[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 152 (Monday, August 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39928-39933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19100]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-821]
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: 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 39929]]
the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs)
from Thailand. The review covers two exporters/producers. The period of
review is August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008.
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: August 10, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3174 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). On September 30, 2008, we published a notice of
initiation of an administrative review of seven companies. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 56795, 56796
(September 30, 2008).\1\ On January 7, 2009, we rescinded the
administrative review with respect to C.P. Packaging Co., Ltd., C.P.
Poly-Industry Co., Ltd., Naraipak Co., Ltd., Nari Packaging (Thailand)
Ltd., and Poly Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd. See Polyethylene Retail
Carrier Bags from Thailand: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 682 (January 7, 2009). Since initiation of
the review, we extended the due date for completion of these
preliminary results. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From
Malaysia, Thailand, and the People's Republic of China: Extension of
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 74 FR 17633 (April 16, 2009), and Polyethylene Retail Carrier
Bags from Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 32885 (July 2,
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We stated that the review covers the following companies:
C.P. Packaging Co., Ltd., C.P. Poly-Industry Co., Ltd., Master
Packaging Co., Ltd. (Master Packaging), Naraipak Co., Ltd., Nari
Packaging (Thailand) Ltd., Poly Plast (Thailand) Ltd., and Thai
Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd. Id. The Department has determined
previously that Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd., APEC Film
Ltd., and Winner's Pack Co., Ltd., comprise the Thai Plastic Bags
Group (TPBG). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand, 69
FR 34122, 34123 (June 18, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2007, through July 31,
2008. 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 the order
is dispositive.
Duty Absorption
On October 30, 2008, the petitioners\2\ requested that the
Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed
during the POR by the respondents. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act
provides for the Department to determine, if requested, during an
administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication
of the order whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign
producer or exporter if the subject merchandise is sold in the United
States through an affiliated importer. With respect to TPBG, it did not
sell subject merchandise in the United States through an affiliated
importer. Therefore, it is not appropriate to make a duty-absorption
determination in this segment of the proceeding within the meaning of
section 751(a)(4) of the Act. See Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. v. United
States, 508 F.3d 1024, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The petitioners are the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag
Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and
Superbag Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the ``Use of Adverse Facts Available'' section of
this notice below, Master Packaging did not respond to our antidumping
questionnaire. Because Master Packaging is the sole respondent with
possible sales to unaffiliated customers in the United States through
an affiliated importer and because this review was initiated four years
after the publication of the order, we have made a duty-absorption
determination concerning Master Packaging in this segment of the
proceeding in accordance with section 751(a)(4) of the Act.
In determining whether the antidumping duties have been absorbed by
the respondent during the POR, we presume the duties will be absorbed
for those sales that have been made at less than normal value. This
presumption can be rebutted with evidence (e.g., an agreement between
the affiliated importer and unaffiliated purchaser) that the
unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on
the subject merchandise. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld
Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR
39735, 39737 (July 11, 2005).
On May 21, 2009, the Department gave Master Packaging an
opportunity to submit evidence demonstrating that its U.S. purchasers
will pay any antidumping duties ultimately assessed on entries during
the POR. Master Packaging did not provide any such evidence. Because
Master Packaging did not rebut the duty-absorption presumption with
evidence that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty
ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise, we preliminarily find
that
[[Page 39930]]
antidumping duties have been absorbed by Master Packaging on all U.S.
sales.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified sales
and cost information provided by TPBG 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
version of the verification report, dated July 9, 2009, which is 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; (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. 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.
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.
On November 25, 2008, we sent a questionnaire to Master Packaging
seeking information related to Master Packaging's corporate structure
and its production and sales of PRCBs, information which is necessary
for us to complete the administrative review. Although we have evidence
that Master Packaging received the questionnaire, Master Packaging did
not respond to the questionnaire.
Because Master Packaging has failed to provide the information we
requested and thus has significantly impeded this proceeding, we must
use facts available to establish its dumping margin. See section 776(a)
of the Act. Furthermore, because Master Packaging could have provided
correct and verifiable data about its corporate structure, production,
and sales 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. See section 776(b) of the
Act and Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83
(Fed. Cir. 2003).
As adverse facts available (AFA), we have preliminarily assigned
Master Packaging a dumping margin of 122.88 percent, the highest rate
found in the less-than-fair-value investigation. 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 in the less-than-fair-value investigation
as well as in each successive administrative review. See Final LTFV, 69
FR at 34123-34124, Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982,
1983 (January 17, 2007), Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
64580 (November 16, 2007) (2005-2006 Final Results), and Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results and Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2511, 2512 (January
15, 2009) (2006-2007 Final Results). In 2006-2007 Final Results, we
applied this rate to Master Packaging. Id.
When a respondent is not cooperative, such as Master Packaging in
this case, 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 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185,
1190 (Fed. Cir. 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. Further, when
possible, 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 (Fed. Cir. 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. 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. See 2006-2007 Final Results and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 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. Further, independent
sources used to
[[Page 39931]]
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 in Final LTFV). There, the Department stated 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 3, 2009 (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
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyethylene Retail Carrier
Bags from Thailand, 69 FR at 3553-3554 and AFA Memorandum. No party
contested the application of that rate in the investigation. Id.
Furthermore, the rate of 122.88 percent is the current rate for Master
Packaging and has been applied to other producers/exporters since the
less-than-fair-value investigation. Therefore, we find this rate
continues to have relevance.
Export Price
For the price to the United States for TPBG, we used export price
(EP) as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP based on
the packed delivery terms Free on Board, Cost, Insurance, and Freight,
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. We made adjustments to
U.S. sales information to reflect minor corrections and findings as the
result of verification. For a detailed explanation of these
adjustments, see Memorandum entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags
from Thailand Thai Plastic Bags Industries Group (TPBG), Preliminary
Results Analysis Memorandum 8/1/07 - 7/31/08,'' dated August 3, 2009
(Analysis Memo).
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 TPBG 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. TPBG'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) 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. We made
adjustments to the home-market sales information to reflect minor
corrections and findings at verification. For a detailed explanation of
these adjustments, see Analysis Memo.
Sales Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade
The Department has determined preliminarily that certain home-
market sales are outside the ordinary course of trade as defined by
section 771(15) of the Act. Specifically, we have determined that the
conditions and practices surrounding these sales are not normal in the
trade under consideration. For a detailed discussion of the facts and
circumstances concerning these sales, see Analysis Memo. Accordingly,
pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i), we have excluded these sales from
our calculation of normal value.
Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded the
below-cost sales of TPBG in the most recently completed administrative
review of this company. See 2005-2006 Final Results, 72 FR at 64581.
Therefore, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that TPBG'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 TPBG's sales in the
comparison market in this review.
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
comparison-market sales and COP information TPBG provided in its
questionnaire responses.
We have determined preliminarily that TPBG's allocation of its
costs results in products with few or minor physical differences having
significantly different costs of manufacturing assigned to them. While
TPBG asserts that its focus is on export sales, it is unreasonable to
attribute the starts and stoppages resulting from this focus, and
associated inefficiencies, mainly to the home-market products. By
TPBG's own admission, the cost differences are not due to production
activities or requirements of the domestic and U.S. products.
Accordingly, in accordance with our practice, for these preliminary
results of review we have revised TPBG's reported direct labor,
variable overhead, and fixed overhead to eliminate cost differences
attributable to factors other than physical characteristics. See
Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 43598 (August 6, 2007),
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-
Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Japan, 64 FR
24329 (May 6, 1999) at Comment 22, and Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon
and Alloy Steel, Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Brazil, 60 FR
31960 (June 19, 1995), at Comment 2. For a detailed
[[Page 39932]]
explanation of these adjustments, see Analysis Memo.
TPBG provided information in its questionnaire responses showing
that it purchased resin inputs from an affiliated party. We consider
resin to be a major input and therefore have applied the major-input
rule to value such purchases. Accordingly, pursuant to section
773(f)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.407(b), we adjusted TPBG's resin
costs.
After calculating the COP in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of
the Act, we tested whether comparison-market 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 TPBG's sales of a given product were made 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 TPBG's
sales of a given product during the POR were made 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
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.
Model-Matching Methodology
In making our comparisons of U.S. sales with sales of the foreign
like product in the home market, we used the following methodology. If
an identical comparison-market model with identical physical
characteristics as listed below was reported, we made comparisons to
weighted-average comparison-market prices that were based on all sales
which passed the COP test of the identical product during a
contemporaneous month. 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 physical characteristics reported by the respondent in
the following order of importance: (1) quality, (2) bag type, (3)
length, (4) width, (5) gusset, (6) thickness, (7) percentage of high-
density polyethylene resin, (8) percentage of low-density polyethylene
resin, (9) percentage of low linear-density polyethylene 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 section 773(f)(2) of the Act and 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, adjusted as
described in the ``Cost of Production'' section above, 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.
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
contemporaneous 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, adjusted as described in the ``Cost of Production''
section above, 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 TPBG in connection with the production
and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade
for consumption in the comparison market.
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. For
a detailed explanation of the calculations, as well as adjustments to
reflect minor verification findings, see Analysis Memo.
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
[[Page 39933]]
that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and profit.
To determine whether comparison-market 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. This analysis revealed that
there were not any significant differences in selling functions between
different channels of distribution or customer type in either its
comparison or U.S. markets. Therefore, we determined that TPBG made all
comparison-market sales at one level of trade. Moreover, we determined
that all comparison-market sales by TPBG were made at the same level of
trade as its EP sales. For a more detailed discussion, see Analysis
Memo.
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, 2007, through July 31, 2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/Exporter Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPBG................................................ 22.02
Master Packaging.................................... 122.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to
interested 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 information: (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 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
for TPBG an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment value
for merchandise subject to this review by dividing the total dumping
margin (calculated as the difference between normal value and EP) for
each importer or customer by the total number of units the exporter
sold to that importer or customer. We will instruct CBP to assess the
resulting per-unit amount against each unit of merchandise in each of
that importer's/customer's entries during the POR.
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 applies to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR produced by TPBG for which it did
not know its 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 Master Packaging, because we are relying on total AFA to
establish a dumping margin, we will instruct CBP to apply 122.88
percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were
produced and/or exported by Master Packaging.
We intend to 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 cash-deposit 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 cash-deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or
the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the
cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) 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: August 3, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-19100 Filed 8-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S