[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1982-1984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-552]



[[Page 1982]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-549-821


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce published 
the preliminary results of the 2004/2005 administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from 
Thailand. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and 
an examination of our calculations, we have made certain changes for 
the final results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the 
respondents are listed below in the ``Final Results of the Review'' 
section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer at (202) 482-0410 or 
Richard Rimlinger at (202) 482-4477, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 53405 
(September 11, 2006) (Preliminary Results) in the Federal Register. The 
period of review is January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005.
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On 
October 11, 2006, we received case briefs from the Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, 
and Superbag Corporation (collectively, the petitioners) and 
respondents CP Packaging Co., Ltd. (CP), King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd., 
Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd., Zippac Co., Ltd., and King Bag Co., Ltd. 
(collectively, King Pac), Sahachit Watana Plastic Ind. Co., Ltd. 
(Sahachit), and Universal Polybag Co., Ltd., Alpine Plastics, Inc., 
Advance Polybag Inc., and API Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, UPC/
API). On October 19, 2006, the petitioners, CP, King Pac, and UPC/API 
filed rebuttal briefs. At the request of certain parties, we held a 
hearing on October 25, 2006.
    We have conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of Order

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

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the January 9, 2007, Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand for the period of review 
January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005 (Decision Memorandum), which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix 
is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have 
responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete 
discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the 
Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department 
building (CRU). In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since The Preliminary Results

    With respect to CP, in the Preliminary Results, we used, as adverse 
facts available for CP's inland-freight expense incurred on its U.S. 
sales, the highest expense which CP reported. For these final results 
of review, we used a simple average of the three highest per-kilogram 
freight expenses reported by other respondents in this review.
    With respect to UPC/API, in the Preliminary Results, we adjusted 
the market prices of UPC's direct purchases from unaffiliated suppliers 
by UPC's affiliates' selling, general, and administrative expenses and 
then compared the transfer price UPC paid to its affiliated suppliers 
to these adjusted market prices. For these final results of review, we 
compared the transfer price UPC paid to its affiliated suppliers to the 
unadjusted market price of UPC's direct purchases from unaffiliated 
suppliers. We then valued the inputs UPC received from its affiliated 
reseller at the higher of market price or transfer price. In doing 
this, we corrected a ministerial error we made in the Preliminary 
Results by ensuring that the total value of HDPE resin is included in 
the numerator to derive the cost-of-manufacturing (COM) adjustment 
factor.
    Further, in the Preliminary Results, we added additional costs to 
COM in error when disallowing UPC/API's claimed shutdown adjustment. 
For these final results of review, although we have not changed our 
position regarding UPC/API's claimed shutdown adjustment, we corrected 
the error by not adding back additional shutdown cost fields to COM. 
See Comment 5 of the Decision Memorandum concerning allegations of 
other ministerial errors.

Cost of Production

    Pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and (b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where 
less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the cost of production (COP), we did not disregard any below-cost 
sales of that product because we

[[Page 1983]]

determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the period of review were at prices less than the 
COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' See sections 773(b)(1) and (b)(2)(C) of the Act. The 
sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales 
occurring during the entire period of review. We compared the prices of 
below-cost sales to the weighted-average per-unit COP for the period of 
review to determine whether such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the 
comparison-market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the 
below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities by the following respondents: CP, UPC/API, Thai 
Plastic Bags Industries Company Ltd. and APEC Film Ltd. (collectively, 
TPBG), Apple Film Co., Ltd. (Apple), and Naraipak Co., Ltd., and Narai 
Packaging (Thailand) Ltd. (collectively, Naraipak). In addition, these 
sales were made at prices that did not provide for the recovery of 
costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these 
sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for 
determining normal value in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
percentage weighted-average dumping margins exist on polyethylene 
retail carrier bags from Thailand for the period January 26, 2004, 
through July 31, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                         Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPC/API.............................................               11.75
TPBG................................................                1.41
Apple...............................................               16.43
CP Packaging........................................                6.10
King Pac............................................              122.88
Naraipak............................................                1.69
Sahachit............................................                6.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated 
importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of 
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that 
importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will 
instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by 
that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions 
to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of 
review. The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' 
regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 
2003) (Assessment-Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to 
entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by 
companies included in these final results of review for which the 
reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it sold to the 
intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was 
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no 
rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment-
Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

a. Export Price

    With respect to export-price sales, we divided the total dumping 
margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and the 
export price) for each exporter's importer or customer by the total 
number of units the exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will 
direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each 
unit of merchandise on each of that importer's or customer's entries 
during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

b. Constructed Export Price

    For constructed export-price sales, we divided the total dumping 
margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those 
reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct CBP to assess the 
resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the 
subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries during the 
review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, 
consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash-deposit 
rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above; (2) for 
previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit 
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation but 
the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established 
for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) 
the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 2.80 percent, the ``All Others'' rate from the amended 
final determination of the LTFV investigation published on July 15, 
2004. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand, 69 FR 42419 
(July 15, 2004).
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    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(a)(3). Timely notification of the 
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.We are 
issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: January 9, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

Comments and Responses

1. CP - Direct-Material Costs
2. CP - Inland-Freight Expenses
3. UPC/API - Cost Issues

[[Page 1984]]

     A. Quarterly Costs vs. Period Costs
     B. Shutdown Costs
     C. Major-Input Purchases
4. UPC/API - Contract Sales
5. UPC/API - Offsetting of Negative Margins
6. UPC/API - Ministerial Errors
7. King Pac - Adverse Facts Available
8. King Pac - Application of Provisional-Measures Cap
9. Sahachit - G&A Calculation
[FR Doc. E7-552 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S