[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52282-52288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20919]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 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 on-site 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.
[[Page 52284]]
NME Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market-economy (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-to-Length
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, separate-rate 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 Committee\1\ 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.
[[Page 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 home-market 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 market-economy
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
[[Page 52286]]
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 market-economy 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
weighted-average 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, non-
industry-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, by-products, 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
Surrogate-Value 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.
[[Page 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 regression-based 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 Surrogate-Value 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., 2.30
andUnited Power Packaging, Ltd.....................
Rally Plastics Co., Ltd............................. 18.11
PRC-wide Entity..................................... 77.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 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 cash-deposit 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
[[Page 52288]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consisting of Hilex Poly Company, LLC, and the Superbag
Corporation (collectively, the petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E8-20919 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S