,389,493 1,487,404 1,085,214 793,447

 1 In the 2004 antidumping duty investigations on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, three firms were

found by Commerce to have de minimis dumping margins and thus were excluded from the antidumping duty

orders: Hang Lung Plastic Manufactory and Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (China), and Bee Lian

Plastic Industries (Malaysia). Imports of PRCBs from these firms are included in the category “China, Malaysia,

Thailand.”

.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. In order to obtain greater importer coverage

than what is available using questionnaire response data, U.S. imports (as shown in official Commerce statistics)

were used as a proxy for U.S. shipments of imports.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-5
Figure IV-1

PRCBs: Apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and JanuarySeptember 2009

Source: Table IV-2.

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-3. U.S. producers’ share of apparent U.S.

consumption experienced a moderate increase on a quantity basis during 2006-08 and again between the

interim periods. On a value basis, the U.S. producers’ share decreased by 7.9 percentage points from

2006 to 2008 but was 4.2 percentage points higher during the 2009 interim period relative to the 2008

interim period. This increase in the quantity and value shares of consumption held by U.S. producers

during the 2009 interim period corresponded with decreases in the shares of consumption represented by

subject imports and by imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.

IV-6
Table IV-3

PRCBs: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and JanuarySeptember 2009

Item

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Apparent U.S. consumption 108,266,796 105,303,892 101,449,633 74,422,263 74,546,715

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,294,816 1,389,493 1,487,404 1,085,214 793,447

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 61.7 66.3 64.2 64.9 66.8

U.S. imports from--

Indonesia 1.5 3.2 2.8 3.2 2.0

Taiwan 2.0 3.8 4.5 4.8 3.0

Vietnam 2.8 6.9 7.1 6.8 7.8

 Subtotal 6.3 13.9 14.4 14.8 12.7

China, Malaysia, Thailand1 26.9 15.3 18.6 17.4 16.6

All other sources 5.1 4.5 2.9 3.0 3.8

 All countries 38.3 33.7 35.8 35.1 33.2

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 74.0 66.4 66.1 66.9 71.1

U.S. imports from--

Indonesia 2.0 3.3 2.8 3.0 1.6

Taiwan 1.5 3.0 3.8 4.0 2.5

Vietnam 1.5 5.3 5.9 5.5 5.6

 Subtotal 5.0 11.7 12.5 12.5 9.7

China, Malaysia, Thailand1 17.0 16.4 17.2 16.4 14.2

All other sources 4.0 5.5 4.2 4.2 5.0

 All countries 26.0 33.6 33.9 33.1 28.9

 1 In the 2004 antidumping duty investigations on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, three firms were found by

Commerce to have de minimis dumping margins and thus were excluded from the antidumping duty orders: Hang Lung Plastic

Manufactory and Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (China), and Bee Lian Plastic Industries (Malaysia). Imports of

PRCBs from these firms are included in the category "China, Malaysia, Thailand.”

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-7
RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of PRCBs is presented in table

IV-4. The decrease in U.S. production between 2006 and 2008 corresponded with a more than doubling

of the ratio of imports from subject countries to U.S. production. During that same period, the ratio of

imports from nonsubject countries to U.S. production decreased. During the 2009 interim period, U.S.

production was slightly higher while subject imports were slightly lower when compared to the 2008

interim period. Consequently, the ratio of subject imports to U.S. production was 3.1 percentage points

lower during the 2009 interim period relative to the same period in 2008.

Table IV-4

PRCBs: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2006-08, JanuarySeptember 2008, and January-September 2009

Item

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 bags)

U.S. production 70,212,269 72,320,872 66,276,349 51,085,031 51,516,891

Imports from:

Indonesia 1,592,965 3,396,505 2,819,569 2,365,162 1,469,854

Taiwan 2,171,587 3,988,867 4,575,499 3,561,990 2,215,669

Vietnam 3,061,998 7,288,037 7,192,325 5,055,117 5,811,440

 Subtotal 6,826,550 14,673,409 14,587,393 10,982,269 9,496,963

China, Malaysia, Thailand1 29,079,228 16,114,332 18,833,894 12,928,070 12,408,875

All other sources 5,575,003 4,748,210 2,942,934 2,212,148 2,829,145

Total imports 41,480,781 35,535,951 36,364,221 26,122,487 24,734,983

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

Imports from:

Indonesia 2.3 4.7 4.3 4.6 2.9

Taiwan 3.1 5.5 6.9 7.0 4.3

Vietnam 4.4 10.1 10.9 9.9 11.3

 Subtotal 9.7 20.3 22.0 21.5 18.4

China, Malaysia, Thailand1 41.4 22.3 28.4 25.3 24.1

All other sources 7.9 6.6 4.4 4.3 5.5

Total imports 59.1 49.1 54.9 51.1 48.0

 1 In the 2004 antidumping duty investigations on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, three firms were found by

Commerce to have de minimis dumping margins and thus were excluded from the antidumping duty orders: Hang Lung Plastic

Manufactory and Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (China), and Bee Lian Plastic Industries (Malaysia). Imports of

PRCBs from these firms are included in the category "China, Malaysia, Thailand."

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-8
 1

 Petitioners reported that prices of polyethylene resin were similar worldwide, partly due to their relationship to

changes in oil and natural gas prices. Conference transcript, p. 61 (Daniels). 

 2

 Hearing transcript, p. 111 (Rizzo)

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Materials

The main raw material used in the production of PRCBs is polyethylene resin. It and other raw

materials accounted for 70.7 percent of the total cost of goods sold during 2008 (see Part VI: Financial

Experience of U.S. Producers). The prices of three types of polyethylene resin (high-density

polyethylene, low-density polyethylene, and linear low-density polyethylene - LDPE, HDPE, and

LLDPE, respectively) decreased irregularly through 2006 before generally increasing through August

2008 (figure V-1).1

 Prices then decreased rapidly through January 2009 but then increased through

February 2010. Mr. Rizzo of Hilex reported that the “overwhelming majority” of its agreements include

specific language regarding how raw material price changes are passed through to the customer.2

Figure V-1

Polyethylene resin: Average monthly U.S. price, January 2006-February 2010

Source: Compiled from data published in Plastics News.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Twelve U.S. producers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 1 to 10 percent

of the total delivered cost of PRCBs, and averaged 4.1 percent, based on a simple average. Seventeen of

25 responding importers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs ranged between 1 and 8 percent

(averaging 3.9 percent) of the total delivered cost of PRCBs, whereas the other 8 importers reported

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

20062007200820092010

Cents per pound

HDPE/LDPE LLDPE
 3

 These data disregard one importer’s outlying response of 58 percent, and are based on a simple average.

 4

 Errant data submitted by *** were not used in this calculation.

 5

 Multiple producers reported that they use more than one method of determining prices.

 6

 Conference transcript, p. 59 (Bazbaz).

 7

 As with the producers, multiple importers reported that they use more than one method of determining prices.

These data include producers who also import.

 8

 Errant data submitted by *** were not used in this calculation.

V-2

inland transportation costs ranging between 13.5 and 30 percent (averaging 20.8 percent); the overall

average was 8.8 percent.3

All 12 responding U.S. producers reported that they arranged delivery. They also reported the

distances that they shipped their PRCBs: 10.1 percent less than 100 miles; 58.1 percent between 101 and

1,000 miles; and 31.8 percent more than 1,000 miles, based on a simple average. Twenty-three of the 29

responding importers reported that they arranged delivery. Based on a simple average, the 24 responding

importers reported shipping 47.5 percent of their PRCBs less than 100 miles, 26.4 percent between 101

and 1,000 miles, and 26.1 percent more than 1,000 miles.4

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

The 13 U.S. producers of PRCBs reported that they use a variety of methods in determining

prices. The manner in which prices are determined can depend on the size of the customer. Overall, 10

producers use transaction-by-transaction negotiations, 8 have contracts for multiple shipments, 3 use price

lists, 5 report selling over the internet, and 6 reported other methods of determining prices.5

 Additionally,

two producers stated that their contract prices move in conjunction with polyethylene resin prices. At the

conference, Mr. Bazbaz of Superbag averred that, for his firm, and to his knowledge the rest of the

industry, PRCB prices reflect changes in plastic resin prices and “are adjusted by the weight of the bags

multiplied by the change of that index.”6

Twenty-nine importers reported pricing methods, with 20 reporting that they set prices on a

transaction-by-transaction basis, 8 reporting contracts for multiple shipments, 5 using price lists, 1 selling

via the internet, and 4 reporting other methods of price setting.7

 

Eight of the 12 responding producers reported that they sell their PRCBs via long-term contracts, 

11 sell PRCBs via short-term contracts, and 11 sell on the spot market. Based on a simple average, 23.6

percent of U.S. producers’ sales are via long-term contracts (over 12 months in length), 34.4 percent of

sales are via short-term contracts (12 months or less in length), and 42.0 percent are spot sales. In

contrast, 13 of 26 responding importers sell PRCBs exclusively on a spot basis, and three sell exclusively

on a short-term contract basis. The other importers used a combination of these approaches, selling 66.2

percent on the spot market, 29.2 percent via short-term contracts, and 4.5 percent via long-term contracts.8

The nine producers that sell via long-term contracts reported that contracts are up to two years in

length. Six of the nine responding producers noted that prices could be renegotiated or changed during

the contract. One producer noted that prices are fixed, five noted that quantities are fixed, two stated that

both price and quantities were fixed, and one stated that neither quantities nor prices are fixed. Four

producers (***) indicated that long-term contracts usually have a meet-or-release clause, while an equal

number reported the opposite. Short-term contracts entered into by the 12 responding producers can vary

in length from 3 months to a year, do not typically have price renegotiation clauses (according to eight

producers), but can contain meet-or-release clauses (according to eight producers), and fix both prices and

quantities (according to six producers). The Commission asked producers to quantify how often meet-or-
 9

 Hearing transcript, p. 88 (Okun).

 10 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, responses to Commission questions, pp. 4-5.

 11 Other payment terms listed by producers were net 10 and net 31 days. Other payment terms listed by importers

were net 10, net 60, net 90, and payment on delivery.

 12 These discounts are in addition to those previously mentioned for early payment.

 13 Prebates are cash incentives offered to customers to enter into a supply agreement that are paid at the beginning

of the contract. Conference transcript, p. 73 (Rizzo).

 14 These discounts are in addition to those previously mentioned for early payment.

 15 Hearing transcript, p. 45 (Rizzo).

V-3

release clauses were invoked.9

 Petitioners replied that there was pressure in the market not to invoke

resin-based price increases. Producer ***.10

The four importers that reported selling via long-term contracts typically have contracts which

last between one and three years. All four importers noted that prices could, at least sometimes, be

renegotiated or changed. One importer reported that contracts typically fix price, one reported that 

contracts fix quantity, one reported that contracts do not fix price or quantity, and one reported that this

varies by contract. The three responding importers indicated that long-term contracts usually do not have

a meet-or-release clause. Short-term contracts entered into by the 14 responding importers can vary in

length from 3 months to a year, do not typically include price renegotiation clauses (according to 11

importers) or meet-or-release clauses (according to 12 importers), and can fix both prices and quantities

(according to 10 importers), although some of these importers reported that this varies among contracts.

Sales Terms and Discounts

All 13 responding producers and 19 of 26 responding importers reported that sales terms for

PRCBs are typically net 30 days.11 Nine producers reported that prices are generally quoted on a

delivered basis, and four generally quote prices on an f.o.b. warehouse/factory basis. Among responding

importers, 14 reported that they generally quote delivered prices, 12 generally quote f.o.b. prices, and one

quotes prices using both methods.

With respect to price discounts, 5 of 11 producers reported offering some type of volume

discount on their sales of PRCBs,12 though these discounts reportedly may apply to as few as one

customer. Additionally, *** reported that it offers rebates, and, on occasion, prebates.13 Three producers

reported that they do not offer discounts beyond those granted for early payment. More than half of

responding importers (15 of 29) reported that they do not offer discounts, 10 reported offering quantity

discounts, and four reported offering other types of discounts.14

Bidding

 Petitioners contend that 75 percent of U.S. consumption is supplied through internet bids.15

Purchasers were asked whether they had used a bidding process, including reverse internet auctions or

other internet bid solicitations, for procuring PRCBs. Sixteen of 49 responding purchasers noted that they

had engaged in such activity. Further data were requested for their four largest bidding events from

January 2006 to September 2009. In total, purchasers provided some data regarding 29 bidding events;

the winning bids accounted for 11.4 percent of the value of apparent consumption of PRCBs in January

2006-September 2009. Details of these events are provided in table V-1. Data regarding the quantities,

values, lowest domestic and lowest subject-country bids, the winner of the bidding event, and the reasons

for the supplier to be selected were not universally provided. Within the data that were provided,

however, it is of note that the country of the lowest bidder was the country of the winning bidder in 20 of
V-4

the 23 reported bidding events for which purchasers reported both data points. Most bids were won by

domestic producers though five of the winning bids were won, at least partially, by subject imports. 

Among the factors other than price that were given consideration by the purchasers were: factors about

the bags themselves (bag quality, feel, thickness, print quality, and tensile strength); logistics (availability,

delivery time, and supply chain flexibility); supplier-specific factors (customer service level, financial

health of the supplier, past experience, production capacity, references, and reliability); and financial

considerations (ability to purchase additional cases at the same price, ability to index prices monthly,

freight charges, and lifecycle costs). 

Table V-1

PRCBs: Submitted data regarding bidding events reported by purchasers

* * * * * * *

PRICE DATA

The Commission asked U.S. producers and importers of PRCBs to provide quarterly data for the

total quantity and f.o.b. value of commercial shipments of certain PRCBs that were shipped to unrelated

customers in the U.S. market during the period January 2006 to September 2009. Importers that imported

directly for their own use were asked to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and delivered value

(to their first domestic warehouse or storage facility) of certain PRCBs. The products for which pricing

data were requested are as follows:

Product 1.--“T-shirt sack”-style bag with (a) dimensions 8-9" width x 4-6" side x 15-17" length,

(b) 11-13 microns film thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed with one or two

colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Typically, these

PRCBs weigh between 4.7 and 7.9 pounds per 1,000 bags.

Product 2.--“T-shirt sack”-style bag with (a) dimensions 10-11" width x 6.5-7" side x 17-20"

length, (b) 12-15 microns film thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed with one or

two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Typically,

these PRCBs weigh between 8.1 and 13.2 pounds per 1,000 bags.

Product 3.--“T-shirt sack”-style bag with (a) dimensions 11.5-12" width x 6.5-7" side x 20-22"

length, (b) 12-15 microns film thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed with one or

two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Typically,

these PRCBs weigh between 10.2 and 15.3 pounds per 1,000 bags.

Product 4.--“T-shirt sack”-style bag with (a) dimensions 15-16" width x 7-9" side x 27-30"

length, (b) 20-24 microns film thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed with one or

two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Typically,

these PRCBs weigh between 21.8 and 33.4 pounds per 1,000 bags.
Product 5.--Die-cut-handle-style merchandise bags with (a) dimensions 15-17" width x 3-5" side

x 20-25" length, (b) 20-24 microns film thickness, (c) side gussets, and (d) printed

with at least two colors on at least one side (5-50 percent ink coverage for entire

bag).

Product 6.--Die-cut-handle-style merchandise bags with (a) dimensions 15-18" width x 17-19"

length, (b) 31-39 microns film thickness, (c) no side gussets, and (d) with or without

a bottom gusset of up to 6" (3" plus 3"), and (e) printed with at least two colors on

at least one side (5-50 percent ink coverage for entire bag).

Product 7.--Merchandise or carry-out bag with (a) rope drawstring attached, (b) dimensions

15-18" width x 16-20" length (with or without bottom gusset), (c) 30-60 microns

film thickness, and (d) print with 1-6 colors (5-100 percent ink coverage for entire

bag). 

Product 8.--Heat-sealed, square-bottomed merchandise or carry-out bag with or without a

bottom cardboard insert, having (a) dimensions 11-18" width x 4-8" side x 12-20"

length (with or without side gusset, (b) 50-150 microns film thickness, (d) separately

applied flat flexible plastic handle, and (e) print with 1-6 colors on up to 5 sides (5-

100 percent ink coverage for entire bag). 

Thirteen U.S. producers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, along

with 8 importers for sales of PRCBs from Indonesia, 10 importers for sales of PRCBs from Taiwan, and

18 importers for sales of PRCBs from Vietnam.16 In addition, 12 importers reported usable pricing data

for their sales of imports from nonsubject countries China and Thailand. Not all firms reported pricing

for all products for all quarters.17 In addition to the value of shipments, data were collected on both a

pound and number-of-bags basis. Pricing data for the eight products reported by these firms on a perpound basis are shown in tables V-2 to V-9 and figures V-2 to V-9. Data on a per-1,000 bag basis are

presented in appendix D. 

The data presented in tables V-2 through V-9 and figures V-2 through V-9 accounted for 69.7 

percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of PRCBs, 19.5 percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from

Indonesia, 32.2 percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Taiwan, and 58.7 percent of U.S. imports of

PRCBs from Vietnam in January 2006 to September 2009 on a quantity basis.18 Pricing data reported by

importers of PRCBs from nonsubject countries accounted for 13.9 percent of U.S. imports from

 16 Pricing data for domestic producers was provided by ***. Importers *** provided useable pricing data for

imported PRCBs. Pricing data from Indonesia, Vietnam, China, and Thailand provided by *** were not included in

the data set because they were ***. Staff has been unable to obtain corrections for these data from these importers. 

Quarterly pricing data were also not submitted by ***. Only estimated average unit values are available, on a

combined basis, for all PRCBs that it imports.

 17 Some firms reported data for products that don’t exactly fit the description that was provided, but were reported

to compete closely with bags in that category. The following companies indicated that the pricing data they

submitted differed from, but was competitive with, the pricing products described in the questionnaire: ***. These

data are included in the pricing data presented below.

 18 These data do not include direct imports by ***, which accounted for 76.8 percent of imports from Indonesia,

48.0 percent of imports from Taiwan, and 22.8 percent of imports from Vietnam on a per-bag basis.

V-5
 19 Including data for direct imports would add an additional 13.1 percent. 

 20 Direct imports by retailers were reported by ***.

 21 There were no reported imports from Malaysia that were resold in the United States.

 22 The alleged use of *** or commingling by Inteplast (see Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 20) had no effect on

the pricing data, as ***.

 23 ***.

 24 Respondents’ prehearing brief, p. 27.

V-6

nonsubject countries in January 2006 to September 2009 on a quantity basis, not including direct

imports.19

A considerable amount of PRCBs was imported directly by five retailers for their own use from

the three subject countries and from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and in most quarters exceed the

volumes imported by other importers.20 Data reported by direct importers (those which did not resell their

PRCBs but used them instead) are reported on a per-pound basis in appendix E. Appendix F contains

tables reporting prices and quantities of PRCBs imported from nonsubject countries China and Thailand

and figures containing the same data, augmented with domestic and subject-country quantities and

prices.21

Pricing comparisons between different sources of PRCBs are complicated by the fact that each of

the eight pricing product definitions encompasses a range of sizes, and hence weights, of bags. This can

cause the weight of the unit of measure (1,000 bags) to vary considerably. In the preliminary phase of

these investigations, data were requested on four broader categories of PRCBs. At that time, ***

submitted an analysis calculating the weight of a few sizes of bags that all fall within the definition of one

of the pricing products, finding that for one product, the weight of 1,000 bags of the largest type of

PRCBs that fell within the definition of that product was 333.6 percent heavier than the weight of the

smallest bags that fell within the definition of that pricing product. The difference in bag weight is due to

the increased polyethylene resin and other additives used to make the bags. In order to better control for

this, pricing product definitions selected in the final phase investigations were narrowed. However, due

to the nature of the PRCBs and purchaser-specific preferences, a single-size pricing product would not

yield an accurate portrayal of the market. Different manufacturers’ formulations of inputs can yield

differing strengths and/or elasticity for the size/thickness of a PRCB. Thus, differing sizes and

thicknesses of bags can compete for the same account. Furthermore, if a purchaser wants a certain bag

with a specific capacity, it may be willing to accept variations in the length, width, and depth of the

PRCBs to achieve that capacity. Accordingly, some variation in size is necessary to account for these

flexibilities. To account for some of these differences, data presented herein are given on a weight basis

rather than a quantity basis. Even taking this into account, different plastic formulations and PRCB

silhouettes may result in different strengths, elasticities, and other characteristics of the bag per given

weight of plastic, so some variation in pricing may result based on these factors as well.22 

With respect to product 8, producers and importers were asked whether their data include PRCBs 

which have and do not have cardboard inserts. Three of the four producers reporting sales of product 8

reported that their PRCBs which fall into this category do not contain cardboard inserts, whereas ***

reported that its PRCBs do.23 All six responding importers reported that their imported product 8 PRCBs

have cardboard inserts, and two of the six reported that their data include PRCBs which do not contain

cardboard inserts as well.

Respondents contend that import pricing data for products 6, 7, and 8 largely reflects import

pricing data reported by ***.24 For these products, *** imported PRCB pricing data from Indonesia were

reported by *** and *** import pricing data from Taiwan were reported by ***. With respect to import

pricing data on PRCBs from Vietnam, *** reported *** percent of pricing data for product 6, *** percent

of pricing data for product 7, and *** percent of pricing data for product 8 on a per-pound basis.
Table V-2

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1,1 and margins of (overs

by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

Period

United States Indonesia Taiwan 

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

2006: Jan.-Mar. $1.12 1,608,212 -- 0 -- $1.06 46,300 5.0 $***  Apr.-June 1.02 1,974,064 -- 0 -- *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. 1.00 1,932,698 -- 0 -- *** *** *** 1.07  Oct.-Dec. *** *** -- 0 -- 1.61 96,046 *** 1.02 2007: Jan.-Mar. 0.93 1,082,562 $*** *** *** 1.11 69,208 (18.7) 1.03  Apr.-June 1.15 2,108,346 *** *** *** *** *** *** 1.01  July-Sept. 1.37 1,795,934 *** *** *** *** *** *** 1.11  Oct.-Dec. 1.40 1,738,007 *** *** *** *** *** *** 1.11 2008: Jan.-Mar. 1.54 962,601 *** *** *** 1.43 23,919 6.9 1.24  Apr.-June 1.49 1,362,823 *** *** *** *** *** *** 1.22  July-Sept. 1.50 1,675,178 -- 0 -- 1.34 42,606 10.8 1.34  Oct.-Dec. 1.50 1,210,124 -- 0 -- 1.16 140,780 22.2 1.34 2009: Jan.-Mar. 1.33 926,903 -- 0 -- *** *** *** ***  Apr.-June 1.34 1,318,579 -- 0 -- 1.08 172,570 19.6 1.08  July-Sept. 1.28 1,588,535 -- 0 -- 1.08 179,680 15.9 1.10 

1 "T-shirt sack"-style bag with (a) dimensions 8-9" width x 4-6" side x 15-17" length, (b) 11-13 microns film thickness, (c) side gussets

or two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Typically, these PRCBs weigh between 4.7 and 7.9 pound

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-7
Table V-3

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2,1 and margins of (overs

by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

Period

United States Indonesia Taiwan 

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

2006: Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $*** *** *** $*** *** *** $***  Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** 0.99 94,306 *** 0.97  July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Oct.-Dec. *** *** -- 0 -- 0.97 205,202 *** *** 2007: Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.86  Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.98 2008: Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 1.04  Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 1.08 2009: Jan.-Mar. *** *** -- 0 -- *** *** *** 0.98  Apr.-June 0.80 8,054,419 -- 0 -- *** *** *** 0.84  July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

1 "T-shirt sack"-style bag with (a) dimensions 10-11" width x 6.5-7" side x 17-20" length, (b) 12-15 microns film thickness, (c) side gus

one or two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Typically, these PRCBs weigh between 8.1 and 13.2 p

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-8
Table V-4

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3,1 and margins of (overs

by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

Period

United States Indonesia Taiwan 

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

2006: Jan.-Mar. $0.96 122,036,770 $*** *** *** $0.86 549,577 10.1 $***  Apr.-June 0.89 139,627,966 *** *** *** 0.89 622,629 0.1 ***  July-Sept. 0.89 148,495,366 *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.90  Oct.-Dec. 0.89 132,567,619 *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.92 2007: Jan.-Mar. 0.80 131,095,739 *** *** *** 1.08 240,378 (36.3) 1.02  Apr.-June 0.81 138,932,508 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. 0.87 154,986,520 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Oct.-Dec. 0.93 144,476,940 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2008: Jan.-Mar. 0.96 133,191,393 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Apr.-June 0.99 146,663,943 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. 1.05 133,651,777 *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.96  Oct.-Dec. 1.01 136,848,501 *** *** *** *** *** *** 1.02 2009: Jan.-Mar. 0.74 123,044,920 *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.86  Apr.-June 0.74 133,966,445 *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.76  July-Sept. 0.78 138,272,249 *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.80 

1 "T-shirt sack"-style bag with (a) dimensions 11.5-12" width x 6.5-7" side x 20-22" length, (b) 12-15 microns film thickness, (c) side g

with one or two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Typically, these PRCBs weigh between 10.2 and bags.Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-9
Table V-5

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4,1 and margins of (overs

by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

Period

United States Indonesia Taiwan 

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

2006: Jan.-Mar. $0.95 2,288,562 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --  Apr.-June 0.89 2,803,915 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- $***  July-Sept. 0.88 2,447,322 -- 0 -- $*** *** *** ***  Oct.-Dec. 0.88 4,413,802 -- 0 -- *** *** *** *** 2007: Jan.-Mar. 0.87 3,033,423 -- 0 -- *** *** *** 1.05  Apr.-June 0.87 3,977,593 -- 0 -- *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. 0.93 4,526,540 -- 0 -- *** *** *** 1.32  Oct.-Dec. 0.94 6,813,064 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- *** 2008: Jan.-Mar. 1.05 2,594,756 $*** *** *** -- 0 -- ***  Apr.-June 1.10 2,076,401 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- ***  July-Sept. 1.13 1,995,273 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- ***  Oct.-Dec. 1.14 3,832,193 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- *** 2009: Jan.-Mar. 0.88 1,793,349 *** *** *** -- 0 -- ***  Apr.-June 0.76 1,976,185 *** *** *** -- 0 -- 1.00  July-Sept. 0.73 2,923,558 *** *** *** -- 0 -- *** 

1 "T-shirt sack"-style bag with (a) dimensions 15-16" width x 7-9" side x 27-30" length, (b) 20-24 microns film thickness, (c) side guss

one or two colors on at least one side (5-30 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Typically, these PRCBs weigh between 21.8 and 33.4 

It should be noted, however, that the majority of domestically produced product 4 was reported for bags that were thinner than the requethickness.Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-10
V-11

Table V-6

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5, and

margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 6, and

margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-8

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 7, and

margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *
Table V-9

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 8,1 and margins of (overs

by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

Period

United States Indonesia Taiwan 

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

pound)

2006: Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $*** *** *** $*** *** *** $***  Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. *** *** 1.27 71,052 *** *** *** *** ***  Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2007: Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- ***  Apr.-June *** *** 1.18 102,252 *** *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- ***  Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- *** 2008: Jan.-Mar. 2.92 291,843 1.04 262,660 64.4 -- 0 -- ***  Apr.-June *** *** 1.40 228,955 *** -- 0 -- ***  July-Sept. *** *** 1.15 316,968 *** -- 0 -- ***  Oct.-Dec. *** *** 1.11 268,488 *** -- 0 -- *** 2009: Jan.-Mar. *** *** 1.14 279,247 *** -- 0 -- ***  Apr.-June 2.21 113,475 *** *** *** -- 0 -- ***  July-Sept. 1.68 81,797 1.30 223,199 22.6 -- 0 -- *** 

1 Heat-sealed, square-bottomed merchandise or carry-out bag with or without a bottom cardboard insert, having (a) dimensions 11-1

12-20" length (with or without side gusset, (b) 50-150 microns film thickness, (d) separately applied flat flexible plastic handle, and (e) prto 5 sides (5-100 percent ink coverage for entire bag). Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-12
V-13

Figure V-2

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 1 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 2 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-4

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 3 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-5

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 4 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-6

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 5 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-7

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 6 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-8

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 7 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-9

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 8 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *
 25 This result would be expected due to the relatively large size of the quantities that were imported directly. 

Petitioners submitted an analysis comparing these prices in appendix 14 of their prehearing brief. Prices for these

direct imports should not be compared to prices for domestic sales to the first arms-length customer in an apples-toapples fashion, as they are not at the same level of trade as domestic sales or sales made by importers that re-sell the

PRCBs. As noted by Mr. Morgan at the hearing, they do not include profit that importers would include in their

sales. Hearing transcript, pp. 193-194 (Morgan). They do, however, include inland freight for these direct imports,

whereas sales data from importers and producers were requested on an f.o.b. basis.

V-14

Price Trends

Prices of U.S.-produced PRCBs generally decreased from the first quarter of 2006 until the first

or second quarter of 2007. Prices then generally increased for most pricing products until the third

quarter or fourth quarter of 2008. Prices in general declined during the first nine months of 2009 for

domestically produced PRCBs, with the exception of prices for product 7, which remained at relatively

high levels. Prices for six of the eight pricing products were lower in the third quarter of 2009 than in the

first quarter of 2006 (see table V-10). These trends followed the price of polyethylene resin presented in

figure V-1.

Trends are more difficult to characterize for the prices of products imported from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam during the period under examination. Prices for all three subject countries did not

tend to move consistently in conjunction with other subject import prices, with domestic prices, or with

the price of polyethylene resin. The exceptions to this are that prices of imported products 2 and 3 (which

are responsible for the vast majority of pricing product sales in pounds) from all three subject countries

changed in a manner similar to that of domestically produced PRCBs and polyethylene resin, as did prices

for PRCBs imported from Vietnam, with the exception of a few quarters marked by very low quantities. 

Further detail regarding the number of quarters for which data were received, the minimum price,

maximum price, and price change between the first and last quarters for which data were received are

presented in table V-10.

Table V-10

PRCBs: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-8 from the United States,

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

Imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam undersold the U.S. product in 150 of

257 quarterly comparisons, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.1 to 64.4 percent and averaging

25.7 percent. Of note is that subject imports undersold domestically produced PRCBs in every quarterly

comparison for product 8 and in every quarter but one for product 7. Conversely, imports of PRCBs from

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam oversold the U.S. product in 107 of 258 quarterly comparisons, with

margins of overselling ranging from 0.4 to 168.4 percent and averaging 15.1 percent. A summary of

margins of underselling and overselling is presented in table V-11. 

Appendix E presents data regarding U.S. importers direct imports for their own use from subject

and nonsubject countries. When comparing these prices from the subject countries to importers’ f.o.b.

sales prices of PRCBs from those countries, prices were generally lower for direct imports. The largest

volumes of these imports occurred in product 3, a t-shirt style bag.25 

 
 26 The Commission was not supplied with sufficient information to investigate lost sales and lost revenues 

allegations with respect to ***.

 27 The lost revenue and lost sales allegations were made by ***. Producers *** reported that they had neither

lost sales nor revenues since January 1, 2006.

V-15

Table V-11

PRCBs: Number of quarters of underselling and overselling and highest and lowest margins of

underselling and (overselling), by product number

Product

Number of

quarters of

underselling

Number of

quarters of

(overselling)

Margins of underselling Margins of (overselling)

Average 

(percent) 

Range (percent)

Average 

(percent)

Range (percent)

Min Max Min Max

1 27 9 18.5 2.5 45.1 (15.9) (0.4) (65.1)

2 4 38 10.6 0.9 25.9 (10.9) (0.5) (32.5)

3 21 24 7.0 0.1 16.2 (13.2) (1.0) (36.3)

41 6 17 15.6 10.3 20.6 (30.6) (0.8) (168.4)

52 7 15 7.1 0.2 13.8 (10.4) (1.7) (33.8)

6 28 3 25.8 10.9 39.2 (16.6) (3.4) (34.6)

7 22 1 30.0 4.4 47.6 (10.7) (10.7) (10.7)

8 35 0 47.0 19.0 64.4 -- -- -- 

Total 150 107 25.7 0.1 64.4 (15.1) (0.4) (168.4)

 1 ***.

 2

 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

In both the preliminary and final phases of these investigations, the Commission requested that

U.S. producers of PRCBs report any instances of lost sales and lost revenues experienced due to

competition from imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam since January 1, 2006 which were not

reported in the antidumping and countervailing duty petition. Eight of the 14 responding producers

reported that they had reduced prices and three had rolled back announced price increases, allegedly due

to imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Eight of the 14 producers also alleged that they had

lost sales to imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Lost sale and lost revenue allegations are

presented in tables V-12 and V-13 and are discussed in more detail below. Staff was able to contact 42

of the 55 listed purchasers.26 There were *** lost sales allegations totaling $*** and *** lost revenue

allegations totaling $***.27 Three of the lost sale allegations and one of the lost revenue allegations were

confirmed, at least partially, totaling $*** and $***, respectively. Additional information, where

relevant, is summarized in the individual responses below.
 28 Telephone interview with ***.

 29 Telephone interview with ***.

 30 Fax from ***.

 31 Based on this, the lost sale allegation would be for *** cases valued at $***. Telephone interview with ***. 

 32 Telephone interview with ***.

 33 Telephone interview with ***.

 34 Fax from ***.

 35 Telephone interview with ***.

 36 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 43.

 37 Fax from ***.

 38 Telephone interview with ***.

 39 Telephone interview with ***.

 40 Telephone interview with ***.

 41 Letter from ***.

V-16

Table V-12

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-13

PRCBs: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

***.28

***.

***.

***.29 ***.30

***.31

***.32

***.

***.33

***.34

***.35 ***.36

***.37

***.

***.38

***.

***.39

***.40

***.

***.41

***.

***.

***.

***.
 42 Telephone interview with ***.

 43 Fax from ***.

 44 Fax from ***.

 45 Fax from ***.

 46 Fax from ***.

V-17

***.42

***.

Other Comments

In addition, in the preliminary phase of these investigations, purchasers responding to lost sales

and lost revenues allegations also were asked whether they shifted their purchases of PRCBs from U.S.

producers to suppliers of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam since January 2006. Two of the

27 responding purchasers (***) reported that they had shifted purchases of PRCBs from U.S. producers

to subject imports since January 1, 2006; one of these purchasers (***) reported that price was the reason

for the shift. Purchaser *** stated that ***.

During the preliminary phase, two of 23 purchasers (***) reported that since January 1, 2006,

U.S. producers reduced their prices in order to compete with the prices of subject imports as well. 

Additionally, though, ***.43 Two purchasers responding that domestic producers had not reduced prices

stated why they responded in the negative: *** reported that “***”44 and *** reported that its “***.”45

Purchaser *** noted that its current supplier has stopped purchasing PRCBs from Vietnam as of January

2009, so that “there was no impact to current pricing.”46

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Thirteen U.S. firms provided usable financial data on their operations producing PRCBs.1

 These

reported data are believed to represent the vast majority of U.S. PRCB production in the period for which

data were gathered.

OPERATIONS ON PRCBs

 Income-and-loss data for the reporting U.S. producers are presented in table VI-1 and are briefly

summarized here.2

 

• Net sales quantity declined irregularly between 2006 and 2008, while sales value rose irregularly

over the same period due to changes in the average unit value of sales. Net sales quantity was

higher in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008 but the value of net sales was lower because

unit values were sharply lower in interim 2009.

• Between 2006 and 2008, the increase in the cost of goods sold (“COGS”) was greater than the

increase in sales whether measured by value ($40.3 million versus $12.4 million) or on a per-unit

basis ($0.89 versus $0.51 per 1,000 bags). The ratio of COGS to net sales also rose by 2.9

percentage points from 2006 to 2008. The increase in COGS, which was driven by raw material

costs and offset a decline in other factory costs and an increase in sales value, resulted in gross

profit being lower in 2008 than in 2007. Both sales and COGS were lower in interim 2009

compared with interim 2008, but gross profit was higher in interim 2009 because the fall in the

value of COGS (led by a decline in the value of raw materials) was greater than that of sales. 

• Total selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses also rose irregularly from 2006 to

2008,3

 and the reporting firms collectively recorded an operating loss in 2008 after reporting

small levels of profit in 2006 and 2007. SG&A expenses were lower in interim 2009 than interim

2008 and the reporting firms together recorded an operating profit in interim 2009.

• Net income before taxes was negative in each of the three years for which data were gathered, but

cash flow, which increased from 2006 to 2008, was positive because depreciation expenses were

higher than the negative net income figure in each year. The reporting firms recorded positive net

income and cash flow in each of the interim periods.

 1 The firms are: Ampac; API; Bemis; Command; Durabag; Genpak; Hilex; Inteplast; Omega; Poly-Pak; Roplast;

Superbag; and Unistar. Except for ***, each of the reporting firms has a fiscal year that ends on or about December

31; this includes ***. Differences between data reported in the trade and financial sections of the Commission’s

producers’ questionnaire primarily are attributable to year-end timing differences of ***. The data also differ from

those of the preliminary phase investigations; ***. Commission staff verified the questionnaire response of ***. 

EDIS document 420526.

 2

 Six firms provided combined data on their domestic operations and imports of subject PRCBs. These financial

data are shown in app. G.

 3

 Adding to the reporting firms’ recorded operating loss in 2008, ***.

VI-1
Table VI-1

PRCBs: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08, January-September 2008,

and January-September 2009 

Item

Fiscal year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Net sales1 68,728,820 72,926,211 67,241,013 49,874,583 51,209,397

Value (1,000 dollars)

Net sales 996,078 971,203 1,008,444 747,447 580,137

COGS

 Raw materials 603,814 594,481 663,009 494,505 316,945

 Direct labor 97,505 100,853 99,589 73,124 66,949

 Other factory costs 195,592 178,700 174,615 121,680 118,575

 Total COGS 896,911 874,034 937,213 689,309 502,469

Gross profit 99,167 97,169 71,231 58,138 77,668

SG&A expenses2 94,307 90,407 103,228 62,737 53,070

Operating income or (loss)2 4,860 6,762 (31,997) (4,599) 24,598

Interest expense *** *** *** *** ***

Other expense *** *** *** *** ***

Other income3 *** *** *** *** ***

Net income or (loss) (26,536) (32,001) (16,982) 15,925 14,755

Depreciation 64,153 63,516 66,012 37,049 41,813

Cash flow 37,617 31,515 49,030 52,974 56,568

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses4 34534

Data 13 13 13 13 13

Table continued on following page.

VI-2
Table VI-1--Continued

PRCBs: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08, January-September 2008,

and January-September 2009 

Item

Fiscal year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Ratio to net sales (percent)

COGS:

Raw materials 60.6 61.2 65.7 66.2 54.6

Direct labor 9.8 10.4 9.9 9.8 11.5

Other factory costs 19.6 18.4 17.3 16.3 20.4

Average COGS 90.0 90.0 92.9 92.2 86.6

Gross profit 10.0 10.0 7.1 7.8 13.4

SG&A expenses2 9.5 9.3 10.2 8.4 9.1

Operating income or (loss)2 0.5 0.7 (3.2) (0.6) 4.2

Unit value (per 1,000 bags)

Total net sales $14.49 $13.32 $15.00 $14.99 $11.33

COGS:

 Raw materials 8.79 8.15 9.86 9.92 6.19

 Direct labor 1.42 1.38 1.48 1.47 1.31

 Other factory costs 2.85 2.45 2.60 2.44 2.32

 Total COGS 13.05 11.99 13.94 13.82 9.81

Gross profit 1.44 1.33 1.06 1.17 1.52

SG&A expenses2 1.37 1.24 1.54 1.26 1.04

Operating income or (loss)2 0.07 0.09 (0.48) (0.09) 0.48

1

 As noted earlier, there are *** differences between the data reported in the trade section of the responses to

the Commission’s questionnaire and these data due to timing differences. 2

 In 2008, ***. If this were not included, the total operating loss of the reporting firms together would be a

negative $***; the ratio of the reporting firms’ operating loss to their total sales would be *** percent instead of (3.2)

percent, while the average unit value of the operating loss would be a negative $*** per 1,000 bags instead of the

negative $*** per 1000 bags. *** recognized expenses of $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, and $*** in 2008, classified in

its SG&A expenses in those years. These expenses related to fixed asset disposal and restructuring for the *** in

2006; the *** in 2007; and the *** in 2008. *** recognized $*** and $*** in interim 2008 and interim 2009,

respectively. If these amounts were not included, the total operating results of the reporting firms would be

increased, but would still be negative in 2008. 3

 Reflects the ***.

4

 ***. See table VI-2 for interim period results by firm.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Raw material costs, which are primarily composed of polyethylene resin and color concentrates,

rose in absolute value and as a percentage of net sales during 2006-08, as noted earlier. Raw material

costs also increased as a share of total COGS, from 67 percent in 2006 to 71 percent in 2008. Raw

material costs ranged from $*** per 1,000 bags to $*** per 1,000 bags in 2008, depending upon the firm. 

Nearly all reporting firms’ ratios of raw material costs to total net sales are roughly similar; the unit value

VI-3
of raw material costs of $9.86 per 1,000 bags in 2008 reflects the large-scale production of lightweight

bags by several U.S. firms. The relationship between raw material costs and sales value is shown in the

following tabulation:

* * * * * * *

Table VI-2 presents the results of operations on a company-by-company basis, while table VI-3

presents operating data for the 13 firms sorted into three industry segments according to sales value in

2008.

Table VI-2

PRCBs: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years 2006-08, JanuarySeptember 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-3 presents operating data on domestic producers grouped into segments by sales in

2008. The company-by-company data were sorted into three groups by sales, over $100 million

(comprised of ***), between $25 million and $99.9 million (comprised of ***), and less than $25 million

(the remaining firms). Within the first group, ***;4

 sales of ***. Overall for Group 1, sales value

increased *** while the operating *** from 2006 to 2008; sales were lower but the three firms together

recorded an operating profit in January-September 2009 compared with a loss in January-September

2008. Within Group 2, *** during 2006-08; the value of sales and operating profits were lower in

January-September 2009 than in the same period in 2008. The operating profitability of Group 3 is led by

the results of ***. Overall for the third group, sales declined and this group’s operating income in 2006

became an operating loss in 2008. Sales were lower and this group recorded an operating loss in JanuarySeptember 2009 compared with an operating profit it recorded in January-September 2008.

Table VI-3

PRCBs: Results of operations of U.S. producers, grouped by net sales value, fiscal years 2006-08,

January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

A variance analysis for U.S. producers is presented in table VI-4, and is derived from the

information presented in table VI-1. The variance analysis provides an assessment of changes in

profitability as related to changes in pricing, cost, and volume. This analysis is more effective when the

product involved is a homogeneous product with no variation in product mix.5

 In table VI-4, between

 4 Hilex reported ***. Also, Hilex filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on

May 6, 2008. “Plastic bag manufacturer Hilex Poly files bankruptcy petition, seeks approval of prepack,”

posted 8:23 am on May 9, 2008 by Thomas Horan, Morris James LLC, found at

http://bankruptcy.morrisjames.com/2008/05/articles, retrieved on May 7, 2009. According to a press

release issued by Hilex, the voluntary filing was to significantly reduce its overall debt and strengthen its

balance sheet while continuing to operate. Hilex press release dated May 6, 2008, found at

http://hilexpoly.com, retrieved on May 7, 2009. Hilex’s petition for financial reorganization and

emergence from Chapter 11 was approved on June 26, 2008. Company press release, “Hilex emerges

from Chapter 11,” dated July 9, 2008, found at http://hilexpoly.com, retrieved on May 7, 2009.

 5

 In the 2003-2004 investigations on PRCBs, producers and respondents commented on changes in

(continued...)

VI-4
2006 and 2008, the unfavorable operating income variance of $36.8 million was attributable primarily to

a unfavorable net cost/expense variance (unit costs increased) that overwhelmed a favorable variance on

price (unit prices increased); there was a small unfavorable net volume variance.6

 The mix of favorable

and unfavorable variances changed during the period and the price variance was unfavorable between

2006 and 2007 (unit prices fell) while the net cost/expense variance was favorable (unit costs declined) in

that period. Between 2007 and 2008, the favorable price variance was again overwhelmed by an

unfavorable net cost/expense variance. Between the two interim periods, sales volume was higher and

unit costs were lower, which lead to a favorable cost variance that was greater than the unfavorable price

variance (unit sales values were much lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008).

 5 (...continued)

product mix. See footnote 4, p. VI-4 in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and

Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3618 (August 2003), for

producer and respondent comments received in the preliminary phase of those investigations with regard

to changes in product mix. In addition, the ratios of most firms’ per-unit costs to per-unit sales (tables VI2 and VI-3 of this report) appear to be relatively consistent in each period, which may offset changes in

product mix of a single producer. 

 6

 A variance analysis is calculated in three parts, sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A

expense variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost or

expense (cost/expense) variance (in the case of the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance), and a

volume variance. The sales or cost/expense variance is calculated as the change in unit price or per-unit

cost/expense times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume

times the old unit price or per-unit cost/expense. Summarized at the bottom of the table, the price

variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance is the sum of those items from COGS and SG&A

variances, respectively, and the volume variance is the sum of the volume components of the net sales,

COGS, and SG&A expense variances. The overall volume component of the variance analysis is

generally small.

VI-5
Table VI-4

PRCBs: Variance analysis on results of operations of domestic producers, fiscal years 2006-08

and January-September 2008-09

Item

Between fiscal years Jan.-Sept.

2006-2008 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-09

Value (1,000 dollars)

Total net sales:

 Price variance 33,929 (85,707) 112,954 (187,314)

 Volume variance (21,563) 60,832 (75,713) 20,004

 Total net sales variance1 12,366 (24,875) 37,241 (167,310)

Cost of goods sold:

 Cost variance (59,718) 77,653 (131,317) 205,288

 Volume variance 19,416 (54,776) 68,138 (18,448)

 Total cost of goods variance (40,302) 22,877 (63,179) 186,840

Gross profit variance (27,936) (1,998) (25,938) 19,530

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (10,963) 9,659 (19,869) 11,346

 Volume variance 2,042 (5,759) 7,048 (1,679)

 Total SG&A variance (8,921) 3,900 (12,821) 9,667

Operating income variance (36,857) 1,902 (38,759) 29,197

Summarized as:

 Price variance 33,929 (85,707) 112,954 (187,314)

 Net cost/expense variance (70,680) 87,312 (151,186) 216,634

 Net volume variance (105) 297 (527) (123)

Note.--Unfavorable variances are shown in parenthesis; all others are favorable. The data are comparable to

changes in operating income as presented in table VI-1.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES,

AND INVESTMENT IN PRODUCTIVE FACILITIES

The responding firms’ data on capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”)

expenses are shown in table VI-5. 

VI-6
Table VI-5

PRCBs: Value of capital expenditures and R&D expenses of U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years

2006-08

Item

Fiscal year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Value (1,000 dollars)

Capital expenditures:

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 38,799 17,643 14,548 10,300 6,044

R&D expenses:

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 1,687 1,732 1,235 1,005 696

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The Commission’s questionnaire requested firms to describe the nature or focus of their capital

expenditures and R&D expenses. The responses are tabulated as follows:

* * * * * * *

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of PRCBs to compute return on investment (“ROI”) for 2006 to 2008. The data for operating

income are from table VI-1. Operating income was divided by total assets, resulting in the asset turnover

VI-7
ratio. ROI fell irregularly from 0.8 percent in 2006 to a negative 4.9 percent in 2008. These data and

calculations are shown in table VI-6.

Table VI-6

PRCBs: The value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006–08

Item 2006 2007 2008

Value (1,000 dollars)

Current assets:

Cash and equivalents 93,889 15,541 17,017

Accounts receivable, net 131,026 142,509 120,251

Finished goods inventories 49,557 59,737 36,700

Raw materials and work-in-process inventories 47,020 82,450 41,924

Other current assets1 16,340 17,040 45,708

Subtotal current assets 337,833 317,276 261,600

Noncurrent assets:

Original cost of property, plant, and equipment 444,178 496,640 435,917

Accumulated depreciation 251,696 301,892 234,598

Book value of property, plant, and equipment 192,483 194,749 201,319

Other noncurrent assets2 115,798 110,715 75,796

Total assets 646,113 622,739 538,715

Ratio of operating income to total assets

(percent)

Return on investment 0.8 1.1 (5.9)

1

 Includes such items as other receivables, prepaid expenses, company loans, and short-term investments. 2

 Includes such items as goodwill, patents, or intangible assets, investments, life insurance, or other non-current

assets.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The original cost of fixed assets increased between 2006 and 2007 in response to both capital

expenditures and acquisitions, but fell from 2007 and 2008 in response to closures and asset writeoffs. 

Other noncurrent assets declined from 2007 to 2008 because of ***.

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or potential negative effects of

imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam on their firms’ growth, investment, and ability

to raise capital or development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the product). Their responses are shown in appendix H.

VI-8
PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(i)). Information on the nature of the subsidies was presented earlier in this report; information

on the volume of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Part IV; information regarding

pricing of domestic and imported subject merchandise is presented in Part V; and information on the

effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production

efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’

operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and

any 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.

THE INDUSTRY IN INDONESIA

The Commission requested data from 14 firms in Indonesia believed to be possible producers of

PRCBs. Of these firms, three (***) provided questionnaire responses containing useable data and 11 did

not provide responses.1

 The three responding firms estimated that in 2008 they accounted for *** percent

of production of PRCBs in Indonesia and *** percent of exports of PRCBs from Indonesia to the United

States. Reported exports of PRCBs to the United States by these firms in 2008 were equivalent to ***

percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Indonesia in that year based on official Commerce

statistics.

During the 2006-08 period, reported capacity, production, and total shipments made by

Indonesian producers decreased. In the 2009 interim period, capacity, production, and total shipments

decreased relative to the same period in 2008. Reported exports to the United States also decreased

during 2006-08 and between the interim periods. These decreases can be attributed in part to decreases in

capacity, production, shipments, and exports of ***, which attributed the changes to a fall in demand

resulting from a switch to reusable polypropylene bags from PRCBs. Table VII-1 presents data for

reported production and shipments of PRCBs in Indonesia. 

Table VII-1

PRCBs: Indonesia’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-

08, January-September 2008, January-September 2009, and projections for 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN TAIWAN

The Commission requested data from 23 firms in Taiwan believed to be possible producers or

exporters of PRCBs. Of these firms, three producers (***) and one exporter2

 provided questionnaire

responses containing useable production or export data and the remaining 19 firms did not provide

responses.3

 Three responding firms estimated that in 2008 they accounted for *** percent of production

 1 One additional Indonesian foreign producer, ***, provided data during the preliminary phase investigations but

did not do so in the final phase. 

 2

 This exporter is ***. *** identified *** as the company that produced the PRCBs in Taiwan. E-mail from ***,

May 4, 2009. 

 3

 According to representatives of ***. E-mails from ***, February 22, 2010.

VII-1
of PRCBs in Taiwan and *** percent of exports of PRCBs from Taiwan to the United States.4

 Reported

exports of PRCBs to the United States by these firms in 2008 were equivalent to *** percent of the

quantity of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Taiwan in that year based on official Commerce statistics. 

Table VII-2 presents data for reported production and shipments of PRCBs in Taiwan. Capacity,

production, total shipments, and exports to the United States of PRCBs all increased during 2006-08. 

Capacity and production were mostly unchanged during the 2009 interim period relative to the same

period in 2008, while U.S. exports and total shipments decreased. The increases during the calendar year

periods can be attributed to ***. For the interim periods, *** cited the filing of the petitions for these

investigations as a reason for these declines. The petitions were also cited by these same producers as a

reason for lower projected production and exports in 2009 and 2010. 

Table VII-2

PRCBs: Taiwan’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-08,

January-September 2008, January-September 2009, and projections for 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN VIETNAM

The Commission requested data from 78 firms in Vietnam believed to be possible producers or

exporters of PRCBs. Of these firms, 7 producers *** provided questionnaire responses containing

useable production and/or export data and the remaining 71 did not provide responses.5

 Responding firms

estimated that in 2008 they accounted for *** percent of production of PRCBs in Vietnam and ***

percent of exports of PRCBs from Vietnam to the United States.6

 Reported exports of PRCBs to the

United States by these firms in 2008 were equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of

PRCBs from Vietnam in that year based on official Commerce statistics.

During the period for which data were collected, capacity, production, inventories, and shipments

all increased by large amounts, due to the fact that most responding producers only began producing

PRCBs at some point after the beginning of 20067

 and due to ***. The projected decreases in capacity

and production from 2009 to 2010 reflect ***’s closing down its facility in December 2009, *** planning

to shut down its facility in early 2010, and *** planning to switch to non-PRCB production in 2010.

Three of the responding firms, ***, reported producing other products in addition to PRCBs using the

same resources.8

 Table VII-3 presents data for reported production and shipments of PRCBs in Vietnam.

 4 *** did not provide useable data in response to questions on either the percentage of production or the

percentage of exports represented by the company’s PRCB operations. 

 5

 One large Vietnamese foreign producer, ***, provided data during the preliminary phase investigations but did

not do so in the final phase. ***. Calendar year 2006-08 data for the Vietnamese industry including this company

can be found in the preliminary phase staff report at Table VII-3. 

 6

 Out of the seven responding firms, only *** provided useable data in response to questions on both the

percentage of production and the percentage of exports represented by the companies’ PRCB operations. *** did

not provide production data but did provide export share estimates. Two other companies, *** and ***, were unable

to provide estimates. 

 7

 Of the responding firms, only *** reported existing PRCB production or capacity in 2006.

 8

 ***. ***. ***.

VII-2
Table VII-3

PRCBs: Vietnam’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-08,

January-September 2008, January-September 2009, and projections for 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRIES IN THE SUBJECT COUNTRIES COMBINED

Table VII-4 presents aggregate data for the reporting producers of PRCBs in Indonesia, Taiwan,

and Vietnam.

Table VII-4

PRCBs: Subject countries’ combined reported production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, 2006-08, January-September 2008, January-September 2009, and projections for 2009

and 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Reported inventories held by U.S. importers of subject merchandise from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam are shown in table VII-5.

Table VII-5

PRCBs: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories for all imports, by source, 2006-08,

January-September 2008, January-September 2009

Source

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Imports from Indonesia:

 Inventories (1,000 bags) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

 (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from Taiwan:

 Inventories (1,000 bags) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

 (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on following page.

VII-3
Table VII-5--Continued

PRCBs: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories for all imports, by source, 2006-08,

January-September 2008, January-September 2009

Source

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Imports from Vietnam:

 Inventories (1,000 bags) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

(percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from subject sources:

 Inventories (1,000 bags) 668,553 1,184,206 1,485,017 1,615,175 1,584,666

 Ratio to imports (percent) 12.5 10.7 14.6 19.3 18.3

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

(percent) 14.0 14.4 18.9 22.3 22.1

Imports from all other sources:

 Inventories (1,000 bags) 1,525,185 2,500,051 2,575,341 2,552,718 2,480,862

 Ratio to imports (percent) 13.4 27.8 24.4 25.9 26.8

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

(percent) 14.1 31.6 26.8 27.2 29.1

Imports from all sources:

 Inventories (1,000 bags) 2,193,738 3,684,257 4,060,358 4,167,894 4,065,528

 Ratio to imports (percent) 13.1 18.3 19.6 22.9 22.7

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 

 (percent) 14.1 22.9 23.2 25.1 25.9

Note.– Ratios were calculated using data from firms providing information on both inventories and imports or U.S. shipments of

imports. Partial-year ratios are based on annualized import/shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and/or Vietnam for various periods after September 30,

2009. The decrease in current orders after March 2010 is accounted for in part by importers ***, ***,

and ***, which did not report any orders of PRCBs beyond that month.

VII-4
Table VII-6

PRCBs: U.S. importers’ current orders, by source, imported or arranged for importation after

September 30, 2009

Source Oct.-Dec. 2009

Jan.-March

2010

April-June

2010

After June

2010

Quantity (1,000 bags)

Indonesia 15,913 5,614 0 0

Taiwan 50,872 0 0 0

Vietnam 170,494 14,036 15,989 0

All other sources 2,316,365 2,083,833 116,832 2,376

Total 2,553,644 2,103,483 132,821 2,376

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There are no known antidumping or countervailing duty investigations on PRCBs from

Indonesia, Taiwan, or Vietnam reported in third-country markets. The only known trade remedy case

related to plastic bags conducted outside of the United States was the antidumping duty investigations

conducted by the European Union in 2005-06. These investigations involved the importation of bags

from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and antidumping duty orders were put into place in September 2006

on plastic bags from China and Thailand.9

 These orders remain in place.

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”10

There is limited publicly available information regarding international production or exports of

PRCBs during the period for which data were collected. Countries other than Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam known to be large producers of PRCBs include China, Malaysia, and Thailand. Other countries 

believed to be producing PRCBs on a smaller scale include Canada, Korea, Japan, and Turkey.11 Data on

the PRCB industries in China, Malaysia, and Thailand are being obtained pursuant to the current reviews

of antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from those countries. 

 9 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1425/2006.

 10 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008), quoting

from Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52;

see also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 11 Conference transcript, pp. 51-52 (Dorn).

VII-5

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

63410 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Notices 

1For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as non-sealable sacks and bags with 

handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or 

integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, 

with or without printing, of polyethylene film 

having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 

mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), 

and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches 

(15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The 

depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but 

not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are 

typically provided without any consumer packaging 

and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., 

grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty 

retail, discount stores, and restaurants to their 

customers to package and carry their purchased 

products. The scope of these investigations 

excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed 

with logos or store names and that are closeable 

with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) 

polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer 

packaging with printing that refers to specific enduses other than packaging and carrying 

merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., 

garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. 

updates by Council members and 

reports from the BLM District Manager 

and five field office managers. 

Additional agenda topics may include 

updates on legislation and renewable 

energy. Final agenda items, including 

details of the field tour, will be posted 

on the BLM California State Web site at 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/rac/ 

dac.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All 

California Desert District Advisory 

Council meetings are open to the public. 

Public comment for items not on the 

agenda will be scheduled at the 

beginning of the meeting Saturday 

morning. Time for public comment may 

be made available by the Council 

Chairman during the presentation of 

various agenda items, and is scheduled 

at the end of the meeting for topics not 

on the agenda. 

While the meeting is tentatively 

scheduled to conclude at 4 p.m. on 

Saturday, it could conclude earlier 

should the Council conclude its 

presentations and discussions. 

Therefore, members of the public 

interested in a particular agenda item or 

discussion should schedule their arrival 

accordingly. 

Written comments may be filed in 

advance of the meeting for the 

California Desert District Advisory 

Council, c/o Bureau of Land 

Management, External Affairs, 22835 

Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno 

Valley, CA 92553. Written comments 

also are accepted at the time of the 

meeting and, if copies are provided to 

the recorder, will be incorporated into 

the minutes. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Briery, BLM California Desert 

District External Affairs, (951) 697– 

5220. 

Dated: November 16, 2009. 

Steven J. Borchard, 

District Manager. 

[FR Doc. E9–28504 Filed 12–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 701–TA–462 (Final) and 

731–TA–1156–1158 (Final)] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–462 (Final) 

under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and 

the final phase of antidumping 

investigations Nos. 731–TA–1156–1158 

(Final) under section 735(b) of the Act 

(19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine 

whether 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 subsidized imports of 

polyethylene retail carrier bags 

(‘‘PRCBs’’) from Vietnam and less-thanfair-value imports of PRCBs from 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, 

provided for in subheading 3923.21.00 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States.1

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, 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 C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Kaplan (202–205–3184), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

as a result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that certain benefits which 

constitute subsidies within the meaning 

of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b) are being provided to 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

in Vietnam of PRCBs, and that such 

products from Indonesia, Taiwan, and 

Vietnam are being sold in the United 

States at less than fair value within the 

meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were 

requested in petitions filed on March 

31, 2009, by Hilex Poly Co., LLC, 

Hartsville, SC and Superbag Corp., 

Houston, TX. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 

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 the final phase of these 

investigations available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigations, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days prior to the hearing date specified 

in this notice. Authorized applicants 

must represent interested parties, as 

defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are 

parties to the investigations. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigations need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Notices 63411 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of these 

investigations will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on March 2, 2010, and 

a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the final 

phase of these investigations beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. on March 16, 2010, at the 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before March 12, 2010. A nonparty who 

has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on March 11, 

2010, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is March 9, 2010. Parties may also 

file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is March 23, 

2010; witness testimony must be filed 

no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the investigations may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigations, including statements of 

support or opposition to the petitions, 

on or before March 23, 2010. On April 

7, 2010, the Commission will make 

available to parties all information on 

which they have not had an opportunity 

to comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before April 9, 2010, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.30 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in 

section II (C) of the Commission’s 

Handbook on Electronic Filing 

Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

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 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 30, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–28853 Filed 12–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Notice of Affirmative Decisions on 

Petitions for Modification Granted in 

Whole or in Part 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of Affirmative Decisions 

on Petitions for Modification Granted in 

Whole or in Part. 

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) enforces mine 

operator compliance with mandatory 

safety and health standards that protect 

miners and improve safety and health 

conditions in U.S. mines. This Federal 

Register Notice (FR Notice) notifies the 

public that it has investigated and 

issued a final decision on certain mine 

operator petitions to modify a safety 

standard. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final decisions 

are posted on MSHA’s Web site at 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 58 / Friday, March 26, 2010 / Notices 14569 

which a review is requested. If it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend this deadline to a 

maximum of 365 days. 

The Department determines that 

completion of the preliminary results of 

this review within the statutory time 

period is not practicable, given the 

extraordinarily complicated nature of 

the proceeding. The Department 

requires additional time to analyze the 

information gathered at verification 

concerning Hubei Xingfa’s corporate 

structure and ownership, sales 

practices, manufacturing methods, and 

to issue the verification report. 

Therefore, given the number and 

complexity of issues in this case, and in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act, we are extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results of review by 17 days until April 

5, 2010. The final results continue to be 

due 120 days after the publication of the 

preliminary results. 

This notice is published pursuant to 

sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

Dated: March 19, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6809 Filed 3–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–843] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has determined that 

imports of polyethylene retail carrier 

bags (PRCBs) from Taiwan are being, or 

are likely to be, sold in the United States 

at less than fair value (LFTV), as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

listed in the ‘‘Continuation of 

Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0665 or (202) 482– 

1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On October 27, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

preliminary determination in the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

PRCBs from Taiwan. See Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags From Taiwan: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 74 FR 55183 

(October 27, 2009) (Preliminary 

Determination). 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this investigation 

have been extended by seven days. The 

revised deadline for the final 

determination in this investigation is 

now March 18, 2010. See Memorandum 

to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, 

DAS for Import Administration, 

regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative 

Deadlines As a Result of the 

Government Closure During the Recent 

Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010. 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we conducted sales and cost 

verifications of the questionnaire 

responses submitted by the sole 

participating respondent, TCI Plastic 

Co., Ltd. (TCI). We used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by TCI. See 

Memorandum to the File entitled 

‘‘Verification of the U.S. Sales Response 

of Interplast Group in the Antidumping 

Investigation of Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from Taiwan,’’ dated 

December 22, 2009, Memorandum to the 

File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Home– 

Market and Export–Price Sales 

Responses of TCI Plastic Co., Ltd., in the 

Antidumping Investigation of 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Taiwan,’’ dated December 23, 2009, and 

Memorandum to the File entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Tis 

Dis International Co. Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Investigation of 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Taiwan,’’ dated January 11, 2010. All 

verification reports are on file and 

available in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU), Room 1117, of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

We received case briefs submitted by 

Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag 

Corporation (hereinafter, the petitioners) 

and TCI on January 21, 2010. The 

petitioners and TCI submitted rebuttal 

comments on January 26, 2010. 

Although a hearing was requested, the 

request was withdrawn and we did not 

hold a hearing. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is January 

1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. 

This period corresponds to the four 

most recent fiscal quarters prior to the 

month of the filing of the petition, 

March 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is PRCBs, which also may 

be referred to as t–shirt sacks, 

merchandise bags, grocery bags, or 

checkout bags. The subject merchandise 

is defined as non–sealable sacks and 

bags with handles (including 

drawstrings), without zippers or integral 

extruded closures, with or without 

gussets, with or without printing, of 

polyethylene film having a thickness no 

greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and 

no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), 

and with no length or width shorter 

than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 

40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the 

bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not 

longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). 

PRCBs are typically provided without 

any consumer packaging and free of 

charge by retail establishments, e.g., 

grocery, drug, convenience, department, 

specialty retail, discount stores, and 

restaurants to their customers to 

package and carry their purchased 

products. The scope of this investigation 

excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are 

not printed with logos or store names 

and that are closeable with drawstrings 

made of polyethylene film and (2) 

polyethylene bags that are packed in 

consumer packaging with printing that 

refers to specific end–uses other than 

packaging and carrying merchandise 

from retail establishments, e.g., garbage 

bags, lawn bags, trash–can liners. 

Imports of merchandise included 

within the scope of this investigation 

are currently classifiable under 

statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). This 

subheading may also cover products 

that are outside the scope of this 

investigation. Furthermore, although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
14570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 58 / Friday, March 26, 2010 / Notices 

Adverse Facts Available 

For the final determination, we 

continue to find that, by failing to 

provide information we requested, 

Ipsido Corporation (Ipsido), a 

respondent selected for individual 

examination in this investigation, did 

not act to the best of its ability. Thus, 

we continue to find that the use of 

adverse facts available is warranted for 

this company under sections 776(a)(2) 

and (b) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Determination, 74 FR at 55185–55186. 

As we explained in the Preliminary 

Determination, the rate of 95.81 percent 

we selected as the adverse facts– 

available rate for Ipsido is the highest 

margin alleged in the petition (see the 

Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 

on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam, dated March 31, 

2009). See also Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, 

and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 74 FR 19049, 19054 

(April 27, 2009). Further, as discussed 

in the Preliminary Determination, we 

corroborated the adverse facts–available 

rate pursuant to section 776(c) of the 

Act. See Preliminary Determination, 74 

FR at 55186. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

antidumping investigation are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Antidumping 

Investigation of Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from Taiwan’’ (Decision 

Memorandum) from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated March 18, 2010, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the issues which parties have 

raised and to which we have responded, 

all of which are in the Decision 

Memorandum, is attached to this notice 

as an appendix. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this investigation and the 

corresponding recommendations in the 

Decision Memorandum which is on file 

in the CRU. In addition, a complete 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

can be accessed directly on the Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Targeted Dumping 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

followed the methodology we adopted 

in Certain Steel Nails from the United 

Arab Emirates: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Not Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008), 

and Certain Steel Nails from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 

2008) (collectively, Nails), used most 

recently in Certain New Pneumatic Off– 

The-Road Tires from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 

2008). See Preliminary Determination, 

74 FR at 55187–55188. Based on the 

targeted–dumping test that we applied 

in the Preliminary Determination, we 

found a pattern of export prices and 

constructed export prices for 

comparable merchandise that differs 

significantly among certain customers, 

regions, and time periods. Id. As a 

result, following the methodology in 

Nails, we applied the average–totransaction comparison methodology to 

TCI’s targeted sales and the average–toaverage comparison methodology to 

TCI’s non–targeted sales; in calculating 

TCI’s weighted–average margin, we 

combined the margin calculated for the 

targeted sales with the margin 

calculated for the non–targeted sales 

and did not offset any margins found 

among the targeted sales. See 

Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 

55188. 

In the Preliminary Determination we 

announced that, given the now– 

withdrawn regulations that guided our 

practice in Nails, we would consider 

various options regarding the specific 

group of sales to which we apply the 

average–to-transaction methodology (the 

withdrawn targeted–dumping regulation 

would have limited such application to 

just the targeted sales). See id. We 

offered the following three options: 1) 

apply the average–to-transaction 

methodology just to sales found to be 

targeted as the withdrawn regulation 

directed and, consistent with our 

average–to-transaction practice, not 

offset any margins found on these 

transactions; 2) apply the average–totransaction methodology to all sales to 

the customer, region, or time period 

found to be targeted (not just those 

specific sales found to be targeted) and, 

consistent with our average–to 

transaction practice, not offset any 

margins found on these transactions; 

and 3) apply the average–to-transaction 

methodology to all sales by TCI and, 

consistent with our average–to 

transaction practice, not offset any 

margins found on these transactions. 

See id. 

As in the Preliminary Determination, 

we continue to find a pattern of export 

prices and constructed export prices for 

comparable merchandise that differs 

significantly among customers, regions, 

or by time period. See Memorandum to 

the File entitled ‘‘Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Taiwan - Analysis Memorandum for TCI 

Plastic Co., Ltd.,’’ dated March 18, 2010. 

We continue to find, pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, that 

application of the average–to-average 

comparison method does not account 

for such price differences and results in 

the masking of dumping that would be 

unmasked by the application of the 

average–to-transaction comparison 

method to all sales. Accordingly, for this 

final determination we have applied the 

average–to-transaction methodology to 

all U.S. sales that TCI reported. For a 

complete discussion, see the Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verifications, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculation for 

TCI. For a discussion of these changes, 

see Memorandum to the File entitled 

‘‘Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value in the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan - 

Analysis Memorandum for TCI Plastic 

Co., Ltd.,’’ dated March 18, 2010, and 

Memorandum to Neal Halper entitled 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Final Determination TCI Plastic Co. Ltd. 

and Tis Dis International Co. Ltd.,’’ 

dated March 18, 2010. 

Cost of Production 

As explained in the Preliminary 

Determination (74 FR at 55190), we 

conducted an investigation concerning 

sales at prices below the cost of 

production in the home market. We 

found that, for certain specific products, 

more than 20 percent of TCI’s home– 

market sales were at prices less than the 

cost of production and, in addition, 

such sales did not provide for the 

recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. Therefore, we 

disregarded these sales and used the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 58 / Friday, March 26, 2010 / Notices 14571 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining normal value in accordance 

with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Based 

on this test, for this final determination 

we have disregarded below–cost sales 

by TCI. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to continue to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

PRCBs from Taiwan which were 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after October 27, 

2009, 

The date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination. We will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond equal to the 

weighted–average margins, as indicated 

below, as follows: (1) the rates for TCI 

and Ipsido will be the rates we have 

determined in this final determination; 

(2) if the exporter is not a firm identified 

in this investigation but the producer is, 

the rate will be the rate established for 

the producer of the subject 

merchandise; (3) the rate for all other 

producers or exporters will be 36.54 

percent, as discussed in the ‘‘All–Others 

Rate’’ section, below. These suspension– 

of-liquidation instructions will remain 

in effect until further notice. 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Ipsido Corporation ........ 95.81 

TCI Plastic Co., Ltd. ..... 36.54 

All–Others Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that the estimated all–others 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. TCI is the only 

respondent in this investigation for 

which the Department has calculated a 

company–specific rate. Therefore, for 

purposes of determining the all–others 

rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) 

of the Act, we are using the weighted– 

average dumping margin calculated for 

TCI, 36.54 percent. See, e.g., Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 

30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999), and Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 72 FR 30753, 

30757 (June 4, 2007) (unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 

60636 (October 25, 2007)). 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our final determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative and in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 

days, whether 

The domestic industry in the United 

States is materially injured, or 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of imports or sales (or the 

likelihood of sales) for importation of 

the subject merchandise. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue 

An antidumping duty order directing 

CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of the destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 735(d) 

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

Dated: March 18, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix -- Issues in Decision 

Memorandum 

1. Targeted Dumping 

2. Sales Outside the Ordinary Course of 

Trade 

3. Home–Market Warranty Expenses 

4. Direct Material Costs 

5. Variable Overhead Costs for Outside 

Processing Services 

6. Unreconciled Costs 

7. Financial Expense 

8. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 

9. Miscellaneous Issues 

[FR Doc. 2010–6807 Filed 3–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XV50 

Western Pacific Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

hold meetings of its Hawaii and 

American Samoa Advisory Panels (AP), 

Hawaii and American Samoa Plan 

Teams (PT), and Hawaii and American 

Samoa Regional Ecosystem Advisory 

Committees (REAC). 

DATES: The Hawaii AP meeting will be 

held on April 12, 2010, Hawaii REAC 

meeting on April, 13, 2010, and Hawaii 

PT meeting on April 14 and 15, 2010. 

The American Samoa AP meeting will 

be held on April 19, 2010, American 

Samoa PT meeting on April 20, 2010, 

and American Samoa REAC meeting on 

April 21, 2010. For specific times and 

agendas, see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: The Hawaii AP, PT and 

REAC meetings will be held at the 

Council Office Conference Room, 1164 

Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI. 

The American Samoa AP and PT 

meetings will be held at the American 

Samoa Department of Marine and 

Wildlife Resources (DMWR) Conference 

Room, Pago Pago, American Samoa. The 

American Samoa REAC meeting will be 

held at the Governor H. Rex Lee 

Auditorium (Fale Laumei), Department 

of Commerce Government of American 

Samoa, Pago Pago, American Samoa. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; 

telephone: (808) 522–8220. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

comment periods will be provided 

throughout the agendas. The order in 

which agenda items are addressed may 

change. The meetings will run as late as 

necessary to complete scheduled 

business. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
16428 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 

under section 516A(e) of the Act. This 

notice is effective as of February 19, 

2010. 

The Department will continue to 

suspend liquidation pending the 

expiration of the period to appeal the 

CIT’s February 9, 2010 decision, or, if 

that decision is appealed, pending a 

‘‘conclusive’’ decision by the Federal 

Circuit. Upon expiration of the period to 

appeal, or if the CIT’s decision is 

appealed and the Federal Circuit’s 

decision is not in harmony with the 

Department’s determination in the 

2005–2006 antidumping duty 

administrative review of freshwater 

crawfish tail meat from the PRC, the 

Department will publish in the Federal 

Register a notice of amended final 

results of the 2005–2006 administrative 

review. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: March 24, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7407 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XV63 

Endangered Species; File Nos. 15112 

and 13307–02 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application 

and application for modification. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center, Woods Hole, MA, has applied in 

due form for a permit to take loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta), leatherback 

(Dermochelys coriacea), Kemp’s ridley 

(Lepidochelys kempii), green (Chelonia 

mydas), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys 

imbricata) sea turtles for purposes of 

scientific research. Kristen Hart, Ph.D., 

USGS, Davie, FL has applied for a 

modification to scientific research 

Permit No. 13307–01 to take green sea 

turtles. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

May 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The applications and 

related documents are available for 

review by selecting ‘‘Records Open for 

Public Comment’’ from the Features box 

on the Applications and Permits for 

Protected Species (APPS) home page, 

https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then 

selecting File No. 15112 or 13307–02 

from the list of available applications. 

These documents are also available 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following offices: Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 

713–2289; fax (301) 713–0376; and 

Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 

33701; phone (727) 824–5312; fax (727) 

824–5309. 

Written comments on these 

applications should be submitted to the 

Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division, at the address listed 

above. Comments may also be submitted 

by facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by 

email to 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Please 

include the File No. in the subject line 

of the comment. 

Those individuals requesting a public 

hearing should submit a written request 

to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division at the address listed 

above. The request should set forth the 

specific reasons why a hearing on the 

application would be appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Swails or Amy Hapeman, (301) 713– 

2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit and modification are 

requested under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

and the regulations governing the 

taking, importing, and exporting of 

endangered and threatened species (50 

CFR 222–226). 

File No. 15112: The purpose of the 

research is to determine the size and 

composition of populations of sea 

turtles found in the commercial fishing 

areas of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. 

The research would contribute to the 

understanding of the pelagic ecology of 

these species and allow more reliable 

assessments of commercial fishery 

impacts. Annually up to 130 loggerhead, 

70 Kemp’s ridley, 50 green, 10 

hawksbill, and 50 leatherback sea turtles 

caught in commercial fisheries would be 

measured, flipper tagged, tissue 

sampled, and released. The permit 

would be issued for five years. 

File No. 13307–02: Dr. Hart is 

authorized to capture up to 30 green, 20 

hawksbill, and 20 loggerhead sea turtles 

annually. Turtles may be weighed, 

measured, flipper tagged, PIT tagged, 

blood sampled, tissue sampled, fecal 

sampled, and lavaged. A subset of 

turtles may be tagged with a satellite tag 

or acoustic transmitter or a combination 

of both. This research addresses finescale temporal and spatial patterns of 

sea turtle habitat use, ecology, and 

genetic origin within the Dry Tortugas 

National Park. Dr. Hart proposes to 

increase the number of green sea turtles 

that she captures to 80 per year due to 

the high rate of recent capture success. 

The modification would be valid until 

the permit expires on June 30, 2013. 

Dated: March 29, 2010. 

P. Michael Payne, 

Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7350 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–552–805] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) has determined that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(Vietnam). For information on the 

estimated countervailing duty rates, 

please see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section, below. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene Calvert or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3586 and (202) 

482–1396, respectively. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the announcement of the 

preliminary determination, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 4, 2009. See Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination with 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 16429 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

74 FR 45811 (September 4, 2009) 

(Preliminary Determination). 

The Department issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire to the 

government of Vietnam (GOV), Advance 

Polybag Co., Ltd. (API), Chin Sheng 

Company, Ltd. (Chin Sheng), and Fotai 

Vietnam Enterprise Corporation and 

Fotai Enterprise Corporation 

(collectively, Fotai). The Department 

received responses to these 

questionnaires on October 7, 2009 from 

API, on October 14 from Chin Sheng 

and the GOV, and on October 16 from 

Fotai. A third supplemental 

questionnaire was subsequently issued 

to the GOV only. The GOV submitted a 

response on October 26. Public versions 

of the questionnaires and responses, as 

well as the various memoranda cited 

below, are available at the Department’s 

Central Records Unit (Room 1117 in the 

HCHB Building) (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘CRU’’). Also on October 26, new factual 

information was submitted by Hilex 

Poly Co., LLC and Suberbag Corporation 

(collectively, Petitioners), the GOV, and 

Fotai. On October 21, 2009, the 

Department was informed by API that it 

was no longer participating in the 

investigation. See the October 21, 2009 

Letter to the Secretary of Commerce, 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation 

Involving Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Vietnam.’’ 

From November 2 through November 

18, 2009, we conducted verification of 

the questionnaire responses submitted 

by the GOV, Chin Sheng and Fotai. We 

issued verification reports on January 4, 

2010. See Memorandum to the File, 

‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire 

Responses Submitted by the 

Government of Vietnam,’’ and 

Memoranda to Mark Hoadley, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 

‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire 

Responses Submitted by Chin Sheng 

Company, Ltd.,’’ and ‘‘Verification of the 

Questionnaire Responses Submitted by 

Fotai Vietnam Enterprise Corporation.’’ 

On January 11, 2010, we issued a report 

regarding discussions held with third 

party experts concerning banking in 

Vietnam. See Memorandum to Barbara 

E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, ‘‘Private Experts 

Meeting on Vietnam’s Banking Sector.’’ 

We received case briefs from 

Petitioners, the GOV, Chin Sheng and 

Fotai on January 25, 2010, and rebuttal 

briefs from Petitioners, the GOV, and 

Fotai on February 1, 2010. On January 

27, 2010, Petitioners withdrew their 

request for a hearing, submitted on 

October 5, 2009. 

On February 12, 2010, the Department 

exercised its discretion to toll Import 

Administration deadlines for the 

duration of the closure of the Federal 

Government from February 5 through 

February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines 

in this segment of the proceeding were 

extended by seven days. See 

Memorandum to the Record from 

Ronald Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative 

Deadlines As a Result of the 

Government Closure During the Recent 

Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010.’’ 

Based on this memorandum, the 

deadline for this final determination 

was changed from March 18, 2010 to 

March 25, 2010. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

polyethylene retail carrier bags, which 

also may be referred to as t–shirt sacks, 

merchandise bags, grocery bags, or 

checkout bags. The subject merchandise 

is defined as non–sealable sacks and 

bags with handles (including 

drawstrings), without zippers or integral 

extruded closures, with or without 

gussets, with or without printing, of 

polyethylene film having a thickness no 

greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and 

no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), 

and with no length or width shorter 

than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 

40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the 

bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not 

longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). 

PRCBs are typically provided without 

any consumer packaging and free of 

charge by retail establishments, e.g., 

grocery, drug, convenience, department, 

specialty retail, discount stores, and 

restaurants to their customers to 

package and carry their purchased 

products. The scope of this investigation 

excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are 

not printed with logos or store names 

and that are closeable with drawstrings 

made of polyethylene film and (2) 

polyethylene bags that are packed in 

consumer packaging with printing that 

refers to specific end–uses other than 

packaging and carrying merchandise 

from retail establishments, e.g., garbage 

bags, lawn bags, trash–can liners. 

Imports of merchandise included 

within the scope of this investigation 

are currently classifiable under 

statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). This 

subheading may also cover products 

that are outside the scope of this 

investigation. Furthermore, although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Injury Test 

Because Vietnam is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the meaning 

of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) is 

required to determine pursuant to 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act whether 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

Vietnam materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a United States 

industry. On May 29, 2009, the ITC 

published its preliminary determination 

that there is a reasonable indication that 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of allegedly 

subsidized imports from Vietnam of 

subject merchandise. See Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, 

Taiwan, and Vietnam; Determinations, 

74 FR 25771 (May 29, 2009); and 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam 

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4080, Inv. 

Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA–1156– 

1158 (May 2009). 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

investigation (POI), is January 1, 2008 

through December 31, 2008. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs submitted by Petitioners, 

the GOC, Chin Sheng and Fotai are 

addressed in the Memorandum to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Determination in the 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’’ 

(March 25, 2010) (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), which 

is hereby adopted by this notice. 

Attached to this notice as an Appendix 

is a list of the issues that parties have 

raised and to which we have responded 

in the Decision Memorandum. Parties 

can find this public memorandum in the 

Department’s CRU. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

ia–highlights-and–news.html or http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

For purposes of this final 

determination, we relied on adverse 

facts available (AFA) in accordance with 

sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act to 

determine the total countervailable 

subsidy rate for API. We also relied on 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

16430 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 

AFA to determine the countervailable 

subsidy rate for Fotai for one of the 

programs under investigation. A full 

discussion of our decision to apply AFA 

is presented in the Decision 

Memorandum in the section 

‘‘Application of Facts Otherwise 

Available and AFA to API and Fotai.’’ 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 

calculated an individual rate for Chin 

Sheng and Fotai, and assigned an AFA 

rate to API. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the 

Act states that for companies not 

investigated, we will determine an all 

others rate equal to the weighted 

average countervailable subsidy rates 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero and de minimis countervailable 

subsidy rates, and any rates based 

entirely on AFA under section 776 of 

the Act. Since API’s rate is based 

entirely on AFA and since Chin Sheng’s 

rate is de minimis, the all others rate is 

the rate calculated for Fotai. 

Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy 

Rate 

Advance Polybag Co., Ltd. ... 52.56% 

Chin Sheng Company, Ltd. .. 0.44% (de 

minimis) 

Fotai Vietnam Enterprise 

Corp. And Fotai Enterprise 

Corporation ....................... 5.28% 

All Others .............................. 5.28% 

Although suspension of liquidation 

was required on the date of publication 

of the Preliminary Determination, we 

subsequently instructed U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection, pursuant to 

section 703(d) of the Act, to discontinue 

the suspension of liquidation for 

countervailing duty purposes for subject 

merchandise entered on or after January 

2, 2010, but to continue the suspension 

of liquidation of entries made on or after 

September 4, 2009 through January 1, 

2010. 

If the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, we will issue a 

countervailing duty order and reinstate 

the suspension of liquidation under 

section 706(a) of the Act. We will then 

require a cash deposit of estimated 

countervailing duties for entries of 

subject merchandise in the amounts 

indicated above, except for Chin Sheng, 

which would be excluded from an order 

because it has a de minimis rate. This 

exclusion will apply only to subject 

merchandise both produced and 

exported by Chin Sheng. If the ITC 

determines that material injury, or 

threat of material injury, does not exist, 

this proceeding will be terminated and 

all estimated duties deposited or 

securities posted as a result of the 

suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all non– 

privileged and non–proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an Administrative Protective 

Order (APO), without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an APO of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 705(d) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 25, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Applicability of the CVD Law to 

Vietnam 

IV. Subsidies Valuation 

A. Period of Investigation 

B. Date of Applicability of CVD Law 

to Vietnam 

C. Allocation Period 

D. Loan Benchmark and Discount 

Rates 

E. Attribution of Subsidies – Sales 

Denominator 

V. Application of Facts Otherwise 

Available and AFA for API and Fotai 

A. API 

B. Fotai 

C. Corroboration 

VI. Analysis of Programs 

A. Programs Determined To Be 

Countervailable 

1. Income Tax Preferences for 

Encouraged Industries 

2. Income Tax Preferences for FIEs 

3. Land Rent Reduction or Exemption 

for Exporters 

4. Import Duty Exemptions for 

Imported Raw Materials for 

Exported Goods 

5. Exemption of Import Duties on 

Imports of Spare Parts and 

Accessories for Industrial Zone 

Enterprises 

B. Programs Determined To Be Not 

Countervailable 

VAT Exemptions for Equipment for 

FIEs 

C. Programs Determined To Be 

Terminated 

Export Bonus Program 

D. Programs Determined To Have 

Been Not Used During the Period of 

Investigation 

1. Government Provision of Water for 

LTAR in Industrial Zones 

2. Preferential Lending for Exporters 

3. Preferential Lending for the Plastics 

Industry 

4. Export Promotion Program 

5. New Product Development Program 

6. Income Tax Preferences for 

Exporters 

7. Income Tax Preferences for FIEs 

Operating in Encouraged Industries 

8. Import Tax Exemptions for FIEs 

Using Imported Goods to Create 

Fixed Assets 

9. Exemption of Import Duties on 

Importation of Fixed Assets for 

Industrial Zone Enterprises 

10. Import Tax Exemptions for FIEs 

Importing Raw Materials 

11. Land Rent Exemption for 

Manufacturers of Plastic Products 

12. Provision of Land Use Rights in 

Industrial Zones for LTAR 

13. Land Rent Reduction or 

Exemption for FIEs 

14. Exemption of Import Duties for 

Imported Raw Materials for 

Industrial Zone Enterprises 

15. Accelerated Depreciation for 

Companies in Encouraged 

Industries and Industrial Zones 

16. Losses Carried Forward for 

Companies in Encouraged 

Industries and Industrial Zones 

VII. Analysis of Comments 

Comment 1: Simultaneous Imposition of 

CVD and AD Duties on an NME 

Comment 2: The Appropriate De 

Minimis Rate 

Comment 3: Cutoff Date for 

Countervailing Duties 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 16431 

1Because these two companies function as one 

common corporate entity that share common sales 

and production facilities, we have treated SESSM 

as one company. 

2The petitioners in this investigation are Hilex 

Poly Co. LLC and Superbag Corporation. 

Comment 4: Preferential Lending for the 

Plastics Industry 

Comment 5: Chin Sheng’s Policy 

Lending Rate Should Be Recalculated 

Using the Data Collected at Verification 

Comment 6: Fotai’s Short–Term Loan 

Data Were Not Verified 

Comment 7: Proper Benchmark for 

Preferential Lending 

Comment 8: The Provision of Land at 

LTAR 

Comment 9: The Proper Benchmark for 

the Provision of Land at LTAR 

Comment 10: Duty Exemptions on 

Imports of Raw Materials Provided to 

Fotai 

Comment 11: Chin Sheng’s Sales 

Denominator 

Comment 12: Income Tax Programs and 

Programs Not Used 

Comment 13: Application of AFA to API 

VIII. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2010–7395 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–560–822] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Indonesia: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has determined that 

imports of polyethylene retail carrier 

bags (PRCBs) from Indonesia are being, 

or are likely to be, sold in the United 

States at less than fair value (LFTV) as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

listed in the ‘‘Continuation of 

Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Schauer or Yang Jin Chun, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0410 or (202) 482– 

5760, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 3, 2009, the Department 

published Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Indonesia: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 56807 (November 

3, 2009), as amended in Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia: 

Amended Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 

63720 (December 4, 2009) (collectively, 

Preliminary Determination), in the 

Federal Register. We selected the 

following companies for individual 

examination: P.T. Super Exim Sari Ltd. 

and P.T. Super Makmur (collectively, 

SESSM); 1 P.T. Sido Bangun (SBI). See 

Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 

56808. 

On November 16, 2009, SBI informed 

the Department that it would not 

participate in the verification of its 

information and withdrew from the 

investigation. See SBI’s withdrawal 

letter to the Department dated 

November 16, 2009. SBI requested that 

the Department remove all of its 

submissions from the administrative 

record and certify the destruction of the 

submissions that are in the possession 

of interested parties to the investigation. 

Id. We have decided to retain all of 

SBI’s submissions in the administrative 

record of this investigation because this 

information serves as the basis for SBI’s 

margin. See Memorandum to Laurie 

Parkhill entitled ‘‘Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from Indonesia—PT Sido 

Bangun’s Request That Its Submissions 

Be Removed from the Administrative 

Record’’ dated March 25, 2010, 

incorporated herein by reference. 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we conducted sales and cost 

verifications of the questionnaire 

responses submitted by SESSM. We 

used standard verification procedures, 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, as 

well as original source documents 

provided by SESSM. See Memoranda to 

the File entitled ‘‘Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from Indonesia: Sales 

Verification of P.T. Super Exim Sari Ltd. 

and P.T. Super Makmur’’ and 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of 

P.T. Super Exim Sari Ltd. and P.T. 

Super Makmur in the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia’’ 

dated January 11, 2010, and January 12, 

2010, respectively. All verification 

reports are on file and available in the 

Central Records Unit, Room 1117, of the 

main Department of Commerce 

building. 

On December 29, 2009, SESSM 

submitted the sales and cost databases 

with revisions that reflect SESSM’s 

minor corrections before the 

verifications and the Department’s 

findings of SESSM’s reporting errors 

during the verifications. See SESSM’s 

December 29, 2009, submission of the 

sales and cost databases. 

SESSM and the petitioners 2 filed 

their case briefs with the Department on 

January 22, 2010, and rebuttal briefs on 

January 27, 2010. At the petitioners’ 

request, we held a hearing, including a 

closed session where parties discussed 

business-proprietary information, on 

January 29, 2010. 

We used SESSM’s December 29, 2009, 

sales and cost databases to calculate 

SESSM’s antidumping duty margin. No 

parties have objected to the use of these 

databases. 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, we have 

exercised our discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5 through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this investigation 

have been extended by seven days. The 

revised deadline for the final 

determination of this investigation is 

now March 25, 2010. See Memorandum 

to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, 

DAS for Import Administration, 

regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative 

Deadlines As a Result of the 

Government Closure During the Recent 

Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is January 

1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. 

This period corresponds to the four 

most recent fiscal quarters prior to the 

month of the filing of the petition, 

March 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is PRCBs, which also may 

be referred to as t-shirt sacks, 

merchandise bags, grocery bags, or 

checkout bags. The subject merchandise 

is defined as non-sealable sacks and 

bags with handles (including 

drawstrings), without zippers or integral 

extruded closures, with or without 

gussets, with or without printing, of 

polyethylene film having a thickness no 

greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and 

no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), 

and with no length or width shorter 

than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 

40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the 

bag may be shorter than 6 inches (15.24 

cm) but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 

cm). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

16432 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 

PRCBs are typically provided without 

any consumer packaging and free of 

charge by retail establishments, e.g., 

grocery, drug, convenience, department, 

specialty retail, discount stores, and 

restaurants to their customers to 

package and carry their purchased 

products. The scope of this investigation 

excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are 

not printed with logos or store names 

and that are closeable with drawstrings 

made of polyethylene film and (2) 

polyethylene bags that are packed in 

consumer packaging with printing that 

refers to specific end-uses other than 

packaging and carrying merchandise 

from retail establishments, e.g., garbage 

bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. 

Imports of merchandise included 

within the scope of this investigation 

are currently classifiable under 

statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). This 

subheading may also cover products 

that are outside the scope of this 

investigation. Furthermore, although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

antidumping duty investigation are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia’’ 

(Decision Memorandum) from Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations John M. Andersen to Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration Ronald K. Lorentzen 

dated March 25, 2010, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues which parties have raised and to 

which we have responded, all of which 

are in the Decision Memorandum, is 

attached to this notice as an appendix. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this investigation 

and the corresponding 

recommendations in the Decision 

Memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit of the main 

Department of Commerce building, 

Room 1117, and is accessible on the 

Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ 

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Targeted Dumping 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

followed the methodology we adopted 

in Certain Steel Nails from the United 

Arab Emirates: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Not Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008), 

and Certain Steel Nails from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 

2008) (collectively, Nails), used most 

recently in Certain New Pneumatic OffThe-Road Tires from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 

2008). See Preliminary Determination, 

74 FR at 56808–09. Based on the 

targeted-dumping test that we applied 

in the Preliminary Determination, we 

found a pattern of export prices for 

comparable merchandise that differ 

significantly among certain time 

periods. Id. As a result and following 

the methodology in Nails, in the 

Preliminary Determination we applied 

the average-to-transaction comparison 

methodology to SESSM’s targeted sales 

and the average-to-average comparison 

methodology to SESSM’s non-targeted 

sales. In calculating SESSM’s weightedaverage margin, we combined the 

margin we calculated for the targeted 

sales with the margin we calculated for 

the non-targeted sales and did not offset 

any margins found among the targeted 

sales. See Preliminary Determination, 74 

FR at 56809. 

In the Preliminary Determination we 

announced that, given the withdrawal of 

the regulations that guided our practice 

in Nails, we would consider various 

options regarding the specific group of 

sales to which we apply the average-totransaction methodology (the 

withdrawn targeted-dumping regulation 

would have limited such application to 

just the targeted sales). Id. We requested 

comments on the following three 

options: (1) Apply the average-totransaction methodology just to sales 

found to be targeted as the withdrawn 

regulation directed and, consistent with 

our average-to-transaction practice, not 

offset any margins found on these 

transactions; (2) apply the average-totransaction methodology to all sales to 

the time period found to be targeted (not 

just those specific sales found to be 

targeted) and, consistent with our 

average-to transaction practice, not 

offset any margins found on these 

transactions; (3) apply the average-totransaction methodology to all sales by 

SESSM and, consistent with our 

average-to-transaction practice, not 

offset any margins found on these 

transactions. Id. 

For the final determination, we find 

that, in this investigation, the result 

using the standard average-to-average 

methodology is not substantially 

different from that using the alternative 

average-to-transaction methodology. 

Accordingly, for this final determination 

we have applied the standard averageto-average methodology to all U.S. sales 

that SESSM reported. For a complete 

discussion, see the Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculation for 

SESSM. For a discussion of these 

changes, see the Decision Memorandum 

and ‘‘Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Indonesia—Analysis Memorandum for 

P.T. Super Exim Sari Ltd. and P.T. 

Super Makmur’’ dated March 25, 2010, 

and ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Final 

Determination—P.T. Super Exim Sari, 

Ltd. and P.T. Super Makmur’’ dated 

March 25, 2010. For SBI, we applied 

adverse facts available in accordance 

with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. See 

the ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available’’ 

section below and the Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

Cost of Production 

As explained in the Preliminary 

Determination, we conducted an 

investigation concerning sales at prices 

below the cost of production in the 

home market. We found that, for certain 

specific products, more than 20 percent 

of SESSM’s home-market sales were at 

prices less than the cost of production 

and, in addition, such sales did not 

provide for the recovery of costs within 

a reasonable period of time. Therefore, 

we disregarded these sales and used the 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining normal value in accordance 

with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Based 

on this test, for this final determination 

we have disregarded below-cost sales by 

SESSM. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department, fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, significantly 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 16433 

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute, or provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified, the Department shall, 

subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act 

requires the Department to use facts 

available when a party provides 

information but that information cannot 

be verified. In addition, section 776(b) 

of the Act provides that, if the 

Department finds that an interested 

party ‘‘has failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information,’’ the 

Department may use information that is 

adverse to the interests of that party as 

facts otherwise available. 

As explained above, after the 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination, SBI notified the 

Department that it would no longer 

participate in this antidumping 

investigation and that it would not 

participate in any verification. See letter 

from SBI dated November 16, 2009. 

Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, in 

reaching our final determination we 

have used total facts available for SBI 

because we could not verify SBI’s data. 

Also, because SBI refused to participate 

in the verification of its responses, we 

find that SBI has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we 

have used an adverse inference in 

selecting from the facts available for the 

margin for SBI. We have assigned 85.17 

percent as the margin. This was the 

highest control-number-specific margin 

we found for SBI for the Preliminary 

Determination. See page 54 of the 

margin program output attached to 

‘‘Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Indonesia—Analysis Memorandum for 

PT Sido Bangun Indonesia’’ dated 

October 27, 2009. See the Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6 for further 

discussion. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to continue to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise from Indonesia 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after November 

3, 2009, the date of the publication of 

the Preliminary Determination. We will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond equal to the 

weighted-average margin, as indicated 

below, as follows: (1) The rates for 

SESSM and SBI will be the rates we 

have determined in this final 

determination; (2) if the exporter is not 

a firm identified in this investigation 

but the producer is, the rate will be the 

rate established for the producer of the 

subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all 

other producers or exporters will be 

69.64 percent as discussed in the ‘‘AllOthers Rate’’ section below. These 

suspension-of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

Final Determination 

The final antidumping duty margins 

are as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average 

margin (percent) 

P.T. Sido Bangun Indonesia ........................................................................................................................................................ 85.17 

P.T. Super Exim Sari Ltd. and P.T. Super Makmur .................................................................................................................... 69.64 

All-Others Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that the estimated all-others 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

established for producers and exporters 

individually investigated excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. SESSM is the 

only respondent in this investigation for 

which we have calculated a companyspecific rate. Therefore, for purposes of 

determining the all-others rate and 

pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the 

Act, we are using the weighted-average 

dumping margin calculated for SESSM 

which is 69.64 percent. See, e.g., Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 

30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999), and Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 72 FR 30753, 

30757 (June 4, 2007) (unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 

60636 (October 25, 2007)). 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our final determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

imports of the subject merchandise are 

causing material injury or threat of 

material injury to an industry in the 

United States. If the ITC determines that 

material injury or threat of injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

we will issue an antidumping duty 

order directing CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all imports of the 

subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Destruction of Proprietary Information 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO as explained in 

the APO itself. See 19 CFR 

351.305(a)(3). Timely written 

notification of the destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a sanctionable 

violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

16434 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 

Dated: March 25, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Issues in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

1. Targeted Dumping. 

2. Level of Trade. 

3. Adverse Facts Available. 

4. Home-Market Credit Expenses. 

5. General and Administrative Expenses. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7392 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–806] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

polyethylene retail carrier bags 

(‘‘PRCBs’’) from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’) are being, or are 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The 

final dumping margins for this 

investigation are listed in the Final 

Determination Margins section of this 

notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev 

Primor or Shawn Higgins, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4114 and (202) 

482–0679, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On November 3, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

preliminary determination that PRCBs 

from Vietnam are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at LTFV, 

as provided in the Act. See Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 56813 (November 

3, 2009) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

For the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department assigned a 76.11 percent 

dumping margin to the Vietnam-wide 

entity—including mandatory 

respondents Advance Polybag Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘API’’) and Fotai Vietnam Enterprise 

Corp. (‘‘Fotai Vietnam’’)—and a 52.30 

percent dumping margin to 16 separate 

rate applicants. Because no interested 

party submitted case or rebuttal briefs, 

it was not necessary to prepare an 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. As a further consequence 

of no submissions, a hearing was not 

held. 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

final determination of this investigation 

is now March 25, 2010. See 

Memorandum to the Record from 

Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 

2010. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is July 1, 

2008, through December 31, 2008. This 

period corresponds to the two most 

recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 

in which the petition was filed (i.e., 

March 2009). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is polyethylene retail 

carrier bags, which also may be referred 

to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, 

grocery bags, or checkout bags. The 

subject merchandise is defined as nonsealable sacks and bags with handles 

(including drawstrings), without zippers 

or integral extruded closures, with or 

without gussets, with or without 

printing, of polyethylene film having a 

thickness no greater than 0.035 inch 

(0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 

inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length 

or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 

cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). 

The depth of the bag may be shorter 

than 6 inches but not longer than 40 

inches (101.6 cm). 

PRCBs are typically provided without 

any consumer packaging and free of 

charge by retail establishments, e.g., 

grocery, drug, convenience, department, 

specialty retail, discount stores, and 

restaurants to their customers to 

package and carry their purchased 

products. The scope of this investigation 

excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are 

not printed with logos or store names 

and that are closeable with drawstrings 

made of polyethylene film and (2) 

polyethylene bags that are packed in 

consumer packaging with printing that 

refers to specific end-uses other than 

packaging and carrying merchandise 

from retail establishments, e.g., garbage 

bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. 

Imports of merchandise included 

within the scope of this investigation 

are currently classifiable under 

statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). This 

subheading may also cover products 

that are outside the scope of this 

investigation. Furthermore, although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Because no party submitted case 

briefs and there are no other 

circumstances which warrant the 

revision of the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department has not 

made changes to its analysis, or the 

dumping margins calculated, with 

respect to the Preliminary 

Determination. For further details of the 

issues addressed in this proceeding, see 

the Preliminary Determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the initiation notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 

19049 (April 27, 2009). This change in 

practice is described in Separate Rates 

and Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233 (April 

5, 2005) which states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning 

separate rates only to exporters, all separate 

rates that the Department will now assign in 

its {non-market economy} 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 16435 

1 ‘‘∧’’ designates companies as foreign-owned 

separate rate recipients, ‘‘*’’ designates companies 

as Vietnamese separate rate recipients, and ‘‘°’’ 

designates companies as state-owned separate rate 

recipients. 2API, Fotai Vietnam, Green Care Packaging 

Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Creative Pak Industrial 

Co., Ltd., An Phat Plastic and Packing Joint Stock 

Co., Genius Development Ltd., and J.K.C. Vina Co., 

Ltd. are all part of the Vietnam-wide entity. 

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. 

Final Determination Margins 

The Department determines that the 

following dumping margins exist for the 

period July 1, 2008, through December 

31, 2008: 1

Manufacturer Exporter 

Antidumping 

duty percent 

margin 

Alpha Plastics (Vietnam) Co., Ltd.∧ ............................................ Alpha Plastics (Vietnam) Co., Ltd.∧ .......................................... 52.30 

Alta Company ° ........................................................................... Alta Company ° .......................................................................... 52.30 

Ampac Packaging Vietnam Ltd.∧ ............................................... Ampac Packaging Vietnam Ltd.∧ .............................................. 52.30 

BITAHACO * ................................................................................ BITAHACO * .............................................................................. 52.30 

Chin Sheng Co., Ltd.* ................................................................. Chin Sheng Co., Ltd.* ................................................................ 52.30 

Chung Va (Vietnam) Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.∧ .................... Chung Va Century Macao Commercial Offshore Limited ∧ ...... 52.30 

Hanoi 27–7 Packaging Company Limited, aka Hanoi 27–7 

Packing Company Limited, aka HAPACK Co. Ltd, aka 

HAPACK ß.

Hanoi 27–7 Packaging Company Limited, aka Hanoi 27–7 

Packing Company Limited, aka HAPACK Co. Ltd, aka 

HAPACK°.

52.30 

Hoi Hung Company Limited ∧ ..................................................... Kong Wai Polybag Printing Company ∧ .................................... 52.30 

Kinsplastic Vietnam Ltd. Co.∧ .................................................... Kinsplastic Vietnam Ltd. Co.∧ ................................................... 52.30 

Loc Cuong Trading Producing Company Limited, aka Loc 

Cuong Trading Producing Company, aka Loc Cuong Trading 

Producing Co. Ltd.*.

Loc Cuong Trading Producing Company Limited, aka Loc 

Cuong Trading Producing Company, aka Loc Cuong Trading Producing Co. Ltd.*.

52.30 

Ontrue Plastics Co., Ltd. (Vietnam) ∧ ......................................... Ontrue Plastics Co., Ltd. (Vietnam) ∧ ........................................ 52.30 

Richway Plastics Vietnam Co., Ltd.∧ .......................................... Richway Plastics Vietnam Co., Ltd.∧ ......................................... 52.30 

RKW Lotus Limited Co., Ltd., aka RKW Lotus Limited, aka 

RKW Lotus Ltd.∧.

RKW Lotus Limited Co., Ltd., aka RKW Lotus Limited, aka 

RKW Lotus Ltd.∧.

52.30 

VINAPACKINK Co., Ltd.* ............................................................ VINAPACKINK Co., Ltd.* ........................................................... 52.30 

VN K’s International Polybags Joint Stock Company * .............. K’s International Polybags MFG Ltd * ........................................ 52.30 

VN Plastic Industries Co. Ltd ∧ ................................................... VN Plastic Industries Co. Ltd ∧ .................................................. 52.30 

Vietnam-Wide Entity 2 ................................................................. .................................................................................................... 76.11 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose the 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

to parties in this proceeding in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

PRCBs from Vietnam, as described in 

the Scope of the Investigation section, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after November 

3, 2009, the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. The Department will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond equal to the 

weighted-average dumping margin 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The 

rate for the exporter/producer 

combinations listed in the chart above 

will be the rate the Department has 

determined in this final determination; 

(2) for all Vietnamese exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash-deposit 

rate will be the Vietnam-wide entity 

rate; and (3) for all non-Vietnamese 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash-deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the Vietnamese exporter/ 

producer combination that supplied that 

non-Vietnamese exporter. These 

suspension-of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, the Department notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of its final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As the Department’s final 

determination is affirmative, in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, within 45 days the ITC will 

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess, upon further instruction by 

the Department, antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

16436 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 

1 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which 

includes the telson and the uropods. 

Dated: March 25, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7410 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–840] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From India: Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has received 

information sufficient to warrant the 

initiation of a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain frozen warmwater shrimp 

from India. Specifically, based on a 

request filed by Srikanth International, 

the Department is initiating a changed 

circumstances review to determine 

whether Srikanth International is the 

successor-in-interest to NGR Aqua 

International (NGR). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Blaine Wiltse; AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 2, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–6345. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 1, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from India. 

See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India, 70 FR 5147 (Feb. 1, 

2005) (Shrimp Order). 

On February 3, 2010, Srikanth 

International informed the Department 

that it purchased the packing plant 

formerly owned and operated by NGR, 

and provided certain documentation 

related to this claim. Additionally, 

Srikanth International requested that the 

Department conduct an expedited 

changed circumstances review under 19 

CFR 351.221(c)(3)(iii) to confirm that 

Srikanth International is the successorin-interest to NGR for purposes of 

determining antidumping duty cash 

deposits and liabilities. 

Normally, the Department will initiate 

a changed circumstances review within 

45 days of the date on which the request 

is filed. See 19 CFR 351.216(b). 

However, as explained in the 

memorandum from the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, the Department has 

exercised its discretion to toll deadlines 

for the duration of the closure of the 

Federal Government from February 5 

through February 12, 2010. Thus, all 

deadlines in this segment of the 

proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for 

initiating this review is now March 29, 

2010. See Memorandum to the Record 

from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 

2010. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm-raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,1

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

this order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild-caught 

warmwater species include, but are not 

limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus 

vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus 

merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus 

chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of this order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of this order. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 

subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell-on or peeled 

(HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns 

in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product: (1) That is produced from fresh 

(or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled 

shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of 

rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 

purity has been applied; (3) with the 

entire surface of the shrimp flesh 

thoroughly and evenly coated with the 

flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of 

the end product constituting between 

four and ten percent of the product’s 

total weight after being dusted, but prior 

to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected 

to IQF freezing immediately after 

application of the dusting layer. 

Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product that, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par-fried. 

The products covered by this order 

are currently classified under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 

0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 

0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 

0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 

0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 

1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this order is dispositive. 

Initiation of Changed Circumstances 

Review 

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

the Department will conduct a changed 

circumstances review upon receipt of 

information concerning, or a request 

from an interested party for a review of, 

an antidumping duty order which 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-1

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan,

and Vietnam

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Final)

Date and Time: March 16, 2010 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (room

101), 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, DC.

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Joseph W. Dorn, King & Spalding LLP)

Respondents (Adams C. Lee, White & Case LLP)

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

King & Spalding LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Hilex Poly Co., LLC

Superbag Corporation

Isaac Bazbaz, Director, Superbag Corporation

Mark Daniels, Vice President of Marketing and

Environmental Affairs, Hilex Poly Co., LLC

Anthony Rizzo, Vice President of Sales, Hilex

Poly Co., LLC

Joseph W. Dorn )

) – OF COUNSEL

Brian E. McGill )

B-3
In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

White & Case LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

P.T. Super Exim Sari Ltd. (“Super Exim”)

P.T. Super Makmur (“Super Makmur”)

Faye Lin, Marketing Executive, Super Exim

Ted Downing, Vice President, Packaging Concepts

International

Deirdre Maloney, Senior International Trade Advisor,

White & Case LLP

Adams C. Lee )

) – OF COUNSEL

Frank H. Morgan )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Joseph W. Dorn, King & Spalding LLP)

Respondents (Frank H. Morgan, White & Case LLP)

B-4
APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1

Table C-1

All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

(Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108,266,796 105,303,892 101,449,633 74,422,263 74,546,715 -6.3 -2.7 -3.7 0.2

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.7 66.3 64.2 64.9 66.8 2.5 4.6 -2.1 1.9

 Importers' share (1):

 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 3.2 2.8 3.2 2.0 1.3 1.8 -0.4 -1.2

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 3.8 4.5 4.8 3.0 2.5 1.8 0.7 -1.8

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 6.9 7.1 6.8 7.8 4.3 4.1 0.2 1.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 13.9 14.4 14.8 12.7 8.1 7.6 0.4 -2.0

 China. Malaysia, and Thailand . . . . . . . 26.9 15.3 18.6 17.4 16.6 -8.3 -11.6 3.3 -0.7

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 4.5 2.9 3.0 3.8 -2.2 -0.6 -1.6 0.8

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.3 33.7 35.8 35.1 33.2 -2.5 -4.6 2.1 -1.9

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,294,816 1,389,493 1,487,404 1,085,214 793,447 14.9 7.3 7.0 -26.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.0 66.4 66.1 66.9 71.1 -8.0 -7.6 -0.3 4.2

 Importers' share (1):

 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 3.3 2.8 3.0 1.6 0.8 1.3 -0.5 -1.4

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 3.0 3.8 4.0 2.5 2.3 1.5 0.8 -1.4

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 5.3 5.9 5.5 5.6 4.4 3.8 0.6 0.1

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 11.7 12.5 12.5 9.7 7.5 6.7 0.9 -2.8

 China. Malaysia, and Thailand . . . . . . . 17.0 16.4 17.2 16.4 14.2 0.2 -0.6 0.7 -2.2

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 5.5 4.2 4.2 5.0 0.2 1.5 -1.3 0.8

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0 33.6 33.9 33.1 28.9 8.0 7.6 0.3 -4.2

U.S. imports from:

 Indonesia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,592,965 3,396,505 2,819,569 2,365,162 1,469,854 77.0 113.2 -17.0 -37.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,400 45,808 40,948 33,005 12,998 61.2 80.3 -10.6 -60.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.95 $13.49 $14.52 $13.95 $8.84 -8.9 -15.4 7.7 -36.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,171,587 3,988,867 4,575,499 3,561,990 2,215,669 110.7 83.7 14.7 -37.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,454 42,318 56,848 42,993 20,008 192.2 117.5 34.3 -53.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.96 $10.61 $12.42 $12.07 $9.03 38.7 18.4 17.1 -25.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Vietnam:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,061,998 7,288,037 7,192,325 5,055,117 5,811,440 134.9 138.0 -1.3 15.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,734 73,757 88,189 59,982 44,323 346.9 273.8 19.6 -26.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.44 $10.12 $12.26 $11.87 $7.63 90.3 57.0 21.2 -35.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,826,550 14,673,409 14,587,393 10,982,269 9,496,963 113.7 114.9 -0.6 -13.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,588 161,884 185,986 135,980 77,328 188.0 150.6 14.9 -43.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.46 $11.03 $12.75 $12.38 $8.14 34.8 16.6 15.6 -34.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668,553 1,184,206 1,485,017 1,615,175 1,584,666 122.1 77.1 25.4 -1.9

 China. Malaysia, and Thailand:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,079,228 16,114,332 18,833,894 12,928,070 12,408,875 -35.2 -44.6 16.9 -4.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219,763 228,082 255,232 177,532 112,403 16.1 3.8 11.9 -36.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.56 $14.15 $13.55 $13.73 $9.06 79.3 87.3 -4.3 -34.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,575,003 4,748,210 2,942,934 2,212,148 2,829,145 -47.2 -14.8 -38.0 27.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,774 76,586 63,180 46,116 39,907 22.0 47.9 -17.5 -13.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.29 $16.13 $21.47 $20.85 $14.11 131.2 73.7 33.1 -32.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,525,185 2,500,051 2,575,341 2,552,719 2,480,862 68.9 63.9 3.0 -2.8

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,480,781 35,535,951 36,364,221 26,122,487 24,734,983 -12.3 -14.3 2.3 -5.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336,125 466,552 504,398 359,628 229,639 50.1 38.8 8.1 -36.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.10 $13.13 $13.87 $13.77 $9.28 71.2 62.0 5.6 -32.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,193,738 3,684,257 4,060,358 4,167,894 4,065,528 85.1 67.9 10.2 -2.5

Table continued on next page.

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

(Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83,182,701 83,232,332 79,737,217 60,936,535 67,365,922 -4.1 0.1 -4.2 10.6

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,212,269 72,320,872 66,276,349 51,085,031 51,516,891 -5.6 3.0 -8.4 0.8

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.4 86.9 83.1 83.8 76.5 -1.3 2.5 -3.8 -7.4

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66,786,015 69,767,941 65,085,412 48,299,776 49,811,732 -2.5 4.5 -6.7 3.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958,691 922,941 983,006 725,586 563,808 2.5 -3.7 6.5 -22.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.35 $13.23 $15.10 $15.02 $11.32 5.2 -7.8 14.2 -24.7

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,207,673 2,351,519 2,209,901 1,574,534 1,400,301 0.1 6.5 -6.0 -11.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,645 38,575 30,330 21,908 16,549 -19.4 2.5 -21.4 -24.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.05 $16.40 $13.72 $13.91 $11.82 -19.5 -3.8 -16.3 -15.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,800,923 3,995,589 2,976,270 5,202,339 3,350,997 -21.7 5.1 -25.5 -35.6

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 5.5 4.4 7.8 4.9 -1.1 0.0 -1.1 -2.9

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,495 3,160 2,971 3,011 2,874 -15.0 -9.6 -6.0 -4.5

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,597 7,154 6,903 5,108 4,903 -9.1 -5.8 -3.5 -4.0

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,452 105,602 103,881 80,564 75,528 8.8 10.6 -1.6 -6.3

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12.56 $14.76 $15.05 $15.77 $15.41 19.8 17.5 1.9 -2.3

 Productivity (bags per hour) . . . . . . . . . . 9,242 10,109 9,601 10,001 10,508 3.9 9.4 -5.0 5.1

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.36 $1.46 $1.57 $1.58 $1.47 15.3 7.4 7.3 -7.0

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,728,820 72,926,211 67,241,013 49,874,583 51,209,397 -2.2 6.1 -7.8 2.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996,078 971,203 1,008,444 747,446 580,137 1.2 -2.5 3.8 -22.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.49 $13.32 $15.00 $14.99 $11.33 3.5 -8.1 12.6 -24.4

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896,911 874,034 937,213 689,309 502,469 4.5 -2.6 7.2 -27.1

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99,167 97,169 71,231 58,137 77,668 -28.2 -2.0 -26.7 33.6

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94,307 90,407 103,228 62,737 53,070 9.5 -4.1 14.2 -15.4

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,860 6,762 (31,997) (4,600) 24,598 (2) 39.1 (2) (2)

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,799 17,643 14,548 10,300 6,044 -62.5 -54.5 -17.5 -41.3

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.05 $11.99 $13.94 $13.82 $9.81 6.8 -8.2 16.3 -29.0

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.37 $1.24 $1.54 $1.26 $1.04 11.9 -9.7 23.8 -17.6

 Unit operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . $0.07 $0.09 ($0.48) ($0.09) $0.48 (2) 31.1 (2) (2)

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.0 90.0 92.9 92.2 86.6 2.9 -0.0 2.9 -5.6

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.7 -3.2 -0.6 4.2 -3.7 0.2 -3.9 4.9

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not available/not applicable.

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 and from official Commerce statistics.

C-4
Table C-2

High-end PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

(Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,025 169,269 165,432 122,436 96,915 0.2 2.6 -2.3 -20.8

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Importers' share (1):

 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 14.7 23.5 22.6 24.9 16.3 7.6 8.7 2.3

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 6.3 1.1 1.4 0.7 -18.3 -13.0 -5.3 -0.8

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.1 26.2 31.6 31.3 18.6 12.4 7.0 5.4 -12.7

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.6 47.3 56.1 55.3 44.2 10.5 1.6 8.8 -11.2

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.4 52.7 43.9 44.7 55.8 -10.5 -1.6 -8.8 11.2

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,007 17,933 17,366 12,817 9,910 2.1 5.4 -3.2 -22.7

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Importers' share (1):

 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 20.9 30.7 29.5 33.2 19.3 9.6 9.8 3.8

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 3.9 1.5 2.1 1.2 -9.1 -6.7 -2.3 -0.9

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 15.5 18.3 17.5 10.8 7.2 4.4 2.8 -6.7

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 40.3 50.5 49.1 45.2 17.4 7.2 10.2 -3.9

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.9 59.7 49.5 50.9 54.8 -17.4 -7.2 -10.2 3.9

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

U.S. imports from:

 Indonesia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Vietnam:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,307 79,998 92,817 67,743 42,793 23.3 6.2 16.0 -36.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,622 7,228 8,771 6,288 4,480 56.0 28.6 21.3 -28.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $74.66 $90.35 $94.49 $92.82 $104.69 26.6 21.0 4.6 12.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,872 13,000 9,272 11,140 7,686 17.8 65.1 -28.7 -31.0

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89,718 89,271 72,615 54,693 54,122 -19.1 -0.5 -18.7 -1.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,385 10,705 8,595 6,529 5,430 -24.5 -6.0 -19.7 -16.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $126.90 $119.92 $118.36 $119.38 $100.33 -6.7 -5.5 -1.3 -16.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,181 19,945 18,605 24,088 15,298 8.3 16.1 -6.7 -36.5

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,025 169,269 165,432 122,436 96,915 0.2 2.6 -2.3 -20.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,007 17,933 17,366 12,817 9,910 2.1 5.4 -3.2 -22.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $103.06 $105.94 $104.97 $104.68 $102.26 1.9 2.8 -0.9 -2.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,053 32,945 27,877 35,228 22,984 11.3 31.5 -15.4 -34.8

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.-- Although *** produces high-end PRCBs in the United States, it did not provide any trade data on such PRCBs.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-5

Table C-3

All PRCBs excluding Inteplast: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

(Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108,266,796 105,303,892 101,449,633 74,422,263 74,546,715 -6.3 -2.7 -3.7 0.2

Producers' share (1)

 All producers excluding Inteplast *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inteplast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 3.2 2.8 3.2 2.0 1.3 1.8 -0.4 -1.2

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 3.8 4.5 4.8 3.0 2.5 1.8 0.7 -1.8

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 6.9 7.1 6.8 7.8 4.3 4.1 0.2 1.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 13.9 14.4 14.8 12.7 8.1 7.6 0.4 -2.0

 China. Malaysia, and Thailand . . . . . . . 26.9 15.3 18.6 17.4 16.6 -8.3 -11.6 3.3 -0.7

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 4.5 2.9 3.0 3.8 -2.2 -0.6 -1.6 0.8

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.3 33.7 35.8 35.1 33.2 -2.5 -4.6 2.1 -1.9

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,294,816 1,389,493 1,487,404 1,085,214 793,447 14.9 7.3 7.0 -26.9

Producers' share (1)

 All producers excluding Inteplast *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inteplast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 3.3 2.8 3.0 1.6 0.8 1.3 -0.5 -1.4

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 3.0 3.8 4.0 2.5 2.3 1.5 0.8 -1.4

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 5.3 5.9 5.5 5.6 4.4 3.8 0.6 0.1

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 11.7 12.5 12.5 9.7 7.5 6.7 0.9 -2.8

 China. Malaysia, and Thailand . . . . . . . 17.0 16.4 17.2 16.4 14.2 0.2 -0.6 0.7 -2.2

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 5.5 4.2 4.2 5.0 0.2 1.5 -1.3 0.8

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0 33.6 33.9 33.1 28.9 8.0 7.6 0.3 -4.2

U.S. imports from:

 Indonesia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,592,965 3,396,505 2,819,569 2,365,162 1,469,854 77.0 113.2 -17.0 -37.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,400 45,808 40,948 33,005 12,998 61.2 80.3 -10.6 -60.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.95 $13.49 $14.52 $13.95 $8.84 -8.9 -15.4 7.7 -36.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,171,587 3,988,867 4,575,499 3,561,990 2,215,669 110.7 83.7 14.7 -37.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,454 42,318 56,848 42,993 20,008 192.2 117.5 34.3 -53.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.96 $10.61 $12.42 $12.07 $9.03 38.7 18.4 17.1 -25.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Vietnam:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,061,998 7,288,037 7,192,325 5,055,117 5,811,440 134.9 138.0 -1.3 15.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,734 73,757 88,189 59,982 44,323 346.9 273.8 19.6 -26.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.44 $10.12 $12.26 $11.87 $7.63 90.3 57.0 21.2 -35.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,826,550 14,673,409 14,587,393 10,982,269 9,496,963 113.7 114.9 -0.6 -13.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,588 161,884 185,986 135,980 77,328 188.0 150.6 14.9 -43.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.46 $11.03 $12.75 $12.38 $8.14 34.8 16.6 15.6 -34.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668,553 1,184,206 1,485,017 1,615,175 1,584,666 122.1 77.1 25.4 -1.9

 China. Malaysia, and Thailand:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,079,228 16,114,332 18,833,894 12,928,070 12,408,875 -35.2 -44.6 16.9 -4.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219,763 228,082 255,232 177,532 112,403 16.1 3.8 11.9 -36.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.56 $14.15 $13.55 $13.73 $9.06 79.3 87.3 -4.3 -34.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,575,003 4,748,210 2,942,934 2,212,148 2,829,145 -47.2 -14.8 -38.0 27.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,774 76,586 63,180 46,116 39,907 22.0 47.9 -17.5 -13.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.29 $16.13 $21.47 $20.85 $14.11 131.2 73.7 33.1 -32.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,525,185 2,500,051 2,575,341 2,552,719 2,480,862 68.9 63.9 3.0 -2.8

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,480,781 35,535,951 36,364,221 26,122,487 24,734,983 -12.3 -14.3 2.3 -5.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336,125 466,552 504,398 359,628 229,639 50.1 38.8 8.1 -36.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.10 $13.13 $13.87 $13.77 $9.28 71.2 62.0 5.6 -32.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,193,738 3,684,257 4,060,358 4,167,894 4,065,528 85.1 67.9 10.2 -2.5

Table continued on next page.

C-7
Table C-3--Continued

All PRCBs excluding Inteplast: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

(Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (bags per hour) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Inteplast:

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not available/not applicable.

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 and from official Commerce statistics.

C-8
Table C-4

All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (including *** revisions), 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

(Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108,723,360 105,303,892 101,449,633 74,422,263 74,546,715 -6.7 -3.1 -3.7 0.2

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.4 66.3 64.2 64.9 66.8 2.7 4.8 -2.1 1.9

 Importers' share (1):

 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 3.2 2.8 3.2 2.0 0.9 1.3 -0.4 -1.2

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 3.8 4.5 4.8 3.0 2.5 1.8 0.7 -1.8

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 6.9 7.1 6.8 7.8 4.3 4.1 0.2 1.0

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 13.9 14.4 14.8 12.7 7.7 7.2 0.4 -2.0

 China. Malaysia, and Thailand . . . . . . . 26.7 15.3 18.6 17.4 16.6 -8.2 -11.4 3.3 -0.7

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 4.5 2.9 3.0 3.8 -2.2 -0.6 -1.6 0.8

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6 33.7 35.8 35.1 33.2 -2.7 -4.8 2.1 -1.9

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,308,586 1,389,493 1,487,404 1,085,214 793,447 13.7 6.2 7.0 -26.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.3 66.4 66.1 66.9 71.1 -7.2 -6.8 -0.3 4.2

 Importers' share (1):

 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 3.3 2.8 3.0 1.6 -0.2 0.3 -0.5 -1.4

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 3.0 3.8 4.0 2.5 2.3 1.6 0.8 -1.4

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 5.3 5.9 5.5 5.6 4.4 3.8 0.6 0.1

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 11.7 12.5 12.5 9.7 6.5 5.7 0.9 -2.8

 China. Malaysia, and Thailand . . . . . . . 16.8 16.4 17.2 16.4 14.2 0.4 -0.4 0.7 -2.2

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 5.5 4.2 4.2 5.0 0.3 1.6 -1.3 0.8

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 33.6 33.9 33.1 28.9 7.2 6.8 0.3 -4.2

U.S. imports from:

 Indonesia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,049,529 3,396,505 2,819,569 2,365,162 1,469,854 37.6 65.7 -17.0 -37.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,170 45,808 40,948 33,005 12,998 4.5 16.9 -10.6 -60.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19.11 $13.49 $14.52 $13.95 $8.84 -24.0 -29.4 7.7 -36.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,171,587 3,988,867 4,575,499 3,561,990 2,215,669 110.7 83.7 14.7 -37.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,454 42,318 56,848 42,993 20,008 192.2 117.5 34.3 -53.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.96 $10.61 $12.42 $12.07 $9.03 38.7 18.4 17.1 -25.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Vietnam:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,061,998 7,288,037 7,192,325 5,055,117 5,811,440 134.9 138.0 -1.3 15.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,734 73,757 88,189 59,982 44,323 346.9 273.8 19.6 -26.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.44 $10.12 $12.26 $11.87 $7.63 90.3 57.0 21.2 -35.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,283,114 14,673,409 14,587,393 10,982,269 9,496,963 100.3 101.5 -0.6 -13.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,358 161,884 185,986 135,980 77,328 137.4 106.6 14.9 -43.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.76 $11.03 $12.75 $12.38 $8.14 18.5 2.5 15.6 -34.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668,553 1,184,206 1,485,017 1,615,175 1,584,666 122.1 77.1 25.4 -1.9

 China. Malaysia, and Thailand:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,079,228 16,114,332 18,833,894 12,928,070 12,408,875 -35.2 -44.6 16.9 -4.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219,763 228,082 255,232 177,532 112,403 16.1 3.8 11.9 -36.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.56 $14.15 $13.55 $13.73 $9.06 79.3 87.3 -4.3 -34.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,575,003 4,748,210 2,942,934 2,212,148 2,829,145 -47.2 -14.8 -38.0 27.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,774 76,586 63,180 46,116 39,907 22.0 47.9 -17.5 -13.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.29 $16.13 $21.47 $20.85 $14.11 131.2 73.7 33.1 -32.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,525,185 2,500,051 2,575,341 2,552,719 2,480,862 68.9 63.9 3.0 -2.8

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,937,345 35,535,951 36,364,221 26,122,487 24,734,983 -13.3 -15.3 2.3 -5.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349,895 466,552 504,398 359,628 229,639 44.2 33.3 8.1 -36.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.34 $13.13 $13.87 $13.77 $9.28 66.3 57.4 5.6 -32.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,193,738 3,684,257 4,060,358 4,167,894 4,065,528 85.1 67.9 10.2 -2.5

Table continued on next page.

C-9
Table C-4--Continued

All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (including *** revisions), 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

(Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83,182,701 83,232,332 79,737,217 60,936,535 67,365,922 -4.1 0.1 -4.2 10.6

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,212,269 72,320,872 66,276,349 51,085,031 51,516,891 -5.6 3.0 -8.4 0.8

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.4 86.9 83.1 83.8 76.5 -1.3 2.5 -3.8 -7.4

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66,786,015 69,767,941 65,085,412 48,299,776 49,811,732 -2.5 4.5 -6.7 3.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958,691 922,941 983,006 725,586 563,808 2.5 -3.7 6.5 -22.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.35 $13.23 $15.10 $15.02 $11.32 5.2 -7.8 14.2 -24.7

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,207,673 2,351,519 2,209,901 1,574,534 1,400,301 0.1 6.5 -6.0 -11.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,645 38,575 30,330 21,908 16,549 -19.4 2.5 -21.4 -24.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.05 $16.40 $13.72 $13.91 $11.82 -19.5 -3.8 -16.3 -15.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,800,923 3,995,589 2,976,270 5,202,339 3,350,997 -21.7 5.1 -25.5 -35.6

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 5.5 4.4 7.8 4.9 -1.1 0.0 -1.1 -2.9

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,495 3,160 2,971 3,011 2,874 -15.0 -9.6 -6.0 -4.5

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,597 7,154 6,903 5,108 4,903 -9.1 -5.8 -3.5 -4.0

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,452 105,602 103,881 80,564 75,528 8.8 10.6 -1.6 -6.3

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12.56 $14.76 $15.05 $15.77 $15.41 19.8 17.5 1.9 -2.3

 Productivity (bags per hour) . . . . . . . . . . 9,242 10,109 9,601 10,001 10,508 3.9 9.4 -5.0 5.1

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.36 $1.46 $1.57 $1.58 $1.47 15.3 7.4 7.3 -7.0

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,728,820 72,926,211 67,241,013 49,874,583 51,209,397 -2.2 6.1 -7.8 2.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996,078 971,203 1,008,444 747,446 580,137 1.2 -2.5 3.8 -22.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.49 $13.32 $15.00 $14.99 $11.33 3.5 -8.1 12.6 -24.4

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896,911 874,034 937,213 689,309 502,469 4.5 -2.6 7.2 -27.1

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99,167 97,169 71,231 58,137 77,668 -28.2 -2.0 -26.7 33.6

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94,307 90,407 103,228 62,737 53,070 9.5 -4.1 14.2 -15.4

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,860 6,762 (31,997) (4,600) 24,598 (2) 39.1 (2) (2)

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,799 17,643 14,548 10,300 6,044 -62.5 -54.5 -17.5 -41.3

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.05 $11.99 $13.94 $13.82 $9.81 6.8 -8.2 16.3 -29.0

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.37 $1.24 $1.54 $1.26 $1.04 11.9 -9.7 23.8 -17.6

 Unit operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . $0.07 $0.09 ($0.48) ($0.09) $0.48 (2) 31.1 (2) (2)

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.0 90.0 92.9 92.2 86.6 2.9 -0.0 2.9 -5.6

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.7 -3.2 -0.6 4.2 -3.7 0.2 -3.9 4.9

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not available/not applicable.

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 and from official Commerce statistics.

C-10
D-1

APPENDIX D

PRICE DATA REGARDING PRCBs 

IN UNITS OF 1,000 BAGS

D-3

Table D-1

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and subject imported product

1, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-2

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and subject imported product

2, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-3

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and subject imported product

3, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-4

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and subject imported product

4, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-5

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and subject imported product

5, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-6

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and subject imported product

6, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-7

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and subject imported product

7, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-8

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and subject imported product

8, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *
D-4

Figure D-1

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-2

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-3

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-4

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-5

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-6

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 6, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-7

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 7, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-8

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 8, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *
E-1

APPENDIX E

PER-POUND DELIVERED PRICES OF PRCBs

IMPORTED DIRECTLY BY PURCHASERS

E-3

Table E-1

PRCBs: Weighted-average delivered purchase prices and quantities of imported product 2, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table E-2

PRCBs: Weighted-average delivered purchase prices and quantities of imported product 3, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table E-3

PRCBs: Weighted-average delivered purchase prices and quantities of imported product 5, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

F-1

APPENDIX F

PER-POUND PRICES AND QUANTITIES OF PRCBs FROM 

THE UNITED STATES, SUBJECT, AND NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

F-3

Nonsubject Price Comparisons

Presented graphically below in figures F-1 through F-8 are quarterly pricing and quantity data for

PRCBs from the United States, Indonesia, Taiwan, Vietnam, and nonsubject countries China and

Thailand. Data were also requested for nonsubject country Malaysia, but none were received from

importers ***. 

When comparing domestic pricing data to pricing data from all nonsubject countries, there were

196 possible pricing comparisons, of which domestic PRCBs were priced higher in more than half of the

comparisons (111). When comparing Indonesian pricing data to pricing data from all nonsubject

countries, there were 134 possible pricing comparisons, with Indonesian PRCB prices lower than

nonsubject-country prices in 84 comparisons. For PRCBs imported from Taiwan, the subject product was

priced lower than nonsubject-country PRCBs in 54 of 101 possible comparisons. Lastly, PRCBs from

Vietnam were price lower than nonsubject-country PRCBs in 121 of 194 possible quarterly comparisons. 
F-4

Figure F-1

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 1 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, on a per-pound basis, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure F-2

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 2 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, on a per-pound basis, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure F-3

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 3 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, on a per-pound basis, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure F-4

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 4 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, on a per-pound basis, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure F-5

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 5 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, on a per-pound basis, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure F-6

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 6 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, on a per-pound basis, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure F-7

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 7 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, on a per-pound basis, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure F-8

PRCBs: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 8 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, on a per-pound basis, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *
APPENDIX G

FINANCIAL RESULTS OF U.S. PRODUCERS

ON THEIR COMBINED DOMESTIC OPERATIONS AND 

IMPORTS OF SUBJECT PRCBs

G-1

The Commission’s questionnaire requested U.S. producers to provide combined data on their

domestic operations on PRCBs with their imports or purchases of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam. Six U.S. producers provided usable data,1

 which are presented in table G-1.

Table G-1

PRCBs: Results of domestic and subject import/purchase operations of U.S. producers, fiscal

years 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009 

* * * * * * *

The six reporting firms combined here had operating losses in 2006 and 2007 compared with

operating profits for the 13 reporting firms shown in table VI-1, but the operating loss here in 2008 was

*** lower than in table VI-1. ***. On the other hand, imports in 2008 by ***2

 ***. Comparing the ratio

of operating income to total net sales for these six firms on their domestic operations (shown in table VI2) with their reported results in question V-1 of the questionnaire on results of combined operations

shows mixed results: in 2008, the average ratio for the combined operations in table G-1 represented ***. 

The results of operations on the imported or purchased subject PRCBs by the six reporting firms

together are shown in table G-2. These data were calculated by subtracting the domestic operations of

each of the six reporting firms (table VI-2) from their combined domestic and subject import/purchase

operations (as reported in the firm’s questionnaire responses and shown in table G-1). Comparing tables

VI-1 with table G-1 and VI-2 with G-2, indicates that in general, the subject imports are sold for lower

unit values than the firms’ domestic PRCBs, but sales of the imported or purchased subject product are

more profitable than sales of domestically produced product alone.

Table G-2

PRCBs: Results of subject import/purchase operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08,

January-September 2008, and January-September 2009 

* * * * * * *

Table G-3 presents sales, COGS, and operating results of subject import/purchase operations of

U.S. producers on a firm-by-firm basis as well as these firms’ imports or purchases of subject PRCBs. 

Like the data in table G-2, these data were calculated by subtracting the domestic operations of each of

the six reporting firms (shown in table VI-2) from their combined domestic and subject import/purchase

operations. The data in tables G-2 and G-3 are comparable. Differences between total imports or

purchases of subject PRCBs and total sales of subject PRCBs reflect changes in inventory.

Table G-3

PRCBs: Results of subject import or purchase operations of U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years

2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

1

 These firms were: ***. There are no timing differences between the financial and trade data reported in

response to question V-1 of the Commission’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire, from which these data were obtained.

2

 ***.

G-3

APPENDIX H

ALLEGED EFFECTS OF SUBJECT IMPORTS ON 

PRODUCERS’ EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND 

PRODUCTION EFFORTS, GROWTH, INVESTMENT, 

AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL

H-1

Presented below are the responses of U.S. producers to the following question: Since January 1,

2006, has your firm experienced any actual negative effects on its return on investment or its growth,

investment, ability to raise capital, existing development and production efforts (including efforts to

develop a derivative or more advanced version of the product), or the scale of capital investments as a

result of imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam?

***

“Yes. The cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects. Other–We have

experienced extreme pressure and have been unable to increase the amount of our line of credit. 

This response does not differ by country.”

***

“Yes. The cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects; denial or rejection of

investment proposal; a reduction in the size of capital investments. Other–subject imports have

had a negative impact on our profitability.” 

***

“Yes. Lowering of credit limits by suppliers {of such inputs as} resin.”

***

“Yes. The cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects; reduction in the size of

capital investments. Other–We have been negatively affected by pricing pressures and loss of

customers to lower priced imports from these countries. These imports limit our ability to grow

the business and to engage in long-term planning. Unfair imports have resulted in the loss of

American manufacturing jobs.”

***

“Yes. Other–impaired growth/loss of margin/reduced income and ROIC. Response does not

differ by country.”

***

“Yes. The cancellation or rejection of expansion projects; denial or rejection of investment

proposals; and reduction in the size of capital investments. Other–The plant was originally set up

*** to supply PRCBs. As a result of the surge in imports of PRCBs from Asia, which started in

the mid 1990s, we have switched capacity as far as possible to industrial products. It is not

possible to convert some *** of capacity from PRCBs since the equipment on which it is made is

specialized. The flood of imported PRCBs from Asia was stemmed after the anti-dumping action

versus China, Malaysia,and Thailand, but the PRCBs are now reappearing from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and Vietnam. We currently have an open capital expenditures request for $*** to

convert equipment to the production of PRCBs. Leveling the playing field between imports and

domestic manufacture is a key factor in moving ahead with this.”

H-3
***

“Yes. Other–other parts of *** have performed better than the US PRCB production division. 

As such, most capital investment has been diverted to the higher growth divisions.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. A reduction in the size of capital investments. Other–suffered lost sales, price and margin

compression, and a sharp decline in profits specifically due to imports from Vietnam, Taiwan,

and Indonesia. These imports were a major contributor to ***.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. The cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects; reduction in the size of

capital investments. Other–Imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam have grabbed market

share from ***. To compete with these dumped and subsidized imports, *** has had to drop

prices substantially, yet we have still lost a large volume of sales. Consequently, *** has run at

lower capacity utilization rates which has increased unit costs. The combination of lower prices

and higher unit costs has caused profits to decrease. Certain of these {lost} sales have been

especially damaging. For example, we lost business at *** beginning at the the beginning of the

3rd quarter of 2008 through the 2nd quarter of 2009. This resulted in a drop in production ***, and

we were, therefore, forced to lay off workers. Our payroll records show that the number of

employees dropped significantly in late May and early June 2008 with a continual decline

through mid-September 2008 with approximately *** employees being laid off. We were able to

win back some of this business in the 3rd quarter of 2009 due to the filing of the petition. This

response applies to all countries and all products.”

Presented below are the responses of U.S. producers to the following question: Does your firm

anticipate any negative impact of imports of high-end PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam?

H-4
***

“Yes. The availability of imported high-end PRCBs takes away from the total market. This takes

away from our sales volume potential and adds price pressure. Moreover, *** has a plan in place

to ***. This investment would not be a success if relief is not granted from imports of high-end

PRCBs. This response does not differ by country.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes.”

***

“Yes. All imports of PRCBs from these countries negatively impact U.S. producers.” 

***

“Yes. All of the answers to the previous question apply. In addition two of *** PRCBs’

offerings compete directly with high-end bags because their use is 100% interchangeable.”

***

“Yes. With the antidumping duties on t-shirt bags and merchandise bags, customers can look into

possibilities to purchase high-end PRCBs if pricing is low from these countries.”

***

“No. Our firm does not think there is any negative impact of imports of high-end PRCBs from

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam.”

***

“We do not recognize a category of PRCBs that you refer to as high-end. All imports from these

countries negatively impact sales by American producers. Imported PRCBs compete unfairly

with American PRCBs for sales.”

***

“None.”

***

“Yes. We compete head-to-head with these products and anticipate continued and increasingly

impaired growth, reduced income, and reduced ROIC. Our *** product is a high quality PRCB. 

Unfair dumped prices of imported high-end PRCBs can take sales and prevent profit realization

on our high quality products. Response does not differ by country.”

H-5
***

“Yes. There is only so much demand in the market. When imported high-end PRCBs take

premium business, *** and other domestic producers are forced to compete for other, highly

price-sensitive customers. This response does not differ by country.”

***

“No.”

***

“We produce PRCBs that do not meet the Commission’s definition of high-end bags but do

compete directly with them. We lose sales of our bags to unfairly traded high-end PRCBs from

these countries. We will continue to lose sales until the imports cease being unfairly dumped and

subsidized.”

Presented below are the responses of U.S. producers to the following question: Does your firm

anticipate any negative impact of imports of PRCBs other than high-end from Indonesia, Taiwan, and

Vietnam?

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. An even greater reduction in margins, lost sales, inability to pass along cost of raw

material increases, reduction in production including shutting down lines and/or shutting down

equipment with substantial layoffs. Our financial results would have been substantially worse

during January-September 2009 had *** this petition. The *** petition and the imposition of

preliminary duties have allowed *** to increase sales and achieve higher margins. In particular,

the petition *** allowed us to regain substantial *** business lost to subject imports in 2008. If

the Commission reaches a negative final determination and the duties are eliminated, we are very

likely to lose the *** business again, to lose other customers, and to suffer lower margins and

negative profits. This would force us to lay off employees and place our continued operation at

serious risk. This is true for all countries.”

***

“Yes, we expect a negative impact from low priced imports from all three countries.”

H-6
***

“Yes. Large amounts of PRCBs are already imported from these countries with low cost and take

over a large market share. A lot of importers are turning to these countries to secure cheap

products and damaging U.S. manufacturers. Due to antidumping imposed on China and others,

some factories had moved to these countries and make even cheaper bags to compete in the

United States.”

***

“No. Our firm does not think there is any negative impact of imports of PRCBs other than highend from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. Price erosion, loss of business, lower profits, reduced growth, reduction of U.S.

employees, cancellation of expansion projects, reduction in the size of manufacturing facility or

possible plant closure.”

***

“Yes. On-going pricing pressure will continue to constrain our production scale and our ability to

finance equpment and material purchases. This response does not differ by country.”

***

“No. Our firm does not anticipate any negative impact of imports of PRCBs from Indonesia,

Taiwan, and/or Vietnam. We actually anticipate positive impacts from imports. In the past,

imports of PRCBs from China had a negative impact in the U.S. market due to unfair

competition. At the time, the selling price was lower than variable cost (PE resin plus conversion

plus ocean freight plus inland freight), and ***. These same issues are not present for imports

from Taiwan and Vietnam. We *** and fulfill customer demand. Furthermore, imports help ***

in fulfilling customers’ contracts in almost all of the special design carry out bags such as soft

loop handle, patched handle, rigid handle round die cut handle, rope handle, square bottom, etc.,

as well as bags with complicated printing (more than 4 color print) and process print for which

U.S. producers cannot meet demand. Therefore, *** Taiwan and Vietnam. However, ***.” 

***

“Yes. The imports from Indonesia are the worst by far. We see no impact from Taiwan and very

little from Vietnam.”

H-7
***

“Yes. If unfair trade is not stopped by this case, we will certainly suffer even more price erosion

and lost sales due to growth of imports from these countries. This will also reduce investment

and employment at ***.”

***

“Yes. An even greater reduction in margins, lost sales, inability to pass cost of raw material

increases, reduction in production including shutting down lines and/or shutting down equipment

with substantial layoffs.”

***

“Yes. We compete head-to-head with these products and anticipate continued and increasingly

impaired growth, reduced income, and reduced ROIC. Response does not differ by country.”

***

“Yes. If unfair trading of imports from Vietnam, Taiwan, and Indonesia were to continue, ***

will suffer additional lost sales, its prices will continue to compress and profitability will continue

to deteriorate. Under such circumstances, *** will be forced to close *** and to cut ***

manufacturing and support staff jobs. Fortunately, *** performance has improved since the filing

of the petition. Customers have been reluctant to source imports due to the risk of high duties

from the pending petition. In fact, numerous customers formerly sourcing imports have contacted

us for new business. The reluctance of customers to source subject imports also has had positive

effects and contributed to higher margins in 2009, which flowed through to our bottom line. If

final duties are not imposed, however, we will lose these recent benefits of the petition and suffer

the negative profits and other adverse effects from unfairly priced imports that we experienced

prior to the petition. Response does not vary by country.” 

***

“We anticipate that without relief from unfair imports from these countries we will continue to

lose volume and prices will continue to be negatively affected. Lost sales volume will reduce

employment. Poor returns on sales will limit capital investment and preclude investment

planning.”

H-8