[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 58 (Friday, March 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14569-14571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6807]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-843]
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan: Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined
that imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Taiwan
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than
fair value (LFTV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are
listed in the ``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation'' section of
this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov 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) 482-0665
or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
On October 27, 2009, the Department published in the Federal
Register its preliminary determination in the antidumping duty
investigation of PRCBs from Taiwan. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier
Bags From Taiwan: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 55183 (October 27,
2009) (Preliminary Determination).
As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion
to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal
Government from February 5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, all
deadlines in this investigation have been extended by seven days. The
revised deadline for the final determination in this investigation is
now March 18, 2010. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen,
DAS for Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative
Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent
Snowstorm,'' dated February 12, 2010.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted sales and
cost verifications of the questionnaire responses submitted by the sole
participating respondent, TCI Plastic Co., Ltd. (TCI). We used standard
verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting
and production records, as well as original source documents provided
by TCI. See Memorandum to the File entitled ``Verification of the U.S.
Sales Response of Interplast Group in the Antidumping Investigation of
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan,'' dated December 22,
2009, Memorandum to the File entitled ``Verification of the Home-Market
and Export-Price Sales Responses of TCI Plastic Co., Ltd., in the
Antidumping Investigation of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Taiwan,'' dated December 23, 2009, and Memorandum to the File entitled
``Verification of the Cost Response of Tis Dis International Co. Ltd.
in the Antidumping Investigation of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags
from Taiwan,'' dated January 11, 2010. All verification reports are on
file and available in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117, of the
main Department of Commerce building.
We received case briefs submitted by Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and
Superbag Corporation (hereinafter, the petitioners) and TCI on January
21, 2010. The petitioners and TCI submitted rebuttal comments on
January 26, 2010. Although a hearing was requested, the request was
withdrawn and we did not hold a hearing.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is January 1, 2008, through December
31, 2008. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, March 2009.
See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise subject to this investigation is PRCBs, which also
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 this investigation 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.
Imports of merchandise included within the scope of this
investigation are currently classifiable under statistical category
3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). This subheading may also cover products that are outside the
scope of this investigation. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading
is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
[[Page 14570]]
Adverse Facts Available
For the final determination, we continue to find that, by failing
to provide information we requested, Ipsido Corporation (Ipsido), a
respondent selected for individual examination in this investigation,
did not act to the best of its ability. Thus, we continue to find that
the use of adverse facts available is warranted for this company under
sections 776(a)(2) and (b) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination,
74 FR at 55185-55186.
As we explained in the Preliminary Determination, the rate of 95.81
percent we selected as the adverse facts-available rate for Ipsido is
the highest margin alleged in the petition (see the Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, dated March 31, 2009). See also Polyethylene Retail Carrier
Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 19049, 19054
(April 27, 2009). Further, as discussed in the Preliminary
Determination, we corroborated the adverse facts-available rate
pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination,
74 FR at 55186.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this antidumping investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Investigation of Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan'' (Decision Memorandum) from John M.
Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated March 18, 2010,
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which
parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in
the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix.
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this
investigation and the corresponding recommendations in the Decision
Memorandum which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version
of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic
version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Targeted Dumping
In the Preliminary Determination, we followed the methodology we
adopted in Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985
(June 16, 2008), and Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June
16, 2008) (collectively, Nails), used most recently in Certain New
Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July
15, 2008). See Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 55187-55188. Based
on the targeted-dumping test that we applied in the Preliminary
Determination, we found a pattern of export prices and constructed
export prices for comparable merchandise that differs significantly
among certain customers, regions, and time periods. Id. As a result,
following the methodology in Nails, we applied the average-to-
transaction comparison methodology to TCI's targeted sales and the
average-to-average comparison methodology to TCI's non-targeted sales;
in calculating TCI's weighted-average margin, we combined the margin
calculated for the targeted sales with the margin calculated for the
non-targeted sales and did not offset any margins found among the
targeted sales. See Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 55188.
In the Preliminary Determination we announced that, given the now-
withdrawn regulations that guided our practice in Nails, we would
consider various options regarding the specific group of sales to which
we apply the average-to-transaction methodology (the withdrawn
targeted-dumping regulation would have limited such application to just
the targeted sales). See id. We offered the following three options: 1)
apply the average-to-transaction methodology just to sales found to be
targeted as the withdrawn regulation directed and, consistent with our
average-to-transaction practice, not offset any margins found on these
transactions; 2) apply the average-to-transaction methodology to all
sales to the customer, region, or time period found to be targeted (not
just those specific sales found to be targeted) and, consistent with
our average-to transaction practice, not offset any margins found on
these transactions; and 3) apply the average-to-transaction methodology
to all sales by TCI and, consistent with our average-to transaction
practice, not offset any margins found on these transactions. See id.
As in the Preliminary Determination, we continue to find a pattern
of export prices and constructed export prices for comparable
merchandise that differs significantly among customers, regions, or by
time period. See Memorandum to the File entitled ``Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value in the Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan - Analysis Memorandum
for TCI Plastic Co., Ltd.,'' dated March 18, 2010. We continue to find,
pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, that application of the
average-to-average comparison method does not account for such price
differences and results in the masking of dumping that would be
unmasked by the application of the average-to-transaction comparison
method to all sales. Accordingly, for this final determination we have
applied the average-to-transaction methodology to all U.S. sales that
TCI reported. For a complete discussion, see the Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at
verifications, we have made certain changes to the margin calculation
for TCI. For a discussion of these changes, see Memorandum to the File
entitled ``Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Taiwan - Analysis Memorandum for TCI Plastic Co., Ltd.,'' dated March
18, 2010, and Memorandum to Neal Halper entitled ``Cost of Production
and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final
Determination TCI Plastic Co. Ltd. and Tis Dis International Co.
Ltd.,'' dated March 18, 2010.
Cost of Production
As explained in the Preliminary Determination (74 FR at 55190), we
conducted an investigation concerning sales at prices below the cost of
production in the home market. We found that, for certain specific
products, more than 20 percent of TCI's home-market sales were at
prices less than the cost of production and, in addition, such sales
did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of
time. Therefore, we disregarded these sales and used the
[[Page 14571]]
remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value in accordance
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Based on this test, for this final
determination we have disregarded below-cost sales by TCI.
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation
of all entries of PRCBs from Taiwan which were entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 27, 2009,
The date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. We will
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal
to the weighted-average margins, as indicated below, as follows: (1)
the rates for TCI and Ipsido will be the rates we have determined in
this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified
in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate
established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate
for all other producers or exporters will be 36.54 percent, as
discussed in the ``All-Others Rate'' section, below. These suspension-
of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ipsido Corporation.................................. 95.81
TCI Plastic Co., Ltd................................ 36.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All-Others Rate
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-
others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters
and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or de
minimis margins and any margins determined entirely under section 776
of the Act. TCI is the only respondent in this investigation for which
the Department has calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for
purposes of determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping
margin calculated for TCI, 36.54 percent. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999), and
Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determination, 72 FR 30753, 30757 (June 4, 2007) (unchanged in
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated
Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 60636 (October 25, 2007)).
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our
final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section
735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether
The domestic industry in the United States is materially injured,
or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or
the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will
issue
An antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the
suspension of liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 18, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix -- Issues in Decision Memorandum
1. Targeted Dumping
2. Sales Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade
3. Home-Market Warranty Expenses
4. Direct Material Costs
5. Variable Overhead Costs for Outside Processing Services
6. Unreconciled Costs
7. Financial Expense
8. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses
9. Miscellaneous Issues
[FR Doc. 2010-6807 Filed 3-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S