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
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52289 

2As discussed below, we intend to rescind the 

administrative review with respect to Kor 

Ratthanakit Co., Ltd. 

producers accounting for the largest 

volume of subject merchandise from the 

exporting country that can be examined 

reasonably. Accordingly, on October 4, 

2007, we requested information 

concerning the quantity and value of 

sales to the United States from the five 

exporters/producers listed in the 

Initiation Notice. We received responses 

from all of the exporters/producers. We 

also examined import data from CBP 

concerning unliquidated entries of 

merchandise subject to the antidumping 

duty order. 

Based on our analysis of the responses 

and import data obtained from CBP, we 

determined that King Pac Industrial Co., 

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

Narai Packaging (Thailand) Ltd. 

(collectively NPG), and Poly Plast 

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

the three largest exporters/producers 

during the POR. Specifically, we 

determined that these exporters/ 

producers accounted for a majority of 

the total reported quantity of imports of 

the subject merchandise from the 

requested companies to the United 

States during the POR and a majority of 

the total quantity from the requested 

companies reported in the CBP data. 

Accordingly, we chose to examine these 

three companies as accounting for the 

largest volume of subject merchandise 

from the exporting country that can 

reasonably be examined. See 

Memorandum entitled ‘‘Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand - 

Respondent Selection’’ dated December 

6, 2007. 

On March 27, 2008, the Department 

determined that it had the resources 

available to examine the remaining 

respondent,2 Master Packaging Co., Ltd. 

(Master Packaging), individually. See 

Memorandum entitled ‘‘Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: 

Selection of Master Packaging as a 

Mandatory Respondent,’’ dated March 

27, 2008. 

Intent to Rescind Review in Part 

In an October 25, 2007, submission, 

Kor Ratthanakit Co., Ltd. (Kor 

Ratthanakit), indicated that it had no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. Our 

review of information from CBP 

supports Kor Ratthanakit’s claim that 

there were no entries of its merchandise 

subject to the order into the United 

States during the POR. See 

Memorandum to the File, ‘‘U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection Data,’’

dated December 3, 2007. Because we 

preliminarily find that there were no 

imports from Kor Ratthanakit during the 

POR, we intend to rescind the 

administrative review with respect to 

this company. If we continue to find at 

the time of our final results of 

administrative review that there were no 

imports of PRCBs from Thailand from 

Kor Ratthanakit, we will rescind our 

review of Kor Ratthanakit. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we have verified sales and cost 

information provided by NPG and Poly 

Plast using standard verification 

procedures, including on-site inspection 

of the manufacturers’ facilities, the 

examination of relevant sales and 

financial records, and the selection of 

original documentation containing 

relevant information. Our verification 

results are outlined in the public 

versions of the verification reports, 

dated June 23 and August 13, 2008, for 

Poly Plast and dated August 5 and 

August 13, 2008, for NPG, and which 

are on file in the Central Records Unit, 

room 1117 of the main Commerce 

building. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides 

that, if necessary information is not 

available on the record or if an 

interested party (1) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department (2) fails to provide such 

information by the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act (3) 

significantly impedes the proceeding or 

(4) provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall use, subject to section 

782(d) of the Act, the facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if that 

information is necessary to the 

determination but does not meet all of 

the requirements established by the 

Department, provided that all of the 

following requirements are met: (1) the 

information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. Section 782(d) of the 

Act provides that, if the Department 

determines that a response to a request 

for information does not comply with 

the request, the Department shall 

promptly inform the person submitting 

the response of the nature of the 

deficiency and shall provide that 

person, to the extent practicable, with 

an opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency in light of the time limits 

established for the completion of the 

administrative review. 

In addition, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that, if the Department finds 

that an interested party ‘‘has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information,’’ the Department may use 

information that is adverse to the 

interests of that party as facts otherwise 

available. The purpose of the adverse 

call, as explained in the Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) 

(SAA), is ‘‘to ensure that the party does 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate {to the best of its 

ability} than if it had cooperated fully.’’

See SAA at 870, reprinted in 1994 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4199. Further, as 

explained in the SAA, in employing 

adverse inferences the Department will 

consider ‘‘the extent to which a party 

may benefit from its own lack of 

cooperation.’’ Id. 

King Pac and Master Packaging 

On December 6, 2007, we sent a 

questionnaire to King Pac, one of the 

companies which we had selected for 

individual examination, seeking 

information related to King Pac’s 

corporate structure and its production 

and sales of PRCBs, information which 

is necessary for us to complete the 

administrative review. King Pac did not 

respond to the questionnaire. 

On March 27, 2008, we sent an 

antidumping questionnaire to Master 

Packaging and requested that it respond 

by May 5, 2008. Subsequently, at the 

respondent’s request, we granted Master 

Packaging an extension of time to 

respond. On May 20, 2008, we received 

Master Packaging’s questionnaire 

response, which we rejected on June 11, 

2008, due to filing deficiencies; we 

provided Master Packaging an 

opportunity to resubmit its response in 

accordance with our regulations by June 

24, 2008. Master Packaging submitted 

its response in accordance with the 

regulations on June 24, 2008. On June 

27, 2008, we requested that Master 

Packaging submit the electronic 

versions of both its home-market and 

U.S. sales lists which should have been 

submitted with its June 24 response. On 

July 7, 2008, Master Packaging 

submitted the electronic versions of its 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52290 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

sales lists. On July 9, 2008, after 

reviewing Master Packaging’s 

resubmitted questionnaire response, we 

issued Master Packaging a supplemental 

questionnaire. Master Packaging did not 

respond to our supplemental 

questionnaire or request an extension of 

time to do so. 

Because King Pac and Master 

Packaging have failed to provide the 

information we requested and thus have 

significantly impeded this proceeding, 

we must use facts available to establish 

their dumping margins. See section 

776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, because 

King Pac could have provided correct 

and verifiable data about its corporate 

structure, production, and sales but did 

not do so, we determine that King Pac 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability. Therefore, we 

conclude that the use of an adverse 

inference is warranted with respect to 

King Pac. See section 776(b) of the Act 

and Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 

337 F.3d 1373, 1382–83 (CAFC 2003). 

Additionally, because Master Packaging 

could have provided correct and 

verifiable data in response to our 

supplemental questionnaire but did not 

do so, we determine that Master 

Packaging has failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, we conclude that the use of 

an adverse inference is warranted with 

respect to Master Packaging. Id. 

As adverse facts available (AFA), we 

have preliminarily assigned King Pac 

and Master Packaging the highest rate 

found in the less-than-fair-value 

investigation, which was 122.88 

percent. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 34122, 

34125 (June 18, 2004) (Final LTFV). We 

applied this rate to Zippac Co., Ltd. 

(Zippac), for the less-than-fair-value 

investigation. Id., 69 FR at 34123–

34124. We also applied this rate to King 

Pac, which we collapsed with Zippac, 

for the 2004–2005 and 2005–2006 

administrative reviews. See 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 53405, 53406–53407 

(September 11, 2006) (collapsing King 

Pac, Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd., Zippac, 

and King Bag Co.); Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982, 

1983 (January 17, 2007) (2005–2006 

Final Results); and Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 64580 

(November 16, 2007). 

When a respondent is not cooperative, 

such as King Pac and Master Packaging 

here, the Department has the discretion 

to presume that the highest prior margin 

reflects the current margins. See Ta 

Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United 

States, 298 F.3d 1330, 1339 (CAFC 

2002) (citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 

United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 

(CAFC 1990)). If this were not the case, 

the party would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less. See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 

1190. Further, by using the highest prior 

antidumping duty margin we offer the 

assurance that the exporter will not 

benefit from refusing to provide 

information and we apply an 

antidumping duty rate that bears some 

relationship to past practices by this 

company as it is part of the industry in 

question. See Shanghai Taoen Int’l 

Trading Co. v. United States, 360 F. 

Supp. 2d 1339, 1346 (CIT 2005) (citing 

D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 

F.3d 1220, 1223 (CAFC 1997)). 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, 

to the extent practicable, the 

Department corroborate secondary 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’

See SAA at 870, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 

4199. As clarified in the SAA, 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See id. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will examine, to the extent practicable, 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information. As emphasized in the SAA, 

however, the Department need not 

prove that the selected facts available 

are the best alternative information. See 

SAA at 869, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4198. 

Further, independent sources used to 

corroborate such evidence may include, 

for example, published price lists, 

official import statistics and customs 

data, and information obtained from 

interested parties during the particular 

investigation or review. See 19 CFR 

351.308(d) and SAA at 870, 1994 

U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199. 

With respect to the reliability aspect 

of corroboration, the Department found 

the rate of 122.88 percent to be reliable 

in the investigation. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 

FR 3552, 3553–3554 (January 26, 2004) 

(unchanged). There, the Department 

pointed out that the rate was calculated 

from source documents included with 

the petition, namely, a price quotation 

for various sizes of PRCBs commonly 

produced in Thailand, import statistics, 

and affidavits from company officials, 

all from a different Thai producer of 

subject merchandise. Because the 

information is supported by source 

documents, we preliminarily determine 

that the information is still reliable. See 

Memorandum to the File entitled 

‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand: Inclusion of Memorandum, 

dated January 16, 2004, to the record of 

this administrative review’’ dated 

August 11, 2008 (AFA Memorandum). 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. In the 

investigation, the Department 

determined that, because the price quote 

reflected commercial practices of the 

particular industry during the period of 

investigation, the information was 

relevant to mandatory respondents 

which refused to participate in the 

investigation. See AFA Memorandum. 

No party contested the application of 

that rate in the investigation. Id. 

Furthermore, the rate of 122.88 percent 

is King Pac’s current rate and has been 

applied to Zippac since the less-thanfair-value investigation. Therefore, we 

find this rate to continue to have 

relevance. 

Poly Plast 

We found at verification that Poly 

Plast did not report foreign bank charges 

for all sales to two major U.S. 

customers. See Poly Plast verification 

report, dated June 23, 2008, at page 13–

15. Because foreign bank charges vary 

by invoice, we do not have complete 

and accurate information pertaining to 

these expenses. Accordingly, because 

Poly Plast failed to report these 

expenses, the use of facts available is 

necessary. See section 776(a)(2)(D) of 

the Act. In addition, Poly Plast had the 

documents necessary to report the 

correct foreign bank charges for its U.S. 

sales. See Poly Plast verification report 

at exhibits 6, 7, and 11 which include 

documentation such as the bank’s credit 

advice. We used these documents to 

ascertain the actual foreign bank charges 

for the particular U.S. sales we 

examined in detail. Because Poly Plast 

did not report this expense for a number 

of U.S. sales, we find that Poly Plast did 

not act to the best of its ability in 

reporting these expenses and, 

accordingly, the use of an adverse 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52291 

3We determined that KYD had not justified many 

of its requests for proprietary treatment of the 

information in its January 25 submission. On April 

1, 2008, we requested that KYD re-submit its 

document with adequate or revised claims for 

proprietary treatment of its information. KYD resubmitted the document on April 8, 2008. 

inference is necessary. See section 

776(b) of the Act and Nippon Steel, 337 

F.3d at 1382–83. As partial adverse facts 

available, we used the highest reported 

value for foreign bank charges for sales 

to two U.S. customers for which these 

expenses were not reported. 

Importer Request 

On January 25, 2008, prior to the 

deadline for the submission of factual 

information, KYD, Inc. (KYD), an 

importer of subject merchandise, 

submitted information concerning its 

purchases of subject merchandise.3 KYD 

requested that the Department calculate 

an importer-specific assessment rate for 

KYD based on KYD’s information 

because one of its former suppliers, 

King Pac, did not respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire. KYD 

submitted its information in a form 

resembling a response to Section C of 

the Department’s standard questionnaire 

for U.S. sales and included copies of its 

relevant purchase orders and supplier 

invoices. Additionally, KYD explained 

the sales, shipping, and payment terms 

associated with its purchases. Because 

most of the information upon which the 

Department relies to calculate an 

antidumping margin and assessment 

rate was not available to KYD—

specifically, home-market sales, cost-ofproduction, and complete U.S. sales 

information—KYD suggested that the 

Department use data collected from 

other respondents as a surrogate. 

Because we do not have all of the 

information that is necessary to 

calculate an accurate margin for the 

supplier(s) from which KYD purchased 

subject merchandise during the POR, 

however, we cannot calculate an 

importer-specific assessment rate for 

KYD. 

Export Price 

We calculated dumping margins for 

NPG and Poly Plast as described below. 

For the price to the United States for 

NPG and Poly Plast, we used export 

price (EP) as defined in section 772(a) 

of the Act. We calculated EP based on 

the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered 

price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for 

exportation to, the United States. See 

section 772(c) of the Act. We made 

deductions, as appropriate, for 

discounts and rebates. See section 

772(d) of the Act. We also made 

deductions for any movement expenses 

in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) 

of the Act. 

Comparison-Market Sales 

Based on a comparison of the 

aggregate quantity of home-market and 

U.S. sales and absent any information 

that a particular market situation in the 

exporting country did not permit a 

proper comparison, we determined that 

the quantity of foreign like product sold 

by NPG in Thailand was sufficient to 

permit a proper comparison with the 

sales of the subject merchandise to the 

United States, pursuant to section 773(a) 

of the Act. NPG’s quantity of sales in 

Thailand was greater than five percent 

of its quantity of sales to the U.S. 

market. See section 773(a)(1)(c) of the 

Act. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 

based normal value on the prices at 

which the foreign like product was first 

sold for consumption in Thailand in the 

usual commercial quantities and in the 

ordinary course of trade and at the same 

level of trade as the U.S. sales. 

Poly Plast did not have a viable home 

market within the meaning of section 

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Poly Plast 

reported its quantities of sales in thirdcountry markets and we determined that 

Angola was a viable third-country 

market for Poly Plast under section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Therefore, we 

based normal value for Poly Plast’s U.S. 

sales on the prices at which the foreign 

like product was first sold for 

consumption in Angola in the usual 

commercial quantities and in the 

ordinary course of trade and, to the 

extent practicable, at the same level of 

trade as the U.S. sales. See section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 

Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b) of 

the Act, we disregarded the below-cost 

sales of NPG in the most recently 

completed administrative review of this 

company. See 2005–2006 Final Results. 

Therefore, we have reasonable grounds 

to believe or suspect that NPG’s sales of 

the foreign like product under 

consideration for the determination of 

normal value in this review may have 

been made at prices below the cost of 

production (COP) as provided by 

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 

of the Act, we have conducted a COP 

analysis of NPG’s sales in the 

comparison market in this review. 

The petitioners in this proceeding 

filed an allegation that Poly Plast made 

sales in the comparison market at prices 

below the COP. Based on the 

information in the allegation, we found 

that we had reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that sales of the 

foreign like product were made by Poly 

Plast at prices that are less than the COP 

of the product. See section 

773(b)(2)(4)(i) of the Act and 

Memorandum entitled ‘‘Administrative 

Review of Antidumping Duty Order on 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand: Request to Initiate Cost 

Investigation for Poly Plast (Thailand) 

Co., Ltd.,’’ dated March 4, 2008. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 

of the Act, we conducted a COP 

investigation of sales made by Poly Plast 

in its comparison market. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the COP based 

on the sum of the costs of materials and 

fabrication employed in producing the 

foreign like product, the selling, general, 

and administrative (SG&A) expenses, 

and all costs and expenses incidental to 

packing the merchandise. In our COP 

analysis, we used the comparisonmarket sales and COP information 

provided by each respondent in its 

questionnaire responses. We made some 

adjustments to the COP information 

based on our findings at the cost 

verifications of NPG and Poly Plast. 

These adjustments are detailed in 

Memoranda to Neal Halper entitled 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results Naraipak Co., Ltd.’’

and ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary Results 

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

September 2, 2008. 

After calculating the COP, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act, we tested whether comparisonmarket sales of the foreign like product 

were made at prices below the COP 

within an extended period of time in 

substantial quantities and whether such 

prices permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. See 

section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We 

compared model-specific COPs to the 

reported comparison-market prices less 

any applicable movement charges, 

discounts, and rebates. 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, when less than 20 percent of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than the COP, we did 

not disregard any below-cost sales of 

that product because the below-cost 

sales were not made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time. When 20 percent or more of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the POR were at prices less than 

the COP, we disregarded the below-cost 

sales because they were made in 

substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time pursuant to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52292 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act 

and because, based on comparisons of 

prices to weighted-average COPs for the 

POR, we determined that these sales 

were at prices which would not permit 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time in accordance with 

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See the 

Department’s analysis memoranda for 

Poly Plast and NPG, dated September 2, 

2008. Based on this test, we disregarded 

below-cost sales with respect to Poly 

Plast and NPG. 

Model-Match Methodology 

We compared U.S. sales with sales of 

the foreign like product in the 

comparison market. Specifically, in 

making our comparisons, we used the 

following methodology. If an identical 

comparison-market model was reported, 

we made comparisons to weightedaverage comparison-market prices that 

were based on all sales which passed 

the COP test of the identical product 

during the relevant or contemporaneous 

month. We calculated the weightedaverage comparison-market prices on a 

level of trade-specific basis. If there 

were no contemporaneous sales of an 

identical model, we identified the most 

similar comparison-market model. To 

determine the most similar model, we 

matched the foreign like product based 

on the physical characteristics reported 

by the respondents in the following 

order of importance: (1) quality; (2) bag 

type; (3) length; (4) width; (5) gusset; (6) 

thickness; (7) percentage of high-density 

resin; (8) percentage of low-density 

resin; (9) percentage of linear lowdensity resin; (10) percentage of color 

concentrate; (11) percentage of ink 

coverage; (12) number of ink colors; and 

(13) number of sides printed. 

Normal Value 

The Department may calculate normal 

value based on a sale to an affiliated 

party only if it is satisfied that the price 

to the affiliated party is comparable to 

the price at which sales are made to 

parties not affiliated with the exporter 

or producer, i.e., sales at arm’s-length 

prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where 

affiliated-party sales were reported, we 

excluded from our analysis sales to 

affiliated customers for consumption in 

the comparison market that we 

determined not to be at arm’s-length 

prices. To test whether these sales were 

made at arm’s-length prices, we 

compared the prices of sales of 

comparable merchandise to affiliated 

and unaffiliated customers, net of all 

rebates, movement charges, direct 

selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance 

with our practice, when the prices 

charged to an affiliated party were, on 

average, between 98 and 102 percent of 

the prices charged to unaffiliated parties 

for merchandise comparable to that sold 

to the affiliated party, we determined 

that the sales to the affiliated party were 

at arm’s-length prices. See Antidumping 

Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 

the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 

69186 (November 15, 2002) (explaining 

the Department’s practice). We included 

those sales to affiliated parties that were 

made at arm’s-length prices in our 

calculations of normal value. 

Comparison-market prices were based 

on the packed, ex-factory, or delivered 

prices to affiliated or unaffiliated 

purchasers. When applicable, we made 

adjustments for differences in packing 

and for movement expenses in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. We also made 

adjustments for differences in cost 

attributable to differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for 

differences in circumstances of sale in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For 

comparisons to EP, we made 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 

deducting comparison-market direct 

selling expenses from and adding U.S. 

direct selling expenses to normal value. 

We also made adjustments, if 

applicable, for comparison-market 

indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. 

commissions in EP calculations. 

With respect to NPG, we found at the 

sales verification that commissions it 

had reported for sales made by Naraipak 

through an affiliated selling agent were 

not based on selling expenses actually 

incurred by the agent. Thus, we have 

not accepted NPG’s claim for a 

commission on these sales. In addition, 

we have not accepted bank charges for 

numerous home-market Naraipak sales 

that NPG first submitted to the 

Department as a minor correction at the 

sales verification. NPG asserted that, 

until that point, it had inadvertently 

omitted these charges from its reported 

home-market sales data. Because we 

find these charges to constitute 

untimely-filed new factual information, 

we have not accepted them in our 

calculation of normal value. Similarly, 

NPG submitted revised packing costs for 

Naraipak’s home-market sales as a 

minor correction at the sales 

verification, asserting that it had 

inadvertently failed to update the 

packing costs at the time it filed revised 

cost data for a supplemental 

questionnaire due prior to the start of 

verification. We have not accepted these 

revised packing costs, which we find to 

be untimely-filed new factual 

information. 

With respect to Poly Plast, we found 

at verification, that 1) although it did 

not claim an adjustment to normal 

value, Poly Plast incurred foreign bank 

charges for a number of third-country 

sales and 2) Poly Plast claimed certain 

export charges in more than one data 

field for all third-country sales made in 

2007, which resulted in Poly Plast either 

double-counting or partially doublecounting these expenses for the sales in 

question. See Poly Plast verification 

report, dated June 23, 2008, at page 13–

15. Poly Plast had the documents 

necessary to report the correct foreign 

bank charges and certain export charges 

for its third-country sales. See Poly Plast 

verification report at exhibits 6, 7, and 

11, which include documentation such 

as bills for terminal handling charges 

and bill-of-lading document fees, 

loading-certificate invoices, and broker’s 

invoices. We used these documents to 

ascertain the actual foreign bank charges 

and actual export charges for the thirdcountry sales we examined in detail. 

Because foreign bank charges and 

certain export charges vary by invoice, 

however, we do not have complete and 

accurate information pertaining to these 

expenses. Further, with respect to 

certain export charges, there is no way 

to distinguish these expenses from the 

other expenses (i.e., brokerage and 

handling expenses) with which they 

were comingled and reported. Because 

there is no information on the record 

that enables us to calculate the expenses 

in question, we have not made the 

claimed adjustment for certain export 

charges Poly Plast reported for all thirdcountry sales made in 2007. 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 

normal value at the same level of trade 

as the EP sales. See the Level of Trade 

section below. 

Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we used constructed value as 

the basis for normal value when there 

were no comparable sales of the foreign 

like product in the comparison market. 

We calculated constructed value in 

accordance with section 773(e) of the 

Act. We included the cost of materials 

and fabrication, SG&A expenses, U.S. 

packing expenses, and profit in the 

calculation of constructed value. In 

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of 

the Act, we based SG&A expenses and 

profit on the amounts incurred and 

realized by each respondent in 

connection with the production and sale 

of the foreign like product in the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52293 

ordinary course of trade for 

consumption in the comparison market. 

As a result of findings at the cost 

verifications, we made some 

adjustments to the constructed-value 

information provided by NPG and Poly 

Plast. These adjustments are detailed in 

the Memoranda to Neal Halper entitled 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Naraipak Co., 

Ltd.,’’ and ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results—Poly Plast (Thailand) Co., 

Ltd.,’’ dated September 2, 2008. 

When appropriate, we made 

adjustments to constructed value in 

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the 

Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 CFR 

351.412 for circumstance-of-sale 

differences and level-of-trade 

differences. For comparisons to EP, we 

made circumstance-of-sale adjustments 

by deducting comparison-market direct 

selling expenses from and adding U.S. 

direct selling expenses to constructed 

value. We also made adjustments, when 

applicable, for comparison-market 

indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. 

commissions in EP comparisons. 

We calculated constructed value at 

the same level of trade as the EP. 

Level of Trade 

To the extent practicable, we 

determined normal value for sales at the 

same level of trade as the U.S. sales. The 

normal-value level of trade is that of the 

starting-price sales in the comparison 

market. When normal value is based on 

constructed value, the level of trade is 

that of the sales from which we derived 

SG&A and profit. 

To determine whether comparisonmarket sales are at a different level of 

trade than U.S. sales, we examined 

stages in the marketing process and 

selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. 

Neither NPG nor Poly Plast reported 

any significant differences in selling 

functions between different channels of 

distribution or customer type in either 

their comparison or U.S. markets. 

Therefore, we determined that all 

comparison-market sales were made at 

one level of trade for each company. 

Moreover, we determined that all 

comparison-market sales of the 

companies were made at the same level 

of trade as EP sales. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following percentage weighted-average 

dumping margins on PRCBs from 

Thailand exist for the period August 1, 

2006, through July 31, 2007: 

Producer/Exporter Percent 

Margin 

King Pac (aka King Pak) ............ 122.88 

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

NPG ............................................ 1.84 

Poly Plast .................................... 8.84 

Comments 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 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 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. In accordance 

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

calculated, whenever possible, an 

exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rate or value for 

merchandise subject to this review. 

With respect to sales by NPG and Poly 

Plast, 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. 

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 of 

Antidumping Duties). This clarification 

will apply to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by companies included in these 

preliminary results of review for which 

the reviewed companies did not know 

their merchandise 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 intermediate company(ies) 

involved in the transaction. For a full 

discussion of this clarification, see 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties. 

For companies for which we are 

relying on total AFA to establish a 

dumping margin, we will instruct CBP 

to apply the assigned dumping margins 

to all entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR that were produced or 

exported by the companies. 

We will issue liquidation instructions 

to CBP 15 days after publication of the 

final results of review. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of PRCBs from 

Thailand entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cashdeposit rates for the reviewed 

companies will be the rates established 

in the final results of this review; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cashdeposit 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, a prior 

review, or the less-than-fair-value 

investigation but the manufacturer is, 

the cash-deposit rate will be the rate 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52294 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

1Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna 

Slater Stainless, Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a 

Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc. 

2 DHE incorrectly called this submission its 

‘‘rebuttal brief.’’

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter 

nor the manufacturer has its own rate, 

the cash-deposit rate will be 2.80 

percent, the all-others rate for this 

proceeding. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importer 

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 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. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

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. E8–20928 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–810] 

Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice 

of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 7, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) from 

India. This review covers sales of SSB 

from India with respect to two 

producers/exporters: D.H. Exports Pvt. 

Ltd. (‘‘DHE’’) and Sunflag Iron & Steel 

Co. Ltd. (‘‘Sunflag’’), during the period 

February 1, 2006, through January 31, 

2007. 

We have noted the changes made 

since the preliminary results in the 

‘‘Changes Since the Preliminary 

Results’’ section, below. The final 

results are listed below in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 9, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Devta Ohri or Scott Holland, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3853 and (202) 

482–1279, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 21, 1995, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on SSB from 

India. See Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, India 

and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 

1995). On February 2, 2007, the 

Department published a notice in the 

Federal Register providing an 

opportunity for interested parties to 

request an administrative review of this 

order for the period February 1, 2006, 

through January 31, 2007. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 5007 

(February 2, 2007). The Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of this review on 

March 7, 2008. See Stainless Steel Bar 

From India: Notice of Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 12382 (March 7, 2008) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). On March 20, 

2008, the Department published a 

correction notice to the Preliminary 

Results. See Stainless Steel Bar From 

India: Notice of Preliminary Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 15049 

(March 20, 2008). 

Following the Preliminary Results, 

the Department issued two 

supplemental questionnaires to both 

DHE and Sunflag. The Department 

received DHE’s responses on March 20, 

2008, and April 2, 2008. The 

Department received Sunflag’s 

responses on April 2, 2008, and July 7, 

2008. On June 24, 2008, the Department 

published a notice extending the 

deadline for these final results to 

September 3, 2008. See Stainless Steel 

Bar From India: Notice of Extension of 

Time Limit for the Final Results of the 

2006–2007 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 35639 

(June 24, 2008). 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. 

On July 16, 2008, the Petitioners 1 and 

DHE submitted case briefs.2 In its case 

brief, DHE requested that the 

Department consider the purchase order 

date as the U.S. date of sale, rather than 

the invoice date. To support this 

request, DHE provided the Department 

with unsolicited new information in the 

form of a revised U.S. sales database 

containing purchase order dates for its 

U.S. sales. On July 17, 2008, the 

Petitioners filed a rebuttal brief. The 

Petitioners requested that the 

Department reject and return to DHE the 

new factual information submitted in its 

case brief. According to the Petitioners, 

the Department did not request this new 

date of sale information and the 

deadline for the submission of new 

factual information had passed, as per 

19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). On July 17, 2008, 

the Department rejected DHE’s case 

brief because it contained unsolicited 

new factual information. See July 17, 

2008, Letter from Brandon Farlander to 

DHE, which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room 1117 of 

the main Department building. The 

Department instructed DHE to re-file its 

case brief excluding the unsolicited new 

factual information relating to purchase 

order date. DHE submitted its revised 

case brief, excluding the unsolicited 

new factual information, on July 21, 

2008. 

On July 22, 2008, Sunflag filed a 

rebuttal brief. On August 8, 2008, the 

Department rejected Sunflag’s July 22, 

2008 (dated July 19, 2008) rebuttal brief 

because it contained unsolicited new 

factual information relating to certain 

rent paid to affiliate Ridge Farm 

Developers. See August 8, 2008, Letter 

from Brandon Farlander to Sunflag, 

which is on file in the CRU in room 

1117 of the main Department building. 

The Department instructed Sunflag to 

re-file its rebuttal brief excluding the 

unsolicited new factual information. On 

August 18, 2008, the Department 

received Sunflag’s revised rebuttal brief, 

excluding the unsolicited new factual 

information. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of 

stainless steel in straight lengths that 

have been either hot-rolled, forged, 

turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or 

otherwise cold-finished, or ground, 

having a uniform solid cross-section 

along their whole length in the shape of 

circles, segments of circles, ovals, 

rectangles (including squares), triangles, 

hexagons, octagons, or other convex 

polygons. SSB includes cold-finished 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES