[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3557-3562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-1576]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-557-813]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bags from Malaysia

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 2004.

[[Page 3558]]

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that polyethylene retail carrier 
bags from Malaysia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United 
States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final 
determination not later than 135 days after the date of publication of 
this preliminary determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. David Dirstine (Bee Lian Plastic 
Industries Sdn. Bhd.) or Catherine Cartsos (Teong Chuan Plastic and 
Timber Sdn. Bhd.), Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4033 or (202) 482-1757, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted this 
antidumping investigation in accordance with section 733 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We preliminarily determine that 
polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Malaysia are being, or 
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as 
provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at 
less than fair value are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' 
section of this notice.

Case History

    We initiated this investigation on July 10, 2003. See Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 
The People's Republic of China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 68 FR 42002 
(July 16, 2003) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of this 
investigation the following events have occurred.
    On July 14, 2003, we issued a letter to interested parties in this 
investigation providing an opportunity to comment on the 
characteristics we should use in identifying the different models the 
respondents sold in the United States. The petitioners submitted 
comments on July 28, 2003. No other party submitted comments. After 
reviewing the parties' comments, we have adopted the characteristics 
and hierarchy as explained in the ``Fair Value Comparisons'' section 
below.
    On July 14, 2003, we sent a partial Section A questionnaire to all 
of the producers/exporters named in the petition and to the producers/
exporters who comprise the top 80 percent of producers/exporters in 
terms of quantity (in thousands of units) of the subject merchandise 
shipped to the United States according to data from U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP). We requested information on the quantity and 
value of merchandise sold by these producers and exporters in order to 
identify potential respondents in the investigation. We received 
responses from 17 firms which reported exports of subject merchandise 
during the period of investigation (POI). We did not receive responses 
from two firms in Malaysia, Branpak Industries Sdn. Bhd. and Gants Pac 
Industries, although the record indicates that these companies received 
our July 14, 2003, questionnaire. On August 1, 2003, we sent a letter 
to these firms to reiterate our request for a response to the July 14, 
2003, questionnaire. We received no response from these firms.
    On August 4, 2003, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) 
issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of imports of the subject merchandise from 
the People's Republic of China, Malaysia, and Thailand. See 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 68 
FR 47609 (August 11, 2003).
    On August 14, 2003, the Department selected the following four 
mandatory respondents: Bee Lian Plastic Industries Sdn. Bhd. (Bee 
Lian), Sido Bangun Sdn. Bhd., Zhin Hin/Chin Hin Plastic Manufacturer 
Sdn. Bhd., Teong Chuan Plastic and Timber Sdn. Bhd. (Teong Chuan). See 
Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Jeff May regarding selection of 
respondents dated August 14, 2003.
    On August 14, 2003, the Department issued its full antidumping 
questionnaire to the mandatory respondents. Only Bee Lian and Teong 
Chuan responded to our questionnaire. On November 21, and November 28, 
2003, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Bee Lian and Teong 
Chuan, respectively. Bee Lian submitted its supplemental questionnaire 
response to the Department on December 5, 2003. Although Teong Chuan 
submitted a supplemental questionnaire response on November 28, 2003, 
it was neither fully responsive to our questionnaire nor filed in 
proper form pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303 and 351.304.
    On October 16, 2003, the petitioners requested that the Department 
postpone its preliminary determination by 50 days. In accordance with 
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we postponed our preliminary 
determination by 50 days. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 
Determinations in Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bags From the People's Republic of China, Malaysia, and 
Thailand, 68 FR 61656 (October 29, 2003).

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.210(e)(2), the Department requires that exporters requesting 
postponement of the final determination must also request an extension 
of the provisional measures in section 733(d) of the Act from a four-
month period until not more than six months. We received a request to 
postpone the final determination from Bee Lian, dated November 20, 
2003. In its request, the respondent consented to the extension of 
provisional measures to no longer than six months. Since this 
preliminary determination is affirmative, the request for postponement 
is made by an exporter that accounts for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, and there is no compelling reason 
to deny the respondent's request, we have extended the deadline for 
issuance of the final determination until the 135th day after the date 
of publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal 
Register and have extended provisional measures to no longer than six 
months.

Period of Investigation

    The POI corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior 
to the filing of the petition, i.e., April 1, 2002, through March 31, 
2003.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to our regulations (see Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we 
set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 
20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice (see 66 FR 
33048-33049). Interested parties submitted such comments by August 5, 
2003.On August 4, 2003, Regal Import Packaging, an importer of PRCBs,

[[Page 3559]]

requested that four- dimensional bags, bags with handles made of a 
different material than the bag itself, and custom-printed bag orders 
of 50 thousand bags or less be excluded from the scope of the 
investigation. On August 12, 2003, the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag 
Committee and its individual members, PCL Packaging, Inc., Sonoco 
Products Company, Superbag Corp., Vanguard Plastics, Inc., and 
Inteplast Group, Ltd. (collectively, ``the petitioners''), requested 
that the investigation not exclude those products specified by Regal 
Import Packaging. We have not adopted the changes in the scope of the 
investigation requested by Regal Import Packaging because we find the 
petitioners have placed sufficient evidence on the record to show that 
the bags in question are manufactured in the United States and fall 
within the scope of the petition.

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is polyethylene 
retail carrier bags, 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 .035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less 
than .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 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 the subject merchandise are classified under statistical 
category 3923.21.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS). This subheading also covers products that are outside 
this investigation. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description 
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department 
discretion, however, when faced with a large number of exporters/
producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such 
companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. There is 
no data on the record that indicates conclusively the number of 
producers/exporters from Malaysia that exported the subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POI.
    On July 14, 2003, the Department sent partial section A 
questionnaires addressed to all producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise listed in the petition. We received responses from a number 
of firms. As discussed below, we did not receive responses from two 
companies. Based on the responses we received to our July 14, 2003, 
questionnaire, we selected Bee Lian, Sido Bangun, Zhin Hin/Chin Hin, 
and Teong Chuan as mandatory respondents. See Memorandum from Laurie 
Parkhill to Jeff May dated August 14, 2003.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of 
the Act, use 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 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act requires the Department to use 
facts available when a party does not provide the Department with 
information by the established deadline or in the form and manner 
requested by the Department. 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.
    As explained above, Branpak Industries Sdn. Bhd. and Gants Pac 
Industries did not respond to our July 14, 2003, request for 
information. Furthermore, Sido Bangun and Zhin Hin/Chin Hin did not 
respond to our August 14, 2003, antidumping questionnaire.
    Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, in reaching our preliminary 
determination, we have used total facts available for Branpak 
Industries Sdn. Bhd. and Gants Pac Industries because the firms did not 
provide the data we needed to decide whether they should be selected as 
mandatory respondents. Also, we have used total facts available for 
Sido Bangun and Zhin Hin/Chin Hin because these firms did not respond 
to our August 14, 2003, antidumping questionnaire as mandatory 
respondents. Also, because all these companies failed to respond, 
wholly or in part, to our request for information, we have found that 
they failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we have used an adverse 
inference in selecting from the facts available for the margins for 
these companies. See Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Jeffrey May 
dated January 16, 2004, ``Determination to Apply Adverse Facts 
Available and the Calculation of the Adverse Facts-Available Rate'' 
(AFA Memo).
    Regarding Teong Chuan, we found that it did not meet the filing 
requirements of our regulations in regards to most of its questionnaire 
responses and subsequent re-submissions, resulting in our rejection of 
the majority of its submissions. Despite our repeated attempts to allow 
Teong Chuan to correct for the procedural and substantive deficiencies 
in its response, the firm did not do so. The information Teong Chuan 
provided which remains on the record is inadequate and does not allow 
us to calculate a dumping margin. For example, we have no cost-of-
production (COP) information necessary to test whether Teong Chuan made 
sales in the home market at below-cost prices or to

[[Page 3560]]

calculate constructed value in the absence of usable home-market sales. 
In effect, Teong Chuan did not respond to our questionnaires. See AFA 
Memo for further discussion. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a) of 
the Act, in reaching our preliminary determination, we have used total 
facts available for Teong Chuan because crucial information necessary 
to calculate a margin is not on the record.
    Further, we find that Teong Chuan did not cooperate to the best of 
its ability because it did not seek our guidance and clarifications in 
its attempts to provide us with acceptable responses and it ignored 
instructions we had given the company previously. Therefore, pursuant 
to section 776(b) of the Act, we have used an adverse inference in 
selecting from the facts available for the margins for Teong Chuan. See 
AFA Memo.
    As adverse facts available, we have examined the margins that the 
petitioners alleged in their June 25, 2003, response to our June 25, 
2003, letter requesting supplemental information with respect to the 
petition and selected the higher of the two margins; that rate is 
101.74 percent.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for 
facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Information from the petitioners constitutes secondary 
information. The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 
(SAA), provides that the word ``corroborate'' means that the Department 
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has 
probative value. As explained in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof from Japan), in order to corroborate secondary 
information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, 
the reliability and relevance of the information used.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded the 
highest dumping margin as best information available because the margin 
was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense 
resulting in an unusually high margin. Further, in accordance with 
F.LII De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 
F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2000), we also examine whether 
information on the record would support the selected rates as 
reasonable facts available.
    Our analysis of the petitioners' methodology for calculating the 
export price and normal value in the petition is discussed in the 
initiation notice. See Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 42003-4. To 
corroborate the petitioners' export-price and normal-value 
calculations, we compared the prices and expenses used by the 
petitioners to the source documents upon which the petitioners' 
methodology was based.
    As discussed in the AFA Memo, we found that the export-price and 
normal-value information in the supplemental petition was reasonable 
and, therefore, we preliminarily determine that the information has 
probative value. Accordingly, we find that the highest margin based on 
that information, 101.74 percent, is corroborated within the meaning of 
section 776(c) of the Act.
    Furthermore, there is no information on the record that 
demonstrates that the rate we have selected is an inappropriate total 
adverse facts-available rate for the companies in question. On the 
contrary, our existing record, which includes a Malaysian company's 
quotation for a commonly produced type of PRCB, a freight quotation, 
and a specification sheet for a purchase- order inquiry, supports the 
use of this rate as the best indication of the export price and dumping 
margin for these firms. Therefore, we consider the selected rate to 
have probative value with respect to the firms in question and to 
reflect the appropriate adverse inference.
    Accordingly, for the preliminary determination, we have applied a 
margin of 101.74 percent to Branpak Industries Sdn. Bhd., Gants Pac 
Industries, Sido Bangun, Zhin Hin/Chin Hin, and Teong Chuan. Because 
these are preliminary margins, the Department will consider all margins 
on the record at the time of the final determination for the purpose of 
determining the most appropriate final margins for these companies.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PRCBs to the United States by Bee 
Lian in this investigation were made at less than fair value, we 
compared export price to normal value, as described in the ``U.S. 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance 
with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(I) of the Act, we calculated weighted-
average export prices.
    In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products 
based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in 
the following order of importance: (1) quality, (2) bag type, (3) 
length, (4) width, (5) gusset, (6) thickness, (7) percent of high 
density polyethylene resin, (8) percent of low density polyethylene 
resin, (9) percent of low linear density polyethylene resin, (10) 
percent of color concentrate, (11) percent of ink coverage, (12) number 
of ink colors, (13) number of sides printed.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used export price 
for Bee Lian because the subject merchandise was sold directly to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI-
wide weighted-average export prices to the weighted-average normal 
values.We calculated export price based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., 
or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation 
to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for 
discounts and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

1. Home-Market Viability
    Bee Lian did not make sales of the foreign like product for 
consumption in its home market. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we based normal value on the prices at 
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in a 
country other than the exporting country and the United States. 
Specifically, we based normal value on the prices at which the foreign 
like product is sold for consumption in the United Kingdom. The 
aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by Bee Lian in the 
United Kingdom was, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, five 
percent or more of the

[[Page 3561]]

aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in the United 
States.
2. Affiliated-Party Transactions
    Bee Lian's production unit sold the foreign like product and 
subject merchandise to a wholly owned affiliate located in Singapore 
that acted as the sales arm of Bee Lian. Bee Lian reported the prices 
of its affiliate to the first unrelated customers in the United States 
and the United Kingdom.
3. Cost-of-Production Analysis
    The petitioners submitted evidence on October 16, 2003, alleging 
that Bee Lian sold the foreign like product in the comparison market at 
prices that may have been below COP as provided by section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Based on this evidence, we determined that 
we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the 
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of 
normal value in this investigation may have been made at prices below 
the COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
conducted a COP investigation of sales by Bee Lian in the comparison 
market.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental 
to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the 
comparison-market sales and COP information provided by Bee Lian in its 
questionnaire responses, except we excluded the claimed offset to the 
company's reported cost of manufacturing for the sale of waste. For 
further discussion of this adjustment, see the cost memorandum from 
Mark Todd to Neal Halper, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination,'' dated 
January 16, 2004.
    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. 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 the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial 
quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more 
of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at 
prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because 
they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of 
time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and, based on 
comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POI, 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. Based on this test, we 
disregarded certain sales because they were below cost. We used the 
remaining third-country sales to calculate normal value.
4. Calculation of Normal Value
    We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in 
the comparison market on the basis of the physical characteristics 
described under Fair Value Comparisons above. Wherever we were unable 
to match a U.S. model to identical merchandise sold in the comparison 
market, we selected the most similar model of subject merchandise in 
the comparison market as the foreign like product.
    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 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 circumstances-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, where applicable, for comparison-market indirect selling 
expenses to offset U.S. commissions.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we based 
normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of 
trade as the export price. If normal value was calculated at a 
different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if 
possible, in accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act. See the 
Level of Trade section below.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used 
constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no 
usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. In 
accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated constructed 
value based on the sum of Bee Lian's cost of materials and fabrication 
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A, profit, and U.S. 
packing costs. We relied on the submitted constructed-value information 
for Bee Lian except as adjusted for the sale of waste (see above).
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for 
circumstances-of-sale differences and level-of-trade differences. We 
made circumstances-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, when applicable, for 
comparison-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions.

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. When there were no sales at 
the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales to comparison-market 
sales at a different level of trade. The normal-value level of trade is 
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. When normal 
value is based on constructed value, the level of trade is that of the 
sales from which we derived SG&A and profit. To determine whether 
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. If the comparison-market sales were at a 
different level of trade from that of a U.S. sale and the difference 
affected price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent 
price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and 
comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export 
transaction, we made a level-of-trade adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).

[[Page 3562]]

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the 
information upon which we will rely in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing 
CBP to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from 
Malaysia (except for entries of Bee Lian because this company has a de 
minimis margin) that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the 
posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the 
normal value exceeds the export price, as indicated in the chart below. 
These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect 
until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Exporter or Producer                                Weighted-average percent margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bee Lian Plastic Industries Sdn. Bhd..................                                                     00.14
Teong Chuan Plastic and Timber Sdn. Bhd...............                                                    101.74
Brandpak Industries Sdn. Bhd..........................                                                    101.74
Gants Pac Industries..................................                                                    101.74
Sido Bangun Sdn.Bhd...................................                                                    101.74
Zhin Hin/Chin Hin Plastic Manufacturer Sdn. Bhd.......                                                    101.74
All Others............................................                                                     84.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All companies that we examined have either a de minimis margin or 
rates based on total adverse facts available. Therefore, for purposes 
of determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) 
of the Act, we have calculated a simple average of the six margin rates 
we have determined in the investigation. See All-Others Rate 
Calculation Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Jeffrey May dated 
January 16, 2004.The Department will disclose calculations performed 
within five days 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 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination of sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act 
requires that the ITC make a final determination before the later of 
120 days after the date of the Department's preliminary determination 
or 45 days after the Department's final determination 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. 
Because we have postponed the deadline for our final determination to 
135 days from the date of publication of this preliminary 
determination, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days 
of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date of the final verification report issued in this 
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case 
briefs, no later than five days after the deadline date for case 
briefs. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues 
should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary 
should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In 
accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, 
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, any hearing 
will be held three days after the deadline for submission of the 
rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location 
to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, 
and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. 
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if 
one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 
CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain (1) the party's name, address, 
and telephone number, (2) the number of participants, and (3) a list of 
the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after 
the date of publication of the preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 16, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-1576 Filed 1-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S