[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37718-37723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13381]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-821]


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind 
in Part

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 from Thailand. The review covers 17 exporters/producers. The 
period of review is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made at 
prices below normal value by various companies subject to this review. 
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in this review are requested to 
submit with each argument (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case 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-
3174 and (202) 482-4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 9, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from 
Thailand. See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 
from Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004). In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b), we received requests for an administrative review for 17 
companies. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(g) and 19 CFR 351.221(b), 
we published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of 
these companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 57465, 57466 (September 29, 2006) 
(Initiation Notice).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We stated that the review covers the following companies: 
Advance Polybag Inc., Alpine Plastics Inc., APEC Film Ltd., API 
Enterprises Inc., Apple Film Co., Ltd., CP Packaging Industry Co., 
Ltd., King Pak Ind. Co. Ltd., Multibax Public Co., Ltd., Naraipak 
Co., Ltd., Polyplast (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Sahachit Watana Plastic 
Ind. Co., Ltd., Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd., Thantawan 
Industry Public Co., Ltd., U. Yong Ltd., Part., U Yong Industry Co., 
Ltd., Universal Polybag Co., Ltd., and Winner's Pack Co., Ltd. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the large number of firms requested for this administrative 
review and the resulting administrative burden to review each company 
for which a request has been made, the Department is exercising its 
authority to limit the number of respondents selected for review. 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 
permits the Department to limit its examination to either a sample of 
exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid 
based on the information available at the time of selection or 
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of subject 
merchandise from the exporting country that can be examined reasonably. 
Accordingly, on October 10, 2006, we requested information concerning 
the quantity and value of sales to the United States from the 17 
exporters/producers listed in the Initiation Notice. We received 
responses from all of the exporters/producers. We also examined import 
data from CBP concerning unliquidated entries of merchandise subject to 
the antidumping duty order. Based on our analysis of the responses and 
import data obtained from CBP, we determined that Advance Polybag Inc., 
Alpine Plastics Inc., API Enterprises Inc., and Universal Polybag Co., 
Ltd. (collectively UPC/API), CP Packaging Industry Co., Ltd. (CP 
Packaging), King Pak Ind. Co., Ltd. (King Pak), and Thai Plastic Bags 
Industries Co., Ltd., APEC Film Ltd., and Winner's Pack Co., Ltd. 
(collectively TPBG), were the four largest exporters/producers during 
the period of review (POR). Specifically, we determined that these 
exporters/producers accounted for 90.8 percent of the total reported 
quantity of imports of the subject merchandise from the requested 
companies to the United States during the POR and 83.4 percent of the 
total quantity from the requested companies reported in the CBP data. 
Accordingly, we chose to examine these four companies. See Memorandum 
to Laurie Parkhill entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 
Thailand - Respondent Selection'' dated November 9, 2006. For the 
companies under review which we did not select as mandatory 
respondents, we have calculated a weighted average of the weighted-
average margins we have established for the four mandatory respondents 
excluding de minimis rates and rates based on adverse facts available 
(AFA).
    Since initiation of the review, we extended the due date for 
completion of these preliminary results from May 2, 2007, to July 2, 
2007. See Notice of

[[Page 37719]]

Extension of Deadline for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 
72 FR 16766 (April 5, 2007). We have conducted this review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is 
polyethylene retail carrier bags (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 recent changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are 
currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the 
HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of this order is dispositive.

Intent to Rescind Review in Part

    In an October 24, 2006, submission, Multibax Public Co., Ltd. 
(Multibax), indicated that it had no shipments of subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POR. Our review of information from CBP 
supports Multibax's claim that there were no entries of its merchandise 
subject to the order into the United States during the POR. See 
Memorandum to the File, ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,'' 
dated November 8, 2006. Because we preliminarily find that there were 
no imports from Multibax during the POR, we intend to rescind the 
administrative review with respect to this company. If we continue to 
find at the time of our final results of administrative review that 
there were no imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand 
from Multibax, we will rescind our review of Multibax.

Duty Absorption

    On October 30, 2006, 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. Because UPC/API is the sole 
respondent which sold to unaffiliated customers in the United States 
through itself as the importer of record and because this review was 
initiated two years after the publication of the order, we have made a 
duty-absorption determination concerning UPC/API in this segment of the 
proceeding in accordance with section 751(a)(4) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioners are the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag 
Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and 
Superbag Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 70 FR 39735, 
39737 (July 11, 2005). On May 22, 2007, the Department requested 
evidence from UPC/API to demonstrate that its U.S. purchasers will pay 
any antidumping duties ultimately assessed on entries during the POR. 
UPC/API did not provide any such evidence. Because UPC/API 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 antidumping duties 
have been absorbed by UPC/API on all U.S. sales made through its 
importer of record.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified 
information provided by UPC/API 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 June 12, 2007, which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit, room B-099.

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; and 
(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.

[[Page 37720]]

    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.R. 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{time}  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 9, 2006, we sent a questionnaire to King Pak, one of 
the companies for which the petitioners requested an administrative 
review, seeking information related to King Pak's corporate structure 
and its production and sales of PRCBs. King Pak did not respond to the 
questionnaire. Because King Pak did not respond, on December 21, 2006, 
we sent a letter to King Pak requesting that it respond to our November 
9, 2006, questionnaire, thus providing King Pak a second opportunity to 
respond to the questionnaire. The information requested in the 
questionnaire is necessary for us to complete the administrative 
review. King Pak has not responded to our November 9, 2006, 
questionnaire or to our December 21, 2006, letter. Because King Pak has 
failed to provide the information requested and thus has significantly 
impeded this proceeding, we must use facts available. See section 
776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, because King Pak could have provided 
correct and verifiable data about its corporate structure, production, 
and sales but did not do so, we determine that King Pak 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. See section 
776(b) of the Act and Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 
1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
    As total AFA, we have preliminarily assigned King Pak the highest 
rate found in the less-than-fair-value investigation, which was 122.88 
percent. 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 to Zippac Co., 
Ltd. (Zippac) during the less-than-fair-value investigation. Id. 69 FR 
at 34123. We also applied this rate to King Pak, which we collapsed 
with Zippac, in the preceding administrative review. See Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982, 1982-83 (January 17, 2007), 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 53405, 53406 (September 
11, 2006) (collapsing King Pak, Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd., Zippac, and 
King Bag Co.). The rate has not yet induced King Pak's compliance, 
cooperation, and participation in the administrative-review process.
    When a respondent is not cooperative, like King Pak here, the 
Department has the discretion to presume that the highest prior margin 
reflects the current margins. If this were not the case, the party 
would have produced current information showing the margin to be less. 
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)). Further, by using the highest prior 
antidumping duty rate we offer the assurance that the exporter will not 
benefit from refusing to provide information and 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, 1348 
(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 SAA 
at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will 
examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of 
the information. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and F.Lii de Cecco di Filippo 
Fara S. Martino, S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027, 1030 (2000). 
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 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.
    With respect to the reliability aspect of corroboration, the 
Department found the rate of 122.88 percent to be reliable in the 
investigation. See Final LTFV, 69 FR at 34123-24. There, the Department 
pointed out 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 August 31, 2006, to the record 
of this administrative review'' dated July 2, 2007.
    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 
Final LTFV, 69 FR at 34123-24. No party, including Zippac, contested 
the application of that rate in the investigation. Id. Furthermore, the 
rate of 122.88 percent is King Pak's current rate and has been applied 
to Zippac since the less-than-fair-value investigation. Therefore, we 
find this rate to continue to have relevance.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and (b) of 
the Act, as appropriate. We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed 
F.O.B., C.I.F., 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

[[Page 37721]]

in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA, we 
calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States, which includes 
commissions, direct selling expenses, and U.S. repacking expenses. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those 
indirect selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring 
in the United States and the profit allocated to expenses deducted 
under section 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 
772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we 
computed profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both 
the U.S. and comparison markets, less all expenses associated with 
those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect 
to U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to 
total expenses for both the U.S. and comparison markets.

Comparison-Market Sales

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of comparison-
market and U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular 
market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper 
comparison, with the exception of UPC/API, we determined that the 
quantity of foreign like product sold by all respondents 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. With the exception of UPC/API, each company's quantity of 
sales in Thailand was greater than five percent of its sales to the 
U.S. market. See section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, with the exception 
of UPC/API, 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, to the 
extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP sales.
    Although UPC/API did not have a viable home market within the 
meaning of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act, Canada was a viable 
third-country market for UPC/API under section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 
Therefore, we based normal value for UPC/API's U.S. sales on the prices 
at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in 
Canada in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of 
trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the 
CEP sales. See section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded below-
cost sales in the less-than-fair-value investigation of PRCBs from 
Thailand sold by TPBG. See Final LFTV, 69 FR at 34124. 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, in this review we 
have conducted a COP investigation of TPBG's sales in the comparison 
market.
    The petitioners in this proceeding filed allegations that UPC/API 
and CP Packaging made sales below COP in their respective comparison 
markets. Based on the information in the allegations, we found that we 
had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign 
like product were made by UPC/API and CP Packaging at prices that are 
less than the COP of the product. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill 
entitled ``Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand - Request to 
Initiate Cost Investigation for Universal Polybag Co., Ltd., Advance 
Polybag Inc., API Enterprises Inc., and Alpine Plastics, Inc.,'' dated 
January 24, 2007; Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled ``Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand - Request to Initiate Cost 
Investigation for CP Packaging Industry Co., Ltd.,'' dated January 26, 
2007. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted 
COP investigations of sales by these firms in their respective 
comparison markets.
    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 each respondent 
in its questionnaire responses.
    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 a 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 a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR 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 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. See the Department's analysis 
memoranda for TPBG, UPC/API, and CP Packaging dated July 2, 2007. Based 
on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to TPBG, 
UPC/API, and CP Packaging.

Model-Match Methodology

    We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in 
the comparison market. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used 
the following methodology. If an identical comparison-market model 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 the relevant or contemporary month. We 
calculated the weighted-average comparison-market prices on a level of 
trade-specific basis. 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 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) percentage 
of high-density resin; (8) percentage of low-density resin; (9) 
percentage of linear low-density resin; (10) percentage of color 
concentrate; (11) percentage of ink coverage; (12) number of ink 
colors; and (13) number of sides printed.

[[Page 37722]]

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 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. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from 
normal value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for 
comparison-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions 
in EP and CEP calculations and for U.S. indirect selling expenses to 
offset comparison-market commissions.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 
normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of 
trade as the EP or CEP. 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)(A) of the Act. See the Level of 
Trade section below.
    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 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, the Department 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 in our calculations of normal 
value those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length 
prices.

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 
usable 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, 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 each 
respondent 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. For 
comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 
deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from constructed 
value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for comparison-market 
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP 
comparisons.
    When possible, we calculated constructed value at the same level of 
trade as the EP or CEP. If constructed value was calculated at a 
different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if 
possible, in accordance with sections 773(a)(7) and (8) of the Act.

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). 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.
    No company reported any significant differences in selling 
functions between different channels of distribution or customer type 
in either the comparison or U.S. markets. Therefore, for each 
respondent, we determined that all comparison-market sales were made at 
one level of trade. Moreover, for each respondent that had EP sales, we 
determined that all comparison-market sales were made at the same level 
of trade as the EP customer.
    UPC/API was the only respondent with CEP sales. We found that the 
comparison-market level of trade was equivalent to the CEP 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, 2005, through July 31, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Producer/Exporter                     Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPBG................................................                0.87
UPC/API.............................................                1.52
CP Packaging........................................                0.74
King Pak............................................              122.88
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the
 Following Companies:\3\............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The petitioners are the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and
  its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Producer/Exporter                     Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Film Co., Ltd.................................                1.13
Naraipak Co., Ltd...................................                1.13
Polyplast (Thailand) Co., Ltd.......................                1.13
Sahachit Watana Plastic Ind. Co., Ltd...............                1.13
Thantawan Industry Public Co., Ltd..................                1.13
U. Yong Ltd., Part..................................                1.13
U. Yong Industry Co., Ltd...........................                1.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this review

[[Page 37723]]

within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310. Interested parties who 
wish to request a hearing or to participate in a hearing if a hearing 
is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of 
this notice. Requests should contain the following: (1) the party's 
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; 
(3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
case and rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from 
interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice of preliminary results of review. 
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs from interested parties, 
limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted not 
later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or 
comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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 CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/
importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for 
merchandise subject to this review.
    For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual 
review, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted 
average of the weighted-average margins we calculated for the companies 
selected for individual review, excluding any which are de minimis or 
determined entirely on AFA.
    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 will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in 
these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies 
did not know their 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. We will issue 
liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final 
results of review.

Export-Price Sales

    With respect to EP sales, for these preliminary results, we divided 
the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal 
value and EP) for each exporter's importer or customer by the total 
number of units the exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will 
direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each 
unit of merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries 
during the review period.

Constructed Export-Price Sales

    For CEP sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the 
reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for 
each importer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting percentage 
margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise 
on each of that importer's entries during the review period. See 19 CFR 
351.212(b).

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 polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) 
the cash-deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates 
established in the final results of this review except if the rate is 
less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 
19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash-deposit rate will be zero; 
(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: July 2, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-13381 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S