[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32880-32884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16283]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-557-813]


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from an interested party, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier 
bags (PRCBs) from Malaysia. The review covers one manufacturer/
exporter. The period of review is August 1, 2007, through July 31, 
2008. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value by the company subject to this review. We invite 
interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who 
submit comments in this review are requested to submit with each 
argument a statement of each issue and a brief summary of the argument.

DATES: Effective Date: July 9, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerrold Freeman or Yang Jin Chun, 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-
0180 and (202) 482-5760, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On August 9, 2004, we published in the Federal Register the 
antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia. See Antidumping Duty 
Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia, 69 FR 48203 
(August 9, 2004). On August 1, 2008, we published in the Federal 
Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 44966 (August 1, 
2008). Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, 
and Superbag Corporation (collectively, the petitioners), requested an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from 
Malaysia with respect to Euro Plastics Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (Euro 
Plastics) on September 2, 2008. On September 30, 2008, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of 
administrative review of the order. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 73 FR 56795 (September 30, 2008). We are conducting the 
administrative review of the order in accordance with section 751(a) of 
the Act. The period of review is August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is PRCBs which may be referred 
to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. 
The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with 
handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded 
closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of 
polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 
mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or 
width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 
cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer 
than 40 inches (101.6 cm).

[[Page 32881]]

    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.
    Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under 
statistical category 3923.21.00.85 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (HTSUS). This subheading also covers products that 
are outside the scope of the order. Furthermore, although the HTSUS 
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Duty-Absorption Determination

    On October 30, 2008, the petitioners requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by Euro 
Plastics pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(j). In making a duty-absorption 
determination, the Department will determine whether antidumping duties 
have been absorbed by a producer or exporter subject to the review if 
the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an 
importer that is affiliated with such producer or exporter. See section 
751(a)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(j). Because we published the 
order in 2004 and this administrative review covers all or part of a 
period falling between the third or fourth anniversary of the 
publication of an antidumping duty order, under 19 CFR 351.213(j), the 
petitioners may request the Department to determine whether Euro 
Plastics absorbed antidumping duties. Because Euro Plastics made 
constructed export-price (CEP) sales to the United States during the 
period of review, a duty-absorption determination is relevant with 
respect to Euro Plastics CEP sales. The Department presumes that a 
respondent under the allegation of duty absorption will absorb the 
duties for its U.S. sales that have been made at prices below normal 
value. The respondent has the burden to rebut the presumption of duty 
absorption. See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 11349 (March 17, 2009), and the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D Memo) at Comment 5, 
Section C.
    The burden is on the respondent to demonstrate that it did not 
absorb antidumping duties because the respondent is the only party to 
the review able to provide such evidence. In this review, Euro Plastics 
is the party that possesses the information relevant to duty 
absorption. In our May 21, 2009, supplemental questionnaire, we asked 
Euro Plastics to respond to the petitioners' allegation of duty 
absorption. Euro Plastics did not provide information to rebut the 
allegation. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Euro Plastics has 
absorbed duties for the CEP sales it made during the period of review.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    To determine whether sales of PRCBs from Malaysia to the United 
States were made at prices less than normal value, we compared the U.S. 
price to the normal value. For the price of sales by Euro Plastics to 
the United States, we used export price (EP) and CEP as defined in 
sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act, respectively. We calculated EP and 
CEP for Euro Plastics based on the prices of the subject merchandise 
sold to unaffiliated customers in, or for exportation to, the United 
States. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made deductions for discounts 
as appropriate. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Consistent with 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting selling 
expenses associated with economic activities that occurred in the 
United States. These selling expenses include direct and indirect 
selling expenses. In accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the 
Act, we also deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under 
section 772(d)(1) 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 home 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 home markets. Finally, we made an 
adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    For certain U.S. sales, Euro Plastics reported shipment dates which 
preceded the date of invoice. For these sales, Euro Plastics reported 
the date of invoice as the date of sale. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(i), the Department may use a date other than the date of 
invoice as the date of sale if ``a different date better reflects the 
date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms 
of sale.'' It is the Department's normal practice to use the earlier of 
the shipment date or the date of invoice as the date of sale. See, 
e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of 
Korea; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 18074, 18079-80 (April 10, 2006), 
unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic 
of Korea; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review in Part, 72 FR 4486 (January 31, 2007); see also 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and 
Determination To Revoke in Part, 72 FR 62630 (November 6, 2007), and 
the accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 2. Consistent with our normal 
practice, for all U.S. sales Euro Plastics reported, we used the 
earlier of the date of invoice or the shipment date as the date of 
sale.

Comparison-Market Sales

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the comparison market to serve as a viable basis for 
calculating the normal value, we compared the volume of home-market 
sales of the foreign like product to the volume of the U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. 
Based on this comparison of the aggregate quantities of sales in the 
comparison market (i.e., Malaysia) and United States and absent any 
information that a particular market situation in the exporting country 
did not permit a proper comparison, we determined that the quantity of 
the foreign like product sold by Euro Plastics in the exporting country 
was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the 
subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) 
of the Act. Thus, we determined that the home market was viable during 
the period of review. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal 
value for the respondent on the prices at which the foreign like 
product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the 
usual

[[Page 32882]]

commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the 
extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales.

Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded below-
cost sales in the last completed segment of this proceeding with regard 
to Euro Plastics. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 44825, 
44826 (August 9, 2007). Therefore, for this review, we have reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product 
under consideration for the determination of normal value may have been 
made at prices below the cost of production (COP) as provided by 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act, we conducted a COP investigation of sales in the home market 
by Euro Plastics.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
for Euro Plastics 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 the 
respondent in its questionnaire responses and revised the COP data in 
several ways.
    We revised the reported direct material cost to reflect a single 
period-of-review average cost for each resin type identified in the 
physical characteristics we use to determine identical and similar 
merchandise (i.e., high-density resin, low-density resin, and linear 
low-density resin). For each resin type we calculated an average per-
unit resin amount and applied it to each product identified by control 
number based on the actual usage. See the July 2, 2009, memorandum to 
Neal M. Halper entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Euro Plastics 
Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.''
    In the normal course of business, Euro Plastics explained in its 
response, it does not weigh finished products. Production quantities 
are recorded in its books and records by cartons, and Euro Plastics 
uses a standard conversion formula to calculate the quantity of bags in 
kilograms. Euro Plastics weighs the finished products only before 
shipping. Euro Plastics reported two different cost databases. In one 
cost database, Euro Plastics used production quantities calculated as 
the actual weight of shipped products adjusted for the changes in 
standard inventory weights. Euro Plastics based the second database on 
production quantities by cartons converted to kilograms using the 
standard conversion formula. For the preliminary results, we have used 
the actual-weight database because it represents most closely the 
actual quantity of products produced during the period of review.
    After calculating the COP, 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. In order to determine 
whether the sales were made at below-cost prices, we compared model-
specific COPs to the reported comparison-market prices less any 
applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. See section 773(b) 
of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product during the period 
of review were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any 
below-cost sales of that product because we determined preliminarily 
that the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. 
Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product 
during the period of review were at prices less than the COP, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales because we determined preliminarily 
that they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period 
of time, pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Based on 
comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the period of 
review, we determined preliminarily 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 Euro 
Plastics Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum dated July 2, 2009. 
Based on this test, we disregarded the respondent's below-cost sales 
and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    Euro Plastics relied on its 2007 financial statements to calculate 
the COP because its audited 2008 financial statements were not yet 
available. The period of review covers five months in 2007 and seven 
months in 2008; therefore, we requested that Euro Plastics recalculate 
its general and administrative (G&A) expense and financial-expense 
rates using the audited 2008 financial statements. Euro Plastics stated 
that, as soon as the audited 2008 financial statements become 
available, the company will resubmit the calculation of the G&A and 
financial-expense rates. Accordingly, for the final results, we intend 
to use G&A and financial-expense rates based on the audited 2008 
financial statements.

Model-Matching Methodology

    In making our comparisons of U.S. sales with sales of the foreign 
like product in the home market, we used the following methodology. If 
an identical comparison-market model with identical physical 
characteristics as listed below was reported, we made comparisons to 
weighted-average comparison-market prices that were based on all sales 
which passed the COP test of the identical product during a 
contemporaneous month. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an 
identical model, we identified the most similar comparison-market 
model. To determine the most similar model, we matched the foreign like 
product based on the physical characteristics reported by the 
respondent in the following order of importance: (1) Quality, (2) bag 
type, (3) length, (4) width, (5) gusset, (6) thickness, (7) percentage 
of high-density polyethylene resin, (8) percentage of low-density 
polyethylene resin, (9) percentage of low linear-density polyethylene 
resin, (10) percentage of color concentrate, (11) percentage of ink 
coverage, (12) number of ink colors, (13) number of sides printed.

Normal Value

    We based normal value for Euro Plastics on the prices of the 
foreign like products it sold to its home-market customers. We made 
adjustments for differences in packing expense in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(A) 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. In addition, we made adjustments 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 home-market 
direct selling expenses incurred on home-market sales from, and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses to, normal value. For comparisons to CEP, 
we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market 
direct selling expenses from normal value. In

[[Page 32883]]

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal 
value on sales at the same level of trade as the EP or the CEP. See the 
``Level of Trade'' section below.
    We did not deduct from the calculation of normal value certain 
taxes and inland-freight expenses which Euro Plastics claimed for its 
home-market sales. In its home-market sales database, Euro Plastics 
reported a variable named TAXH. Euro Plastics explained that TAXH 
contains combined amounts for import duties and sales taxes that Euro 
Plastics incurred on its home-market sales. Because the statute allows 
for deduction of any taxes imposed directly upon the foreign like 
product which have not been collected on the subject merchandise in 
accordance with section 773(6)(B)(iii) of the Act but the statute does 
not allow such a deduction for import duties, we requested Euro 
Plastics to report the sales tax separately from the import duties. In 
response to our request, Euro Plastics reported that the amount under 
TAXH is a combination of import duties, sales taxes, and transporter 
charges but the company did not report the sales tax separately under a 
separate variable as we had requested. In addition, Euro Plastics did 
not provide sufficient supporting documentation to justify the 
deduction of TAXH from the gross unit price in its claim for amounts 
under TAXH.
    Euro Plastics calculated its inland-freight expense from the 
factory to the place of delivery based on a period-of-review average. 
Euro Plastics explained that, because its freight carriers made 
multiple stops during their delivery runs, it is not feasible to 
calculate this expense in a more specific manner. Record evidence 
indicates, however, that Euro Plastics could employ a more specific 
methodology to calculate this expense but Euro Plastics did not do so.
    A respondent seeking a decision in its favor has the burden to 
produce and present information to support its claim. See 19 CFR 
351.401(b)(c). The burden of evidentiary production belongs to ``the 
party in possession of the necessary information.'' See, e.g., Zenith 
Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 988 F.2d 1573, 1583 (CAFC 1993). A 
respondent has the burden to present the information in the first 
instance with its request for a decision in its favor. See NTN Bearing 
Corp. of Am. v. United States, 997 F.2d 1453, 1458 (CAFC 1993). Because 
Euro Plastics did not respond with sufficient information that we 
requested with respect to its claims for deductions in its favor, we 
have denied the claims by Euro Plastics for adjustments to normal value 
for the amounts reported under TAXH and the inland-freight expense at 
issue. See Euro Plastics Preliminary Analysis Memorandum dated July 2, 
2009, for more detail.

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. We made the same adjustment to constructed value concerning 
resin costs as outlined in the ``Cost of Production'' section above. 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 Euro Plastics in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the home market.
    We made adjustments to constructed value in accordance with section 
773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for circumstance-of-sale 
differences. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting home-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 home-market direct selling expenses from constructed value. 
We calculated constructed value at the same level of trade as the EP or 
CEP.

Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act provides that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate normal value based on sales 
at the same level of trade as the EP and CEP. The normal-value level of 
trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market 
before any adjustments. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Euro 
Plastics reported identical selling functions along the chain of 
distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer in the 
comparison and U.S. markets. We have reviewed the selling functions 
Euro Plastics reported including sales forecasting, order input/
processing, direct sales personnel, sales/marketing support, freight 
and delivery, and packing. We examined them in relation to a number of 
expenses Euro Plastics reported in its responses and found no 
discrepancies. Therefore, we determined that Euro Plastics made all 
comparison-market sales at one level of trade, all U.S. sales at one 
level of trade, and all comparison-market sales at the same level of 
trade as the CEP sales and EP sales. See sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 
773(a)(7) of the Act. See Euro Plastics Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 
dated July 2, 2009, for more detail.
    Euro Plastics claimed a CEP offset in this review. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.412(f)(1), the Department will grant a CEP offset if 
normal value is compared to CEP price, normal value is at a more 
advanced level of trade than the CEP level of trade, and information on 
the record does not provide a basis to determine whether the difference 
in level of trade affects price comparability. Because we find that the 
home-market level of trade is not more advanced than the CEP level of 
trade and because Euro Plastics did not demonstrate that there is a 
difference in level of trade between the home-market and CEP sales, we 
have denied the claim by Euro Plastics for a CEP offset to normal value 
for these preliminary results. See the Euro Plastics Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum dated July 2, 2009, for more detail.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margin on PRCBs from Malaysia for the period 
August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008, for Euro Plastics is 43.07 
percent.

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this review within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to 
participate in a hearing if a hearing is requested must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain the following: (1) The party's name, address, and 
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) a list of issues 
to be discussed.
    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

[[Page 32884]]

the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(1) and 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 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 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 will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. With respect to EP sales, we divided the total dumping duties 
(calculated as the difference between normal value and EP) for each 
importer or customer by the total number of units Euro Plastics 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.
    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).
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the period of review produced by Euro Plastics for 
which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United 
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 
entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
    We intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of PRCBs from Malaysia entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate 
for Euro Plastics will be the rate established in the final results of 
review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-
fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate 
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the 
manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 84.94 
percent, as established in the less-than-fair-value investigation, 
which is 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)(2) 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, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-16283 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P