12762 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

1See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

54021 (September 13, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). 

2See, Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 56631, 56632 

(September 28, 2005) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’), which 

refers to Nozawa with the following names: 

Dongguan Nozawa Plastics and United Power 

Packaging (collectively ‘‘Nozawa’’), Dongguan 

Nozawa Plastics, Dongguan Nozawa Plastic Co., 

Ltd., Dong Guan (Dong Wan) Nozawa Plastic Co., 

Ltd., Dongguan Nozawa Plastic Products Co., Ltd., 

United Power Packaging, United Power Packaging 

Limited, United Power Packaging Ltd. 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 

61601 (October 25, 2005). 

4See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

54021 (September 13, 2006). 

5See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Extension of 

Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 1216 (January 

10, 2007). 

6See Memorandum from Matthew Quigley, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, Through 

Charles Riggle, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, To The File, ‘‘Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of 

China: Request for Comments on Revised Expected 

Non-Market Economy Wages’’ (February 2, 2007). 

7See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Extension of 

Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 7417 (February 

15, 2007). 

8See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Extension of 

Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 9731 (March 5, 

2007). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–886] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) published the 

preliminary results of administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on polyethylene retail carrier bags 

(‘‘PRCBs’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) on September 13, 2006.1

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is January 

26, 2004, through July 31, 2005. We 

invited interested parties to comment on 

the Preliminary Results. Based on our 

analysis of the comments received, we 

have made changes to our margin 

calculations. Therefore, the final results 

differ from the Preliminary Results. The 

final dumping margins for this review 

are listed in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Review’’ section below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482–

4551, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 28, 2005, the 

Department initiated this administrative 

review with respect to Dongguan 

Nozawa Plastic Products Co. Ltd. and 

United Power Packaging Ltd. 

(collectively ‘‘Nozawa’’), Crown 

Polyethylene Products (International) 

Ltd. (‘‘Crown’’), Rally Plastics Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Rally’’), Sea Lake Polyethylene 

Enterprise Ltd. (‘‘Sea Lake’’), Shanghai 

Glopack, Inc. (‘‘Glopack’’), High Den 

Enterprises Ltd. (‘‘High Den’’), and 

Shanghai New Ai Lian Import & Export 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘New Ai Lian’’).2 On October 

25, 2005, the Department amended its 

initiation to include Ampac Packaging 

(Nanjing) Co. (‘‘Ampac’’), which was 

inadvertently omitted from the 

September 28, 2005 initiation notice.3

On November 16, 2005, New Ai Lian 

withdrew its request for an 

administrative review. On November 22, 

2005, Rally withdrew its request for an 

administrative review. On December 27, 

2005, Sea Lake and Glopack withdrew 

their requests for an administrative 

review. On February 23, 2006, Ampac 

withdrew its request for an 

administrative review. 

On September 13, 2006, the 

Department published the Preliminary 

Results in the Federal Register.4 On 

October 20, 2006, High Den submitted 

its third supplemental questionnaire 

response (‘‘3rd SQR’’). The Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags Committee (‘‘the 

PRCB Committee’’), Crown, High Den, 

and Nozawa each submitted case briefs 

on October 26, 2006, and rebuttal briefs 

on November 6, 2006. 

On January 10, 2007, the Department 

determined that it was not practicable to 

complete the final results of the 

administrative review of PRCBs from 

the PRC within the 120-day period due 

to complex issues the parties have 

raised regarding the selection of 

appropriate financial statements for the 

calculation of surrogate financial ratios. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and Tariff Act 

of 1930 as amended (‘‘the Act’’), the 

Department extended the time period 

for completion of the final results until 

February 12, 2007.5

On February 2, 2007, the Department 

published the revised ‘‘Expected NME 

Wages’’ applicable to 2004 on its 

website. See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/ 

index.html. On February 2, 2007, the 

Department informed all interested 

parties of the revised NME wage rate 

applicable to this review and gave the 

parties the opportunity to comment on 

this issue prior to the final results.6 In 

order to give parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Department’s revised 

calculations of expected non–market 

economy wages, the Department 

extended the deadline to complete the 

final results to February 26, 2007.7 We 

extended the deadline to complete the 

final results due to complex issues 

related to the calculation of surrogate 

financial ratios to March 12, 2007.8

No party provided comments on this 

issue. Thus, we calculated the surrogate 

value for labor using the Department’s 

revised expected NME wage rate of 

$0.83 for the PRC. 

We have conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this 

antidumping duty order is PRCBs which 

may be referred to as t–shirt sacks, 

merchandise bags, grocery bags, or 

checkout bags. The subject merchandise 

is defined as non–sealable sacks and 

bags with handles (including 

drawstrings), without zippers or integral 

extruded closures, with or without 

gussets, with or without printing, of 

polyethylene film having a thickness no 

greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and 

no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), 

and with no length or width shorter 

than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 

40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the 

bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not 

longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). 

PRCBs are typically provided without 

any consumer packaging and free of 

charge by retail establishments, e.g., 

grocery, drug, convenience, department, 

specialty retail, discount stores, and 

restaurants, to their customers to 

package and carry their purchased 

products. The scope of the 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12763 

9Until July 1, 2005, these products were 

classifiable under HTSUS 3923.21.0090 (Sacks and 

bags of polymers of ethylene, other). See 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(2005)- Supplement 1 Annotated for Statistical 

Reporting Purposes Change Record - 17th Edition 

- Supplement 1, available at http:// 

hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/0510/ 

0510chgs.pdf. 

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).9 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, our 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the post–

preliminary comments by parties in this 

review are addressed in the 

memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the 2004–2005 

Administrative Review of Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ (March 12, 2007) 

(‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the issues that parties raised 

and to which we responded in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum is 

attached to this notice as an appendix. 

The Issues and Decision Memorandum 

is a public document and is on file in 

the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in 

room B–099 in the main Department 

building, and is also accessible on the 

Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made changes in the 

margin calculations for Crown, High 

Den, and Nozawa . See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at Comments 

1–16. 

Surrogate Financial Ratios 

• We excluded Arvind Chemi Synthetics 

Pvt., Ltd. (‘‘Arvind’’) and Jain Raffia 

Industries, Ltd. (‘‘Jain Raffia’’) from the 

companies used to calculate the 

surrogate financial ratios because they 

did not produce merchandise that was 

identical or comparable to the subject 

merchandise. See Comment 1 of the 

memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the 2004–2005 

Administrative Review of Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ (February 12, 2007) 

(‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’). 

• Of the seven surrogate financial 

statements provided by the PRCB 

Committee in its October 3, 2006 

surrogate value submission, we based 

our determination of the surrogate 

financial ratios on: A.P. Polyplast 

Private Limited (‘‘A.P. Polyplast’’), 

Kuloday Technopack Pvt. Ltd. 

(‘‘Kuloday’’), Sangeeta Poly Pack 

Limited (‘‘Sangeeta’’), Smitabh Intercon 

Ltd. (‘‘Smitabh’’), Synthetic and Tims 

Polymers Pvt. Ltd (‘‘Tims’’). See 

Comment 2 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

• We made the following changes to the 

calculations of the surrogate financial 

ratios provided in the PRCB 

Committee’s case brief: 

a. We did not allocate ‘‘salary and 

wages’’ between labor and SG&A 

based upon industry–wide 

information published by the 

Indian government. Rather, we 

classified ‘‘salary and wages’’ in a 

manner consistent with each of the 

surrogate company’s audited 

financial statements.. See Comment 

3a of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

b. We classified ‘‘salaries’’ as SG&A 

and ‘‘wages’’ as direct labor for A.P. 

Polyplast. See Comment 3b of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

c. We have classified ‘‘consumable 

stores’’ for A.P. Polyplast and 

Sangeeta as an overhead expense. 

See Comment 3c of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

d. We have offset SG&A by the 

amount of short–term interest 

reported on Sangeeta’s, Smitabh’s 

and Tims’ financial statements. See 

Comment 3g of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

e. We decreased material cost by the 

amount of the increase of stock–inprocess for Sangeeta, Smitabh and 

Tims. See Comment 3i of the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. 

f. We did not adjust the audited 

financial statements for 

unacknowledged accruals for leave 

encashment and employee gratuity 

for A.P. Polyplast, Kuloday, 

Sangeeta, Smitabh, Synthetic and 

Tims. See Comment 3j of the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. 

g. We offset SG&A by foreign 

exchange gains and losses for 

Kuloday, Smitabh and Tims. See 

Comment 3k of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

h. We did not adjust the audited 

financial statements for subsidies 

for Tims. See Comment 3l of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Expected NME Wage Rate 

• We calculated the surrogate value for 

labor using the Department’s revised 

expected NME wage rate of $0.83 for the 

PRC. 

Nozawa 

• We applied adverse fact available 

(‘‘AFA’’) to those sales of Nozawa where 

the corresponding control number 

(‘‘CONNUM’’) in the U.S. sales database 

was not based on the product’s physical 

characteristics (e.g., those sales lacking 

factors of production data) rather than to 

all sales whose corresponding 

CONNUMs matched to more than one 

set of physical characteristics. See 

Comment 4b of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

• We made no inland freight adjustment 

to Nozawa’s market–economy (‘‘ME’’) 

material input purchases which Nozawa 

reported as delivered prices. See 

Comment 7 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

• We adjusted U.S. prices for further 

manufacturing costs on a transaction–

specific basis rather than a CONNUM–

specific basis, thereby limiting the 

adjustment only to sales of product 

further manufactured in the United 

States. See Comment 8 of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

• We treated Nozawa’s export price 

(‘‘EP’’) sales as though the entered 

values were unknown and calculated a 

per unit assessment for Nozawa’s EP 

sales rather than an ad valorem 

assessment rate. We based these changes 

on Nozawa’s December 23, 2005, 

original section C questionnaire 

response which, in response to field 

47.0, states that the entered values of 

Nozawa’s EP sales are unknown. 

Crown 

• We corrected the ministerial error in 

the SAS program representing the value 

of market–economy freight for four 

transactions. See Comment 9 of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

• We valued paper cardboard using the 

value of HTS number 4819.10.10. See 

Comment 12 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

High Den 

• We recalculated High Den’s 

antidumping duty without regard for 

international freight. See Comment 14 of 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
12764 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

• We deducted from the starting price 

handling charges that were recorded on 

the commercial invoices of the U.S. 

sales, but were not reported in the 

section C databases. See Comment 14 of 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

• We recalculated the value of High 

Den’s market–economy purchases of 

polyethylene resins, correcting the 

ministerial errors contained in the Excel 

chart. See Comment 15 of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

dumping margins exist for the period 

January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005: 

Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted–Average 

Margin Percentage 

Crown ........................... 7.68 

High Den ....................... 14.01 

Nozawa ......................... 7.36 

The PRC–Wide Entity .. 77.57 

Assessment Rates 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection 15 days after the 

date of publication of these final results 

of administrative review. 

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 PRCBs from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by Section 

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) As the final 

weight–averaged margins for Crown, 

High Den, and Nozawa are not less than 

0.5 percent and, therefore, not de 

minimis, cash deposits of estimated 

antidumping duties will be required; (2) 

for previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above that have a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent 

period; (3) the cash deposit rate for all 

other PRC exporters will be 77.57 

percent, the current PRC–wide rate; and 

(4) the cash deposit rate for all non–PRC 

exporters will be the rate applicable to 

the PRC exporter that supplied that 

exporter. These cash deposit 

requirements shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. This notice also serves as a 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APOs’’) of their responsibility 

concerning the return or destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.305, which continues to govern 

business proprietary information in this 

segment of the proceeding. 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 that is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Comments and Issues in the 

Decision Memorandum 

Issues with Respect to Surrogate 

Financial Ratios 

Comment 1: Exclude Arvind and Jain 

Raffia from the Calculation of the 

Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 2: Determine the Surrogate 

Financial Ratios Based on the Seven 

Financial Statements Provided by the 

PRCB Committee 

Comment 3: Methodological and 

Clerical Errors in the Surrogate 

Financial Ratio Calculations Either Used 

by the Department or Proposed by the 

PRCB Committee 

Comment 3a. Allocate ‘‘Salary and 

Wages’’ Between Direct Labor and 

Selling, General and Administrative 

(‘‘SG&A’’) Expenses Based upon 

Industry–Wide Information Published 

by the Indian Government 

Comment 3b. Classify ‘‘Salaries’’ as 

SG&A and ‘‘Wages’’ as a Part of Direct 

Labor 

Comment 3c. Reclassify Consumable 

Stores as Manufacturing Overhead 

(‘‘MOH’’) Rather than Direct Materials 

Comment 3d. Offset the Value of Raw 

Material by Sales of Scrap 

Comment 3e. Reclassify Depreciation as 

Factory Overhead 

Comment 3f. Offset Direct Labor 

Expenses With Job Work Revenue 

Comment 3g. Offset SG&A Expenses by 

Short–Term Interest Income 

Comment 3h. Reclassify Coolie and 

Cartage from MOH to Labor Expense 

Comment 3i. Reduce Material Costs by 

the Increase in Stock of Finished Goods 

and Scrap 

Comment 3j. Adjust Audited Financial 

Statements for Leave Encashment and 

Employee Gratuity Accruals 

Comment 3k. Offset Financial Expenses 

by Foreign Exchange Gains 

Comment 3l. Adjust Energy, Overhead, 

SG&A and Profit by the Amount of 

Subsidy Receivable 

Comments with Respect to Nozawa: 

Comment 4a: Partial Adverse Facts 

Available (‘‘AFA’’) for Nozawa 

Comment 4b: Should AFA Be Limited 

Only to Control Numbers 

(‘‘CONNUMs’’) Not Defined by Their 

Physical Characteristics or to All 

CONNUMs with More than One Set of 

Physical Characteristics? 

Comment 5: Appropriate AFA Rate for 

Nozawa 

Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Colored 

Ink 

Comment 7: Nozawa’s Further 

Manufacturing 

Comment 8: Freight on Nozawa’s 

Market–Economy (‘‘ME’’) Purchases 

Comments with Respect to Crown: 

Comment 9: International Freight 

Comment 10: Negative Sales Values in 

the Denominator Used to Calculate 

Importer–Specific Assessment Rates 

Comment 11: Valuation of Cardboard 

Paper Inserts 

Comment 12: Valuation of Corrugated 

Cardboard Carton 

Comments with Respect to High Den: 

Comment 13: New Factual Information 

Submitted by High–Den 

Comment 14: International Freight 

Expenses for Transaction Number 2 

Comment 15: Calculation of Weighted–

Average Value of High Den’s ME 

Purchases of Polyethylene Resins 

Comment 16: Valuation of High Den’s 

Scrap Resin 

[FR Doc. E7–4946 Filed 3–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES