Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Notices 2511 

1As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we 

considered both King Pac and King Pak Ind. Co., 

Ltd. (King Pak), to be alternative spellings of the 

name of one company. See Preliminary Results, 73 

FR at 52288, n. 1. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–821] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce published the 

preliminary results of the 2006/2007 

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 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3174 or (202) 482– 

4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 9, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Intent 

to Rescind in Part, 73 FR 52288 

(September 9, 2008) (Preliminary 

Results), in the Federal Register. The 

administrative review covers the 

following producers/exporters: King Pac 

Industrial Co., Ltd. (King Pac), Naraipak 

Co., Ltd., and Narai Packaging 

(Thailand) Ltd. (collectively NPG), Poly 

Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Poly Plast), 

and Master Packaging Co., Ltd. (Master 

Packaging).1 The period of review is 

August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. 

We invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. On October 15, 

2008, 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 KYD Ltd. (KYD), an 

importer of subject merchandise. On 

October 23, 2008, we received rebuttal 

briefs from the petitioners and KYD. At 

the request of KYD, we held a public 

hearing on October 29, 2008. 

We have conducted this review in 

accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the 

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. 

As a result of recent changes to the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), imports of the 

subject merchandise are currently 

classifiable under statistical category 

3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. 

Furthermore, although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Rescission 

In the Preliminary Results, we 

explained that Kor Ratthanakit Co., Ltd. 

(Kor Ratthanakit), reported that it had 

no shipments of subject merchandise 

covered by this review. Additionally, 

we stated that, because our review of 

information from U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) supported Kor 

Ratthanakit’s claim, we would rescind 

the review with respect to Kor 

Ratthanakit if we continued to find that 

Kor Ratthanakit did not have any 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the period of 

review. See Preliminary Results, 73 FR 

at 52289. Because we have not received 

information indicating that Kor 

Ratthanakit had any shipments of 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review we are rescinding the 

administrative review with respect to 

Kor Ratthanakit. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this review 

are addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand for the Period of Review 

August 31, 2006, through July 31, 2007 

(Decision Memorandum), which is 

dated January 7, 2009, and 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 1117 of the main Commerce 

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 

In our preliminary results for NPG, we 

used the most recently submitted cost– 

of-production data, received on August 

25, 2008, but we did not use the 

updated constructed–value data 

contained in the same submission. 

Because this submission contained both 

revised cost and constructed–value data, 

we have used all of this data in the 

calculation of NPG’s final dumping 

margin. 

For Poly Plast, we found it 

appropriate to assign partial adverse 

facts available to certain unreported 

U.S. sales. During the course of 

verification of the information Poly 

Plast submitted in this review, we found 

that Poly Plast did not report certain 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise. 

Because the administrative record lacks 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
2512 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Notices 

all of the information necessary to 

calculate dumping margins for these 

sales, we find it appropriate to rely on 

partial facts available pursuant to 

section 776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, 

because Poly Plast possessed the 

necessary records to provide a complete 

U.S. sales list but did not do so, we find 

that it did not act to the best of its ability 

to comply with our request for 

information. 

Accordingly, because Poly Plast failed 

to cooperate in reporting all of its U.S. 

sales of subject merchandise, we find 

that use of information adverse to the 

interests of Poly Plast, as facts otherwise 

available, is appropriate pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act. As adverse 

facts available we have applied the 

highest transaction–specific margin we 

determined for sales Poly Plast reported 

to the value of unreported U.S. sales. 

For a complete discussion on this issue, 

see Decision Memorandum at Comment 

2. 

Sales Below Cost in the Home Market 

For these final results of review, the 

Department disregarded home–market 

sales by NPG and Poly Plast that failed 

the cost–of-production test. 

Final Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that the following percentage 

weighted–average dumping margins 

exist on PCRBs from Thailand for the 

period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 

2007: 

Producer/Exporter Margin (percent) 

King Pac (aka King 

Pak) ........................... 122.88 

Master Packaging ......... 122.88 

NPG .............................. 32.67 

Poly Plast ...................... 8.94 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of these final results, 

the Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of these final results of 

review. 

We calculated importer/customer– 

specific duty–assessment amounts with 

respect to export–price sales by NPG 

and Poly Plast in the following manner. 

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). Where the assessment 

amount is above de minimis, we will 

instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer or customer. 

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 they sold to an 

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. 

Because we are relying on total 

adverse facts available to establish the 

dumping margins for King Pac and 

Master Packaging, we will instruct CBP 

to apply a dumping margin of 122.88 

percent to all entries of subject 

merchandise produced and/or exported 

by these companies. 

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 or reviewed 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 or a previous 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 further notice. 

Notification Requirements 

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. See id. 

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 7, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

1. Adverse Facts Available 

2. Unreported Sales by Poly Plast 

[FR Doc. E9–634 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–818] 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: 

Final Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2008, the 

U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register its preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on 

corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat 

products (‘‘CORE’’) from the Republic of 

Korea (‘‘Korea’’) for the period of review 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES