[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 170 (Thursday, September 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53953-53957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21985]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier
bags (PRCBs) from Thailand. The review covers five exporters/producers.
The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2008, through July 31, 2009. We
have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal
value by companies subject to this review.
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.
DATES: Effective Date: September 2, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer 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-
0410 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 22, 2009, we published a notice of
initiation of an administrative review of six companies. See Initiation
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224 (September 22, 2009).\1\
Since initiation of the review, we selected Landblue and TPBI for
individual examination. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill dated October
15, 2009. In addition, we extended the due date for completion of these
preliminary results. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Thailand: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 23673 (May 4, 2010), and
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Extension of Time Limit
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75
FR 36359 (June 25, 2010). Finally, we rescinded the review with respect
to Landblue. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand:
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
[[Page 53954]]
Review in Part, 75 FR 34699 (June 18, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We stated that the review covers the following companies:
C.P. Packaging Co., Ltd., Giant Pack Co., Ltd., Landblue (Thailand)
Co., Ltd. (Landblue), Sahachit Watana Plastics Ind. Co., Ltd., Thai
Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd. (TPBI), and Thantawan Industry
Public Co., Ltd. Id., 74 FR at 48226. The Department has determined
previously that TPBI, APEC Film Ltd., and Winner's Pack Co., Ltd.,
comprise the Thai Plastic Bags Group. 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 POR is August 1, 2008, through July 31, 2009. 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.
Selection of Respondents
Due to the large number of companies in the review and the
resulting administrative burden to examine each company for which a
request had been made and not withdrawn, the Department exercised its
authority to limit the number of respondents selected for 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 allows 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 reasonably examined.
Accordingly, based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) import data on the record of this review (see letters
from Laurie Parkhill to Daniel L. Schneiderman and to Victor S. Mroczka
dated September 28, 2009) and our available resources, we decided to
examine the sales of Landblue and TPBI. See Memorandum to Laurie
Parkhill regarding respondent selection, dated October 15, 2009.
Because we rescinded the review with respect to Landblue, for the
companies which remain under review and which we did not select for
individual examination, we have determined the margin based on the
weighted-average margin of TPBI, the sole remaining respondent selected
for individual examination in this review.
Affiliation
TPBI has argued that a certain company (Company A) is not
affiliated with TPBI although TPBI and Company A mutually own a company
in Vietnam that produces PRCBs. See TPBI's Section A response dated
December 9, 2009, at page A-6. We have preliminarily determined that
Company A is ``operationally in a position to exercise restraint or
direction'' over TPBI, pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act.
Accordingly, we have preliminarily determined that Company A is
affiliated with TPBI. Because of the proprietary nature of this
analysis, see the Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled ``Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand--Affiliation'' dated August 26, 2010,
for a complete discussion of this determination.
Export Price
For the price to the United States for TPBI, we used export price
(EP) as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP based on
the packed free-on-board or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers
in, or for exportation to, the United States. See section 772(c) of the
Act. We made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments for duty drawback
under the Investment Promotion Act and under Section 19 BIS of the
Customs Act claimed by TPBI in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of
the Act. For a detailed explanation of these adjustments, see
Memorandum entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand--
Thai Plastic Bags Industries Group Preliminary Results Analysis
Memorandum 8/1/08--7/31/09,'' dated August 26, 2010 (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 TPBI 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. TPBI'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, in the ordinary course of
trade, and at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales.
Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded the
below-cost sales of TPBI in the most recent administrative review of
this company completed before the initiation of this review. See
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 64580, 64581 (November
16, 2007). Therefore, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that TPBI'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. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1)
of the Act, we have conducted a COP analysis of TPBI's sales in
Thailand 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 home-
market sales
[[Page 53955]]
and COP information TPBI provided in its questionnaire responses.
We relied on the COP data submitted by TPBI except as follows:
1. In accordance with the transactions-disregarded rule (section
773(f)(2) of the Act), we adjusted TPBI's cost of manufacturing (COM)
to reflect the market value of printing plates that were purchased from
an affiliate.
2. In accordance with the major-input rule (section 773(f)(3) of
the Act), we adjusted TPBI's COM to reflect the market value of certain
resin that was purchased from an affiliate.
3. With respect to the allocation of direct labor, variable
overhead, and fixed overhead costs, we have preliminarily determined
that the methodology reported by TPBI unreasonably distorts the COM for
the subject merchandise and the foreign like product. This reported
methodology is not only inconsistent with the methodology applied by
TPBI in its books and records, it also results in a large variability
in costs that have nothing to do with physical differences in the
merchandise. Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, as
facts otherwise available, we have weight-averaged these costs on a
per-unit basis in order to prevent such significant differences in
costs between physically similar merchandise. See Statement of
Administrative Action, URAA, H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103rd Cong. (1994),
at 834-5 (stating that, if the Department determines that costs
reported by a respondent ``shifted away costs from the production of
the subject merchandise, or the foreign like product,'' the Department
has the authority to ``adjust costs appropriately to ensure that they
(the costs) are not artificially reduced'').
3. We adjusted TPBI's reported COM to remove an offset claimed by
TPBI for revenue associated with the Government of Thailand's Blue
Corner Rebate program.
For additional details on these adjustments, see Memorandum to Neal
M. Halper entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results'' dated August 26,
2010 (Cost Memo).
Alternative Cost Methodology
The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual
weighted-average cost for the entire period of investigation (POI) or
POR. See, e.g., Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 2000), and the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18. We recognize
that possible distortions may result if we use our normal annual-
average cost methodology during a period of significant cost changes.
In determining whether to deviate from our normal methodology of
calculating an annual weighted-average cost, we evaluate the case-
specific record evidence using two primary factors: (1) The change in
the COM recognized by the respondent during the POI or POR must be
deemed significant; (2) the record evidence must indicate that sales
prices during the shorter averaging periods (e.g., quarters rather than
the POR) could be reasonably linked with the COP during the same
shorter averaging periods. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
From Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
73 FR 75398 (December 11, 2008), and the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 6627 (February 10, 2010), and the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. This methodology was recently upheld
by the Court of International Trade in SeAH Steel Corporation v. United
States, Slip. Op. 10-60 (CIT May 19, 2010), as supported by substantial
evidence and otherwise in accordance with law.
1. Significance of Cost Changes
Record evidence shows that TPBI experienced significant changes in
its total COM during the POR and that these changes were primarily
attributable to the price volatility of its raw-material inputs used to
produce the merchandise under consideration. Because of the proprietary
nature of this analysis, see the Cost Memo for a more complete
discussion of this determination.
2. Linkage Between Cost and Sales Information
If the Department finds cost changes to be significant in a given
investigation or administrative review, the Department evaluates
whether there is evidence of linkage between the cost changes and the
sales prices for the POI or POR. Our definition of linkage does not
require direct traceability between specific sales and their specific
production cost but, rather, relies on whether there are elements which
would demonstrate a reasonable correlation between the underlying costs
and the final sales prices charged by the company.
Because we received the data necessary for a determination with
respect to the linkage between the cost changes and the sales prices
for the POR shortly before the statutory due date for the issuance of
these preliminary results, we have not yet reached a conclusion as to
whether there is evidence of such linkage in this review. After these
preliminary results are published, we will issue our analysis regarding
quarterly costs as well as any margin recalculations, if appropriate.
Thus, for these preliminary results, we have not applied our quarterly
cost methodology but, rather, have applied our standard methodology of
using annual costs based on the data TPBI reported, adjusted as
described in the ``Cost of Production'' section above.
Results of Cost Test and Cost-Recovery Test
After calculating the COP in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of
the Act, we tested whether home-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
home-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 TPBI'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 TPBI'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.
Further, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we
compared prices to weighted-average per-unit COPs for the POR and
determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Because we
are applying our standard annual-average cost test in these preliminary
results, we have also applied our standard cost-recovery test with no
adjustments. Based on both of these tests, we disregarded certain sales
made by TBPI in the home market which were made at below-cost prices.
[[Page 53956]]
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 home-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 home-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
We based home-market prices on the packed, ex-factory, or delivered
prices to 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. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-
market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses to normal value.
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 TPBI in connection with the production
and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade
for consumption in the home 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. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting
home-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses to constructed value. We also made adjustments, when
applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S.
commissions. We calculated constructed value at the same level of trade
as the EP. For a detailed explanation of the calculations, see Analysis
Memo.
TPBI argued that the Department should not exclude home-market
sales that fail the cost test from its calculation of profit for
constructed value (CV profit). Citing Atar, S.r.l. v. United States,
637 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1092 (CIT 2009) (Atar), TPBI asserts that the
Court of International Trade has found the Department's practice of
excluding home-market sales that fail the cost test from its
calculation of CV profit to be contrary to law. TPBI misunderstands the
Court's analysis in Atar. That decision does not apply to the facts of
this case because the Atar decision was made with regard to a statutory
provision not at issue here.
Section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act provides that, in calculating CV
profit, the Department will only use ``actual amounts'' incurred ``in
the ordinary course of trade'' in the home market. Section 771(15)(A)
of the Act makes clear that home-market sales that failed the cost test
are outside the ordinary course of trade. Section 773(e)(2)(B) of the
Act, on the other hand, applies if those actual amounts are not
available. In the administrative review challenged in Atar, Notice of
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017 (August 8, 2006)
(unchanged in final; 72 FR 7011, February 14, 2007) (Pasta from Italy),
the respondent did not have a viable home market so the Department
calculated CV profit pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act.
At issue in Atar was the fact that there is no ``ordinary course of
trade'' language in section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act yet the Department
nonetheless excluded sales that failed the cost test from its
calculation of CV profit. The plaintiff, Atar, argued that the
Department must calculate these respondent companies' profit rates
based on all sales, above and below cost, for purposes of calculating
CV profit pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The Court agreed
with Atar, finding that the Department erred in excluding below-cost
sales in its calculation of CV profit because such a requirement only
applies when a viable home market exists, pursuant to section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. See Atar, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1092 (CIT
2009).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A similar decision to reject the Department's interpretation
under section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act was reversed in Thai I-Mei
Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., v. United States, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 16677
(Fed. Cir. 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this review, by contrast, TPBI does have a viable home market
and, therefore, we can determine selling expenses and profit under
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, consistent with that
provision, we have used only sales made within the ordinary course of
trade in calculating CV profit.
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 home 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 home-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 the home or U.S.
markets. Therefore, we determined that TPBI made all home-market sales
at one level of trade. Moreover, we determined that all home-market
sales by TPBI were made at the same level of trade as its U.S. sales.
For a more detailed discussion, see Analysis Memo. Accordingly, we
compared TPBI's U.S. sales to its home-market sales, all of
[[Page 53957]]
which were made at the same level of trade.
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, 2008, through July 31, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Producer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPBI....................................................... 20.41
C.P. Packaging Co., Ltd.................................... 20.41
Giant Pack Co., Ltd........................................ 20.41
Sahachit Watana Plastics Ind. Co., Ltd..................... 20.41
Thantawan Industry Public Co., Ltd......................... 20.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 seven (7) days after the date on which
we issue our determination regarding quarterly costs. 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 review 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 for TPBI an 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
kilograms the exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will
instruct CBP to assess the resulting per-kilogram amount against each
kilogram 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. This clarification applies to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by TPBI 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
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
For the companies which were not selected for individual
examination, we will instruct CBP to apply the rates listed above to
all entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by such
firms.
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 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 26, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-21985 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P