52282 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

memo at Comment 5. See also Factor 

Valuation Memorandum. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of 

this administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value the factors of 

production until 20 days following the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following antidumping duty margins 

exist: 

Exporter Margin (percent) 

Forever Holdings .......... 0% 

Since Hardware 

(Guangzhou) Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 1.53 % 

For details on the calculation of the 

antidumping duty weighted-average 

margin for Since Hardware and Forever 

Holdings, see the respective Since 

Hardware Analysis Memorandum and 

the Forever Holdings Analysis 

Memorandum. Public versions of these 

memoranda are on file in the 

Department’s Central Records Unit, 

Room 1117 of the main commerce 

building (‘‘CRU’’). 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

will issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. For assessment 

purposes, where possible, we calculated 

importer-specific ad valorem 

assessment rates for ironing tables from 

the PRC based on the ratio of the total 

amount of the dumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those same sales. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. The final results of this review 

shall be the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of these reviews and for future deposits 

of estimated duties, where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the 

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent 

(see Ironing Tables Order); and (4) for 

all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporters that supplied that non-PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until publication of the final results of 

the next administrative review. 

Schedule for Final Results of Review 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed in connection 

with the preliminary results of this 

review within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested 

party may request a hearing within 30 

days of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Any hearing will be held 37 days after 

the publication of this notice, or the first 

workday thereafter unless the 

Department alters the date pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(d). Individuals who 

wish to request a hearing must submit 

a written request within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a 

public hearing should contain: (1) the 

party’s name, address, and telephone 

number; (2) the number of participants; 

and (3) to the extent practicable, an 

identification of the arguments to be 

raised at the hearing. 

Unless otherwise notified by the 

Department, interested parties may 

submit case briefs within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case 

brief, parties are encouraged to provide 

a summary of the arguments not to 

exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 

regulations, and cases cited in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, must 

be filed within five days after the case 

brief is filed in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(d). If a hearing is held, an 

interested party may make an 

affirmative presentation only on 

arguments included in that party’s case 

brief and may make a rebuttal 

presentation only on arguments 

included in that party’s rebuttal brief in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

time, date, and place of the hearing 

within 48 hours before the scheduled 

time. The Department will issue the 

final results of this review, which will 

include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in the briefs, not later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(1). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during these review 

periods. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

this notice is published in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20921 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–886] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52283 

the antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC). The review covers various 

exporters. The period of review (POR) is 

August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that sales have been made at prices 

below normal value by companies 

subject to this review. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of administrative review, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit comments in this 

review are requested to submit with 

each argument (1) a statement of the 

issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Case (Nozawa), George Callen 

(Rally), 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) 482–3174, (202) 482–

0180, or (202) 482–1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 9, 2004, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on PRCBs from the PRC. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 

9, 2004). In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), the Department received 

requests for review for the following 

producers/exporters: Crown 

Polyethylene Products International 

Limited (Crown), Dongguan Qiatou 

Samson Plastic Manufactory Co. 

(Samson), Everfaith International 

(Shanghai) Ltd. (Everfaith), Sea Lake 

Polyethylene Enterprises, Ltd. (Sea 

Lake), Shanghai Glopack, Inc. (Glopack), 

Shanghai Hua Yue Packaging Products 

(Hua Yue), Shanghai Yafu Plastics 

Industry Co., Ltd. (Yafu), Dongguan 

Nozawa Plastics Products Co., Ltd., and 

United Power Packaging, Ltd. 

(collectively, Nozawa), and Rally 

Plastics Co., Ltd. (Rally). In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(g) and 19 CFR 

351.221(b) we published a notice of 

initiation of administrative review of 

these companies. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 54428 

(September 25, 2007) (Initiation Notice). 

On September 28, 2007, Crown 

withdrew its request for review. On 

October 22, 2007, Everfaith and Hua 

Yue withdrew their requests for review. 

On December 26, 2007, Sea Lake and 

Glopack withdrew their requests for 

review. Also, on January 17, 2008, Asia 

Dynamics, Inc., withdrew its request for 

review of Yafu. In accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(1), we rescinded this 

administrative review with respect to 

Crown, Everfaith, Hua Yue, Sea Lake, 

Glopack, and Yafu. See Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 8031 

(February 12, 2008). 

Since initiation of the review, we 

extended the due date for completion of 

these preliminary results from May 2, 

2008, to September 2, 2008. See 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China; Notice 

of Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

22337 (April 25, 2008). 

The POR is August 1, 2006, through 

July 31, 2007. We are conducting 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 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 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 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 this order is 

dispositive. 

Selection of Respondents 

Due to the large number of firms 

requested for this administrative review 

and the resulting administrative burden 

to review each company for which a 

request has been made, the Department 

is exercising its authority to limit the 

number of respondents selected for 

individual examination. Where it is not 

practicable to examine all known 

exporters/producers of subject 

merchandise because of the large 

number of such companies, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act, permits the 

Department to limit its examination to 

either a sample of exporters, producers, 

or types of products that is statistically 

valid based on the information available 

at the time of selection or exporters and 

producers accounting for the largest 

volume of subject merchandise from the 

exporting country that can be examined 

reasonably. Accordingly, on September 

18, 2007, we requested information 

concerning the quantity and value of 

sales to the United States from the nine 

exporters/producers listed in the 

Initiation Notice. Based upon responses 

to the Q&V questionnaires, the 

Department selected Nozawa and Rally 

for individual examination in this 

administrative review on October 31, 

2007. See Memorandum to Abdelali 

Elouradia entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of 

Mandatory Respondents’’ dated October 

31, 2007. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we have verified information 

provided by Nozawa using standard 

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s 

facilities, the examination of relevant 

sales and financial records, and the 

examination of records pertaining to 

further-manufacturing operations. Our 

verification results are outlined in the 

public versions of the verification 

reports, which are on file in the Central 

Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main 

Department building. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52284 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

1Consisting of Hilex Poly Company, LLC, and the 

Superbag Corporation (collectively, the petitioners). 

NME Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non-marketeconomy (NME) country. In accordance 

with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, 

any determination that a foreign country 

is an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. See Brake Rotors From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

2004/2005 Administrative Review and 

Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 

(November 14, 2006). None of the 

parties to this proceeding has contested 

such treatment. Accordingly, we have 

calculated normal value in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Act, which 

applies to NME countries. 

Separate Rates 

As explained above, a designation of 

a country as an NME remains in effect 

until it is revoked by the Department. 

See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. 

Accordingly, there is a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the PRC are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assessed a 

single antidumping duty rate. It is the 

Department’s standard policy to assign 

all exporters of the merchandise subject 

to review in NME countries a single rate 

unless an exporter can affirmatively 

demonstrate an absence of government 

control, both in law (de jure) and in fact 

(de facto), with respect to exports. To 

establish whether a company is 

sufficiently independent to be entitled 

to a separate, company-specific rate, the 

Department analyzes each exporting 

entity in an NME country under the test 

established in the Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Sparklers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as 

amplified by the Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994). 

The Department’s separate-rate test 

determines whether the exporters are 

independent from government control 

and does not consider, in general, 

macroeconomic or border-type controls, 

e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices, particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 

controls over the investment, pricing, 

and output decision-making process at 

the individual firm level. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From 

Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 

19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From the People’s Republic 

of China; Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 

61279 (November 17, 1997). 

Firms that were assigned a separate 

rate in the most recent segment of this 

proceeding in which they participated 

can provide certification that they 

continue to meet the criteria for 

obtaining a separate rate. Nozawa and 

Rally participated in the 2005–2006 

administrative review of the order on 

PRCBs from the PRC and received 

separate rates. For this review Nozawa 

and Rally provided certifications that 

they continue to meet the criteria for 

obtaining a separate rate. See Nozawa’s 

and Rally’s October 15, 2007, separaterate certifications. 

On September 18, 2007, the 

Department issued a separate-rate 

certification/application to Samson. See 

2006–2007 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China, dated 

September 18, 2007 (separate-rate 

letter). On October 16, 2007, the 

Department received a separate-rate 

application from Samson. The 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Samson concerning its 

separate-rate application on March 25, 

2008. The due date for responding to the 

supplemental questionnaire was April 

8, 2008. Samson did not respond to the 

supplemental questionnaire. In our 

September 18, 2007, letter, we notified 

applicants that incomplete applications 

may demonstrate that the applicant does 

not qualify for a separate rate. See 

separate-rate letter, Attachment 2, at 5. 

Because Samson did not respond to the 

supplemental questionnaire, we have 

preliminarily determined that Samson is 

not separate from the PRC-wide entity 

and thus will receive the PRC-wide rate. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department analyzes 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base 

normal value, in most circumstances, on 

the NME producer’s factors of 

production (FOP), valued in a surrogate 

market-economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall use, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs of 

FOPs in one or more market-economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and significant producers 

of comparable merchandise. On March 

18, 2008, the Department’s Office of 

Policy issued a memorandum 

identifying India as being at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

the PRC for the POR. See Memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Administrative Review of 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: Request 

for a List of Surrogate Countries,’’ dated 

March 18, 2008. 

In the Department’s March 26, 2008, 

letter to interested parties requesting 

surrogate-country and surrogate-value 

comments, the Department indicated 

that India is among the countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

overall economic development. In 

addition, based on publicly available 

information placed on the record (i.e., 

export data), India is a significant 

producer of the subject merchandise. 

See Memorandum entitled 

‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Selection of a Surrogate Country,’’ dated 

August 28, 2008. 

Furthermore, India has been the 

primary surrogate country in 

determinations for past segments of this 

proceeding and both Nozawa and the 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag 

Committee1 submitted surrogate values 

based on Indian data that are 

contemporaneous to the POR, giving 

further credence to the use of India as 

a surrogate country. See, e.g., 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 72 FR 51588 

(September 10, 2007). The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below and in the Memorandum entitled 

‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate-Values Memorandum,’’ dated 

September 2, 2008 (Surrogate-Value 

Memorandum). 

U.S. Price 

A.Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we based U.S. price on the 

export price (EP) for sales to the United 

States by Rally and certain sales by 

Nozawa because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated party was made before the 

date of importation and the use of 

constructed EP (CEP) was not otherwise 

warranted. We calculated EP for 

Nozawa and Rally based on the prices 

to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52285 

For Nozawa, in accordance with 

section 772(c) of the Act, we first added 

gross unit price adjustments and then 

deducted from the price to unaffiliated 

purchasers, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight, brokerage and handling, 

international freight, and marine 

insurance. See Memorandum from 

Kristin Case to the File, ‘‘Administrative 

Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results Analysis 

Memorandum for Dongguan Nozawa 

Plastic Products Co., Ltd. and United 

Power Packaging Ltd.,’’ dated 

September 2, 2008 (Nozawa Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum). 

For Rally, also in accordance with 

section 772(c) of the Act, we first added 

gross unit price adjustments and then 

deducted from the price to unaffiliated 

purchasers, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight, brokerage and handling, 

international freight, and marine 

insurance. See Memorandum from 

George Callen to the File, 

‘‘Administrative Review of Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

Analysis Memorandum for Rally 

Plastics Co., Ltd.,’’ dated September 2, 

2008. Consistent with Certain Orange 

Juice from Brazil: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 46584 

(August 11, 2008) (OJ Brazil Final), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7, we have 

incorporated freight-related revenues as 

offsets to movement expenses because 

they relate to the movement and 

transportation of subject merchandise. 

We also incorporated packing-related 

revenue as an offset to packing expenses 

because these items relate to the packing 

of subject merchandise (see OJ Brazil 

Final). 

B. Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, CEP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) in the United States 

before or after the date of importation by 

or for the account of the producer or 

exporter of such merchandise or by a 

seller affiliated with the producer or 

exporter to a purchaser not affiliated 

with the producer or exporter, as 

adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) 

of the Act. In accordance with section 

772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for 

certain of Nozawa’s sales because 

Nozawa sold its subject merchandise to 

its affiliated companies in the United 

States, Kal Pac Corporation (Kal Pac) 

and Packaging Solutions, Inc. (PSI), 

which, in turn, made the first sales of 

subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers. In addition, Nozawa 

reported that PSI made sales of subject 

merchandise which it further 

manufactured in the United States. 

We added various revenue items to 

the gross unit price. See Nozawa 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 

2. Consistent with OJ Brazil Final, we 

have incorporated freight-related 

revenues as offsets to movement 

expenses because they relate to the 

movement and transportation of subject 

merchandise. In accordance with 

section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 

deductions from Nozawa’s starting price 

for early-payment discounts, rebates, 

foreign inland freight from the plant to 

the port of exportation, international 

freight, marine insurance, brokerage and 

handling, U.S. devanning expense, U.S. 

duty, inland freight from the warehouse 

to the unaffiliated U.S. customer, 

commissions, warranties, and return 

adjustments. Where foreign movement 

expenses or international movement 

expenses were provided by NME service 

providers or for which Nozawa paid in 

an NME currency, we valued these 

services using surrogate values. See 

Surrogate-Value Memorandum. For 

those expenses that were provided by a 

market-economy provider and for which 

Nozawa paid in market-economy 

currency, we deducted the actual 

expenses incurred. See Nozawa 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. In 

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 

Act, the Department deducted credit 

expenses, inventory carrying costs, and 

U.S. indirect selling expenses from the 

U.S. price, all of which relate to 

commercial activity in the United 

States. We calculated Nozawa’s credit 

expenses and inventory carrying costs 

based on the Federal Reserve short-term 

rate because Nozawa reported that 

neither Kal Pac nor PSI had short-term 

borrowings during the POR. 

We also deducted an amount for 

further-manufacturing costs, where 

applicable, in accordance with section 

772(d)(2) of the Act. To calculate the 

cost of further manufacturing in the 

United States, we relied on PSI’s 

reported cost of materials, labor, 

overhead, general and administrative 

expenses, and financial expenses of the 

further-manufactured materials. In 

addition, we deducted CEP profit in 

accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 

772(f) of the Act. 

C. Surrogate Values for Expenses 

Incurred in the PRC for U.S. Sales 

Nozawa and Rally reported that, for 

certain U.S. sales, foreign inland freight 

was provided by an NME vendor or they 

paid for freight using an NME currency. 

In such instances, we based the 

deduction of these charges on surrogate 

values. We valued foreign inland freight 

with the surrogate value for truck 

freight. For foreign brokerage and 

handling, marine insurance, and 

international freight, Nozawa and Rally 

reported using market-economy vendors 

and stated that they paid these expenses 

in a market-economy currency. Where 

movement services were provided by a 

market-economy vendor and the 

respondents paid in a market-economy 

currency, we deducted the actual cost 

per kilogram of the freight. See 

Surrogate-Value Memorandum. 

Normal Value 

A. Methodology 

Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act 

provides that the Department shall 

determine the normal value using an 

FOP methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from a NME country and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of normal value using homemarket prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases 

normal value on the FOPs because the 

presence of government controls on 

various aspects of NME countries 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. See Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 

Unfinished, From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind 

in Part, 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005) 

(unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of 2003–2004 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 

(January 16, 2006)) (Tapered Roller 

Bearings). 

The FOPs for PRCBs include the 

following elements: (1) quantities of raw 

materials employed; (2) hours of labor 

required; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; (4) 

representative capital and selling costs; 

(5) packing materials. We used the FOPs 

reported by the respondents for 

materials, labor, energy, by-products, 

and packing. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), when a producer sources 

an input from a market-economy 

country and pays for it in a marketeconomy currency, the Department will 

normally value the factor using the 

actual price paid for the input. See 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal 

Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 

1445–1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming 

the Department’s use of market-based 

prices to value certain FOPs). Where a 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52286 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

portion of the input is purchased from 

a market-economy supplier and the 

remainder from an NME supplier, the 

Department will normally use the price 

paid for the inputs sourced from marketeconomy suppliers to value all of the 

input, provided the volume of the 

market-economy inputs as a share of 

total purchases from all sources is 

‘‘meaningful.’’ See Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997), and 

Shakeproof v. United States, 268 F.3d 

1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(1). 

B. Factor Methodology 

During the POR, Nozawa did not 

produce certain types of merchandise 

that it sold during the POR. 

Consequently, the original FOP database 

Nozawa submitted did not contain FOPs 

for those models sold but not produced 

by Nozawa during this POR. Because 

the vast majority of the models Nozawa 

sold were produced during this POR or 

the prior POR, Nozawa also submitted 

on the record of this review the FOP 

database from the prior review (i.e., the 

2005/2006 review). In addition, Nozawa 

submitted an FOP database 

incorporating the FOPs for all models 

sold during the POR, using both 

production data from this and the prior 

POR. Therefore, for purposes of factor 

valuation, the Department has used the 

FOP database incorporating all models 

sold during the POR. Nozawa based 

certain FOP data on similar models 

where it did not produce the model in 

either this or the prior POR. 

The Department reviewed Nozawa’s 

identification of the most similar 

matches for the models it sold but did 

not produce during the previous or this 

POR. In doing so, we determined the 

product characteristics which have the 

most significant impact on the cost of 

materials and then compared all 

product characteristics of the actual 

models to the product characteristics of 

the proposed matching models. We 

found that Nozawa’s proposed matches 

were identical in the most significant 

product characteristics and had some 

insignificant differences in other 

characteristics. Therefore, we accepted 

Nozawa’s assignment of the most 

similar model designations for those 

products it sold but did not produce 

during the POR. See Nozawa 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. 

C. FOP Valuation 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated normal value 

based on the FOPs reported by 

respondents for the POR. To calculate 

normal value, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor-consumption 

rates by publicly available surrogate 

values. In selecting the surrogate values, 

we considered the quality, specificity, 

and contemporaneity of the data. 

It is the Department’s practice to 

calculate price-index adjustors to inflate 

or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate 

values that are not contemporaneous 

with the POR using the wholesale price 

index for the subject country. See 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 66910 

(November 17, 2006). Therefore, where 

we could not obtain publicly available 

information contemporaneous with the 

POR, we adjusted surrogate values using 

the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for 

India, as published in the International 

Financial Statistics of the International 

Monetary Fund. 

Except as indicated below, we valued 

raw material inputs using the weightedaverage unit import values derived from 

the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 

Trade of India, as published by the 

Directorate General of Commercial 

Intelligence and Statistics of the 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 

Government of India in the World Trade 

Atlas (WTA), available at http:// 

www.gtis.com/wta.htm. For those 

surrogate values based upon Indian 

import statistics, we disregarded prices 

which we have reason to believe or 

suspect may be subsidized. We have 

reason to believe or suspect that prices 

of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, 

and Thailand may have been 

subsidized. We have found in other 

proceedings that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and, 

therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all 

exports to all markets from these 

countries may be subsidized. See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7; see also 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Romania: Notice of Final Results 

and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. The 

legislative history reflects the 

Department’s practice that, in making its 

determination as to whether input 

values may be subsidized, the 

Department does not conduct a formal 

investigation; rather, the Department 

bases its decision on information that is 

available to it at the time it makes its 

determination. See H.R. Rep. 100–576, 

at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24. Therefore, 

based on the information currently 

available, we have not used prices from 

these countries in calculating the 

surrogate values based on Indian import 

data. 

We have also disregarded Indian 

import data concerning raw materials 

from countries that we have previously 

determined to be NME countries as well 

as imports originating from 

‘‘unspecified’’ countries because we 

could not be certain that they were not 

from either an NME or a country with 

generally available export subsidies. See 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the 

People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 

75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004), and 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates From the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 24502 (May 

10, 2005) (unchanged in the final 

results). For a comprehensive list of the 

sources and data we used to determine 

the surrogate vales for the FOPs, byproducts, and the surrogate financial 

ratios for factory overhead, selling, 

general and administrative expenses 

(SG&A), and profit, see Surrogate-Value 

Memorandum. 

Where appropriate, we adjusted the 

Indian import prices by including 

freight costs to make them delivered 

prices. Specifically, we added to the 

Indian import prices a surrogate freight 

cost using the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory of production or the distance 

from the nearest seaport to the factory 

of production where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not 

use Indian import data as the basis of 

the surrogate value, we calculated 

inland freight based on the reported 

distance from the supplier to the 

factory. We valued truck freight 

expenses using a per-unit average rate 

calculated from data on the following 

Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/ 

logistics/logtruck.htm. See SurrogateValue Memorandum. 

The logistics section of this Web site 

contains inland-freight truck rates 

between many large Indian cities. 

Because this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the rate using WPI. See 

Surrogate-Value Memorandum. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52287 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication titled Electricity 

Tariff&Duty and Average Rates of 

Electricity Supply in India, dated July 

2006. These electricity rates represent 

actual country-wide, publicly available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. 

Because the rates are not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the values using the WPI. See 

Surrogate-Value Memorandum. 

For direct labor, indirect labor, and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression-based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s web site. 

See Corrected 2007 Calculation of 

Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 

73 FR 27795, 27796 (May 14, 2008) 

(available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). 

The source of these wage-rate data on 

the Import Administration’s website is 

the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003, 

ILO (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages 

in Manufacturing. The years of the 

reported wage rates range from 2003 

through 2004. Because this regressionbased wage rate does not separate the 

labor rates into different skill levels or 

types of labor, we have applied the same 

wage rate to all skill levels and types of 

labor reported by each respondent. See 

Surrogate-Value Memorandum. 

To value factory overhead, SG&A, and 

profit values, we used information from 

M/S Synthetic Packers Private Ltd. for 

the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007. 

From this information, we were able to 

determine factory overhead as a 

percentage of the total raw materials, 

labor and energy (ML&E) costs, SG&A as 

a percentage of ML&E plus overhead 

(i.e., cost of manufacture), and profit as 

a percentage of the cost of manufacture 

plus SG&A. See Surrogate-Value 

Memorandum. 

For packing materials, we used the 

per-kilogram values obtained from the 

WTA and made adjustments to account 

for freight costs incurred between the 

PRC suppliers and the respondents’

production facilities. See SurrogateValue Memorandum. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following percentage weighted-average 

dumping margins exist for the period 

August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Dongguan Nozawa 

Plastics Products Co., 

Ltd., andUnited 

Power Packaging, 

Ltd. ............................ 2.30 

Rally Plastics Co., Ltd. 18.11 

PRC-wide Entity ........... 77.57 

2The PRC-wide entity includes Samson. 

Comments 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties in this review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value factors no later 

than 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii). 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.310. Interested parties who wish to 

request a hearing or to participate in a 

hearing if a hearing is requested must 

submit a written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain 

the following: (1) the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; (3) a list of 

issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Case briefs from interested parties may 

be submitted not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication of this notice of 

preliminary results of review. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs 

from interested parties, limited to the 

issues raised in the case briefs, may be 

submitted not later than five days after 

the time limit for filing the case briefs 

or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). 

If requested, any hearing will be held 

two days after the scheduled date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument a statement of the issue, 

a summary of the arguments not 

exceeding five pages, and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs 

or at the hearing, if held, not later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 

calculated importer-specific (or 

customer-specific) assessment rates for 

merchandise subject to this review. 

With respect to sales by Rally and 

certain sales by Nozawa, for these 

preliminary results, we divided the total 

dumping margins (calculated as the 

difference between normal value and 

EP) 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 in 

each of that importer’s/customer’s 

entries during the review period. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), for Nozawa’s CEP sales, 

we have calculated an importer-specific 

assessment rate by dividing the total 

dumping duties due by the entered 

value of CEP sales we analyzed. We will 

direct CBP to liquidate the appropriate 

entries at this rate. 

We will instruct CBP to liquidate 

entries containing merchandise from the 

PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate 

we determine in the final results of 

review. 

We will issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the notice of final results 

of the 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) for subject 

merchandise exported by Nozawa and 

Rally, the cash-deposit rate will be that 

established in the final results of review; 

(2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise, which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be PRC-wide rate of 77.57 percent; (4) 

for all non–PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter that supplied that exporter. 

These deposit requirements, when 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52288 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

1We stated that the review covers the following 

companies: King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd., King Pak 

Ind. Co., Ltd., Kor Ratthanakit Co., Ltd., Master 

Packaging Co., Ltd., Naraipak Co., Ltd., and Poly 

Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Id. Although we listed six 

companies in the Initiation Notice, we consider 

King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd., and King Pak Ind. Co., 

Ltd., to be alternative spellings of the name of one 

company. See the April 3, 2006, Memorandum from 

Catherine Cartsos to File entitled ‘‘Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand (1/ 

26/04-7/31/05) - Different Spellings for King Pac 

Industrial Co., Ltd.,’’ which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit, room 1117 of the main Commerce 

building. Accordingly, we effectively initiated an 

administrative review of five companies. 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary 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 antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20919 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–821] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Intent to Rescind in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from Thailand. The review covers five 

exporters/producers. The period of 

review is August 1, 2006, through July 

31, 2007. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that sales have been made at prices 

below normal value by various 

companies subject to this review. If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results of administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit comments in this 

review are requested to submit with 

each argument (1) a statement of the 

issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edythe Artman 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) 482–3931 or (202) 482–

4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 9, 2004, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on PRCBs from 

Thailand. See Antidumping Duty Order: 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), 

we received requests for an 

administrative review for five 

companies. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(g) and 19 CFR 351.221(b), we 

published a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of these 

companies. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 54428, 

54429 (September 25, 2007) (Initiation 

Notice).1

Since initiation of the review, we 

extended the due date for completion of 

these preliminary results from May 2, 

2008, to September 2, 2008. See Notice 

of Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand, 73 FR 15724 (March 25, 

2008), and Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 

from Thailand, 73 FR 29738 (May 22, 

2008). 

The period of review (POR) is August 

1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. We are 

conducting 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 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 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 this order is 

dispositive. 

Selection of Respondents 

Due to the large number of firms 

requested for this administrative review 

and the resulting administrative burden 

to review each company for which a 

request has been made, the Department 

is exercising its authority to limit the 

number of respondents selected for 

individual examination. Where it is not 

practicable to examine all known 

exporters/producers of subject 

merchandise because of the large 

number of such companies, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the 

Department to limit its examination to 

either a sample of exporters, producers, 

or types of products that is statistically 

valid based on the information available 

at the time of selection or exporters and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES