[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 58 (Friday, March 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14569-14571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6807]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-843]


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan: Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined 
that imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Taiwan 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value (LFTV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 
listed in the ``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation'' section of 
this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0665 
or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    On October 27, 2009, the Department published in the Federal 
Register its preliminary determination in the antidumping duty 
investigation of PRCBs from Taiwan. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags From Taiwan: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 55183 (October 27, 
2009) (Preliminary Determination).
    As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion 
to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from February 5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, all 
deadlines in this investigation have been extended by seven days. The 
revised deadline for the final determination in this investigation is 
now March 18, 2010. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, 
DAS for Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative 
Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent 
Snowstorm,'' dated February 12, 2010.
    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted sales and 
cost verifications of the questionnaire responses submitted by the sole 
participating respondent, TCI Plastic Co., Ltd. (TCI). We used standard 
verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting 
and production records, as well as original source documents provided 
by TCI. See Memorandum to the File entitled ``Verification of the U.S. 
Sales Response of Interplast Group in the Antidumping Investigation of 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan,'' dated December 22, 
2009, Memorandum to the File entitled ``Verification of the Home-Market 
and Export-Price Sales Responses of TCI Plastic Co., Ltd., in the 
Antidumping Investigation of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 
Taiwan,'' dated December 23, 2009, and Memorandum to the File entitled 
``Verification of the Cost Response of Tis Dis International Co. Ltd. 
in the Antidumping Investigation of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 
from Taiwan,'' dated January 11, 2010. All verification reports are on 
file and available in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117, of the 
main Department of Commerce building.
    We received case briefs submitted by Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and 
Superbag Corporation (hereinafter, the petitioners) and TCI on January 
21, 2010. The petitioners and TCI submitted rebuttal comments on 
January 26, 2010. Although a hearing was requested, the request was 
withdrawn and we did not hold a hearing.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is January 1, 2008, through December 
31, 2008. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, March 2009. 
See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is PRCBs, which also 
may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or 
checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks 
and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or 
integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without 
printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 
inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no 
length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 
inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches 
but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).
    PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and 
free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, 
convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and 
restaurants to their customers to package and carry their purchased 
products. The scope of this investigation excludes (1) polyethylene 
bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are 
closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) 
polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing 
that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying 
merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, 
trash-can liners.
    Imports of merchandise included within the scope of this 
investigation are currently classifiable under statistical category 
3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). This subheading may also cover products that are outside the 
scope of this investigation. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading 
is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

[[Page 14570]]

Adverse Facts Available

    For the final determination, we continue to find that, by failing 
to provide information we requested, Ipsido Corporation (Ipsido), a 
respondent selected for individual examination in this investigation, 
did not act to the best of its ability. Thus, we continue to find that 
the use of adverse facts available is warranted for this company under 
sections 776(a)(2) and (b) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination, 
74 FR at 55185-55186.
    As we explained in the Preliminary Determination, the rate of 95.81 
percent we selected as the adverse facts-available rate for Ipsido is 
the highest margin alleged in the petition (see the Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, dated March 31, 2009). See also Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 19049, 19054 
(April 27, 2009). Further, as discussed in the Preliminary 
Determination, we corroborated the adverse facts-available rate 
pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination, 
74 FR at 55186.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this antidumping investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Investigation of Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan'' (Decision Memorandum) from John M. 
Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated March 18, 2010, 
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which 
parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in 
the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix. 
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this 
investigation and the corresponding recommendations in the Decision 
Memorandum which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version 
of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic 
version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Targeted Dumping

    In the Preliminary Determination, we followed the methodology we 
adopted in Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 
(June 16, 2008), and Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 
16, 2008) (collectively, Nails), used most recently in Certain New 
Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 
15, 2008). See Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 55187-55188. Based 
on the targeted-dumping test that we applied in the Preliminary 
Determination, we found a pattern of export prices and constructed 
export prices for comparable merchandise that differs significantly 
among certain customers, regions, and time periods. Id. As a result, 
following the methodology in Nails, we applied the average-to-
transaction comparison methodology to TCI's targeted sales and the 
average-to-average comparison methodology to TCI's non-targeted sales; 
in calculating TCI's weighted-average margin, we combined the margin 
calculated for the targeted sales with the margin calculated for the 
non-targeted sales and did not offset any margins found among the 
targeted sales. See Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 55188.
    In the Preliminary Determination we announced that, given the now-
withdrawn regulations that guided our practice in Nails, we would 
consider various options regarding the specific group of sales to which 
we apply the average-to-transaction methodology (the withdrawn 
targeted-dumping regulation would have limited such application to just 
the targeted sales). See id. We offered the following three options: 1) 
apply the average-to-transaction methodology just to sales found to be 
targeted as the withdrawn regulation directed and, consistent with our 
average-to-transaction practice, not offset any margins found on these 
transactions; 2) apply the average-to-transaction methodology to all 
sales to the customer, region, or time period found to be targeted (not 
just those specific sales found to be targeted) and, consistent with 
our average-to transaction practice, not offset any margins found on 
these transactions; and 3) apply the average-to-transaction methodology 
to all sales by TCI and, consistent with our average-to transaction 
practice, not offset any margins found on these transactions. See id.
    As in the Preliminary Determination, we continue to find a pattern 
of export prices and constructed export prices for comparable 
merchandise that differs significantly among customers, regions, or by 
time period. See Memorandum to the File entitled ``Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value in the Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan - Analysis Memorandum 
for TCI Plastic Co., Ltd.,'' dated March 18, 2010. We continue to find, 
pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, that application of the 
average-to-average comparison method does not account for such price 
differences and results in the masking of dumping that would be 
unmasked by the application of the average-to-transaction comparison 
method to all sales. Accordingly, for this final determination we have 
applied the average-to-transaction methodology to all U.S. sales that 
TCI reported. For a complete discussion, see the Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at 
verifications, we have made certain changes to the margin calculation 
for TCI. For a discussion of these changes, see Memorandum to the File 
entitled ``Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value in the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 
Taiwan - Analysis Memorandum for TCI Plastic Co., Ltd.,'' dated March 
18, 2010, and Memorandum to Neal Halper entitled ``Cost of Production 
and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final 
Determination TCI Plastic Co. Ltd. and Tis Dis International Co. 
Ltd.,'' dated March 18, 2010.

Cost of Production

    As explained in the Preliminary Determination (74 FR at 55190), we 
conducted an investigation concerning sales at prices below the cost of 
production in the home market. We found that, for certain specific 
products, more than 20 percent of TCI's home-market sales were at 
prices less than the cost of production and, in addition, such sales 
did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of 
time. Therefore, we disregarded these sales and used the

[[Page 14571]]

remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Based on this test, for this final 
determination we have disregarded below-cost sales by TCI.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation 
of all entries of PRCBs from Taiwan which were entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 27, 2009,
    The date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. We will 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal 
to the weighted-average margins, as indicated below, as follows: (1) 
the rates for TCI and Ipsido will be the rates we have determined in 
this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified 
in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate 
established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate 
for all other producers or exporters will be 36.54 percent, as 
discussed in the ``All-Others Rate'' section, below. These suspension-
of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ipsido Corporation..................................               95.81
TCI Plastic Co., Ltd................................               36.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-
others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the 
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters 
and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or de 
minimis margins and any margins determined entirely under section 776 
of the Act. TCI is the only respondent in this investigation for which 
the Department has calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for 
purposes of determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section 
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping 
margin calculated for TCI, 36.54 percent. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999), and 
Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination, 72 FR 30753, 30757 (June 4, 2007) (unchanged in 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated 
Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 60636 (October 25, 2007)).

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our 
final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section 
735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether
    The domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, 
or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or 
the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If 
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will 
issue
    An antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the 
suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 18, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix -- Issues in Decision Memorandum

1. Targeted Dumping
2. Sales Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade
3. Home-Market Warranty Expenses
4. Direct Material Costs
5. Variable Overhead Costs for Outside Processing Services
6. Unreconciled Costs
7. Financial Expense
8. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses
9. Miscellaneous Issues
[FR Doc. 2010-6807 Filed 3-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S