Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

37718 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Notices

rate will be the rate applicable to the conducting an administrative review of and the resulting administrative burden
PRC supplier of that exporter. the antidumping duty order on to review each company for which a
These deposit requirements shall polyethylene retail carrier bags from request has been made, the Department
remain in effect until further notice. Thailand. The review covers 17 is exercising its authority to limit the
Notification to Interested Parties exporters/producers. The period of number of respondents selected for
review is August 1, 2005, through July review. Where it is not practicable to
This notice also serves as the final 31, 2006. examine all known exporters/producers
reminder to importers of their We have preliminarily determined of subject merchandise because of the
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) that sales have been made at prices large number of such companies,
to file a certificate regarding the below normal value by various section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of
reimbursement of antidumping duties companies subject to this review. If 1930, as amended (the Act), permits the
prior to liquidation of the relevant these preliminary results are adopted in Department to limit its examination to
entries during this review period. our final results of administrative either a sample of exporters, producers,
Failure to comply with this requirement review, we will instruct U.S. Customs or types of products that is statistically
could result in the Secretary’s and Border Protection (CBP) to assess valid based on the information available
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties on all appropriate at the time of selection or exporters and
antidumping duties occurred and in the entries. producers accounting for the largest
subsequent assessment of double We invite interested parties to volume of subject merchandise from the
antidumping duties. comment on these preliminary results. exporting country that can be examined
This notice also serves as the only Parties who submit comments in this reasonably. Accordingly, on October 10,
reminder to parties subject to review are requested to submit with 2006, we requested information
administrative protective order (APO) of each argument (1) A statement of the concerning the quantity and value of
their responsibility concerning the issue and (2) a brief summary of the sales to the United States from the 17
return/destruction or conversion to argument. exporters/producers listed in the
judicial protective order of proprietary Initiation Notice. We received responses
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007.
information disclosed under APO in from all of the exporters/producers. We
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). also examined import data from CBP
Failure to comply is a violation of the Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import concerning unliquidated entries of
APO. merchandise subject to the antidumping
This determination is issued and Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of duty order. Based on our analysis of the
published in accordance with sections responses and import data obtained
751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; from CBP, we determined that Advance
Dated: July 2, 2007. telephone: (202) 482–3174 and (202) Polybag Inc., Alpine Plastics Inc., API
David M. Spooner, 482–4477, respectively. Enterprises Inc., and Universal Polybag
Assistant Secretary for Import Co., Ltd. (collectively UPC/API), CP
Administration. Packaging Industry Co., Ltd. (CP
Background Packaging), King Pak Ind. Co., Ltd. (King
Appendix I Pak), and Thai Plastic Bags Industries
On August 9, 2004, the Department
Comment 1: Surrogate Value for Raw published in the Federal Register the Co., Ltd., APEC Film Ltd., and Winner’s
Honey antidumping duty order on Pack Co., Ltd. (collectively TPBG), were
Comment 2: The Use of MHPC Financial the four largest exporters/producers
polyethylene retail carrier bags from
Statements during the period of review (POR).
Thailand. See Antidumping Duty Order:
Comment 3: Calculation of Surrogate Specifically, we determined that these
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Financial Ratios exporters/producers accounted for 90.8
Comment 4: Calculation of NME Wage Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), percent of the total reported quantity of
Rate imports of the subject merchandise from
Comment 5: Surrogate Value for we received requests for an
administrative review for 17 companies. the requested companies to the United
Brokerage and Handling States during the POR and 83.4 percent
Comment 6: Clerical Errors In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(g)
and 19 CFR 351.221(b), we published a of the total quantity from the requested
[FR Doc. E7–13480 Filed 7–10–07; 8:45 am] companies reported in the CBP data.
notice of initiation of an administrative
review of these companies. See Accordingly, we chose to examine these
Initiation of Antidumping and four companies. See Memorandum to
Countervailing Duty Administrative Laurie Parkhill entitled ‘‘Polyethylene
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand -
Reviews, 71 FR 57465, 57466
(September 29, 2006) (Initiation Respondent Selection’’ dated November
International Trade Administration
Notice).1 9, 2006. For the companies under
[A–549–821] Due to the large number of firms review which we did not select as
requested for this administrative review mandatory respondents, we have
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from calculated a weighted average of the
Thailand: Preliminary Results of 1 We stated that the review covers the following weighted–average margins we have
Antidumping Duty Administrative companies: Advance Polybag Inc., Alpine Plastics established for the four mandatory
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part Inc., APEC Film Ltd., API Enterprises Inc., Apple respondents excluding de minimis rates
Film Co., Ltd., CP Packaging Industry Co., Ltd.,
AGENCY: Import Administration, King Pak Ind. Co. Ltd., Multibax Public Co., Ltd.,
and rates based on adverse facts
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

International Trade Administration, Naraipak Co., Ltd., Polyplast (Thailand) Co., Ltd., available (AFA).
Department of Commerce. Sahachit Watana Plastic Ind. Co., Ltd., Thai Plastic Since initiation of the review, we
Bags Industries Co., Ltd., Thantawan Industry
SUMMARY: In response to requests from extended the due date for completion of
Public Co., Ltd., U. Yong Ltd., Part., U Yong
interested parties, the Department of Industry Co., Ltd., Universal Polybag Co., Ltd., and these preliminary results from May 2,
Commerce (the Department) is Winner’s Pack Co., Ltd. Id. 2007, to July 2, 2007. See Notice of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:56 Jul 10, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Notices 37719

Extension of Deadline for the POR. See Memorandum to the File, the full duty ultimately assessed on the
Preliminary Results of Antidumping ‘‘U.S. Customs and Border Protection subject merchandise, we preliminarily
Duty Administrative Review: Data,’’ dated November 8, 2006. Because find that antidumping duties have been
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from we preliminarily find that there were no absorbed by UPC/API on all U.S. sales
Thailand, 72 FR 16766 (April 5, 2007). imports from Multibax during the POR, made through its importer of record.
We have conducted this review in we intend to rescind the administrative
accordance with section 751(a) of the review with respect to this company. If
Act. we continue to find at the time of our As provided in section 782(i) of the
final results of administrative review Act, we have verified information
Scope of the Order provided by UPC/API using standard
that there were no imports of
The merchandise subject to the polyethylene retail carrier bags from verification procedures, including on–
antidumping duty order is polyethylene Thailand from Multibax, we will site inspection of the manufacturers’
retail carrier bags (PRCBs) which may be rescind our review of Multibax. facilities, the examination of relevant
referred to as t–shirt sacks, merchandise sales and financial records, and the
bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. Duty Absorption selection of original documentation
The subject merchandise is defined as On October 30, 2006, the petitioners 2 containing relevant information. Our
non–sealable sacks and bags with requested that the Department verification results are outlined in the
handles (including drawstrings), determine whether antidumping duties public version of the verification report
without zippers or integral extruded had been absorbed during the POR by dated June 12, 2007, which is on file in
closures, with or without gussets, with the respondents. Section 751(a)(4) of the the Central Records Unit, room B–099.
or without printing, of polyethylene Act provides for the Department to Use of Adverse Facts Available
film having a thickness no greater than determine, if requested, during an
0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than administrative review initiated two or Section 776(a) of the Act provides
0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no four years after the publication of the that, if necessary information is not
length or width shorter than 6 inches order whether antidumping duties have available on the record or if an
(15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches been absorbed by a foreign producer or interested party: (1) withholds
(101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be exporter if the subject merchandise is information that has been requested by
shorter than 6 inches but not longer sold in the United States through an the Department; (2) fails to provide such
than 40 inches (101.6 cm). affiliated importer. Because UPC/API is information by the deadlines
PRCBs are typically provided without the sole respondent which sold to established, or in the form and manner
any consumer packaging and free of unaffiliated customers in the United requested, subject to subsections (c)(1)
charge by retail establishments, e.g., States through itself as the importer of and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (3)
grocery, drug, convenience, department, record and because this review was significantly impedes the proceeding; or
specialty retail, discount stores, and initiated two years after the publication (4) provides such information, but the
restaurants, to their customers to of the order, we have made a duty– information cannot be verified, the
package and carry their purchased absorption determination concerning Department shall use, subject to section
products. The scope of the order UPC/API in this segment of the 782(d) of the Act, the facts otherwise
excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are proceeding in accordance with section available in reaching the applicable
not printed with logos or store names determination.
751(a)(4) of the Act.
and that are closeable with drawstrings Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act,
In determining whether the
made of polyethylene film and (2) the Department shall not decline to
antidumping duties have been absorbed
polyethylene bags that are packed in consider submitted information if that
by the respondent during the POR, we
consumer packaging with printing that information is necessary to the
presume the duties will be absorbed for
refers to specific end–uses other than determination but does not meet all of
those sales that have been made at less
packaging and carrying merchandise the requirements established by the
than normal value. This presumption
from retail establishments, e.g., garbage Department, provided that all of the
can be rebutted with evidence (e.g., an
bags, lawn bags, trash–can liners. following requirements are met: (1) the
agreement between the affiliated
As a result of recent changes to the information is submitted by the
importer and unaffiliated purchaser)
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the established deadline; (2) the information
that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay
United States (HTSUS), imports of the can be verified; (3) the information is
the full duty ultimately assessed on the
subject merchandise are currently not so incomplete that it cannot serve as
subject merchandise. See, e.g., Certain
classifiable under statistical category a reliable basis for reaching the
Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings
3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. applicable determination; (4) the
from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of
Furthermore, although the HTSUS interested party has demonstrated that it
Antidumping Duty Administrative
subheading is provided for convenience acted to the best of its ability; and (5)
Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind,
and customs purposes, the written the information can be used without
70 FR 39735, 39737 (July 11, 2005). On
description of the scope of this order is undue difficulties. Section 782(d) of the
May 22, 2007, the Department requested
dispositive. Act provides that, if the Department
evidence from UPC/API to demonstrate
determines that a response to a request
Intent to Rescind Review in Part that its U.S. purchasers will pay any
for information does not comply with
antidumping duties ultimately assessed
In an October 24, 2006, submission, on entries during the POR. UPC/API did
the request, the Department shall
Multibax Public Co., Ltd. (Multibax), not provide any such evidence. Because
promptly inform the person submitting
indicated that it had no shipments of UPC/API did not rebut the duty–
the response of the nature of the
subject merchandise to the United absorption presumption with evidence
deficiency and shall provide that
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

States during the POR. Our review of that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay
person, to the extent practicable, with
information from CBP supports an opportunity to remedy or explain the
Multibax’s claim that there were no 2 The petitioners are the Polyethylene Retail deficiency in light of the time limits
entries of its merchandise subject to the Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, established for the completion of the
order into the United States during the Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation. administrative review.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:56 Jul 10, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1
37720 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Notices

In addition, section 776(b) of the Act investigation. Id. 69 FR at 34123. We alternative information. See SAA at 869.
provides that, if the Department finds also applied this rate to King Pak, which Further, independent sources used to
that an interested party ‘‘has failed to we collapsed with Zippac, in the corroborate such evidence may include,
cooperate by not acting to the best of its preceding administrative review. See for example, published price lists,
ability to comply with a request for Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from official import statistics and customs
information,’’ the Department may use Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping data, and information obtained from
information that is adverse to the Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR interested parties during the particular
interests of that party as facts otherwise 1982, 1982–83 (January 17, 2007), investigation or review. See 19 CFR
available. The purpose of the adverse Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 351.308(d) and SAA at 870.
call, as explained in the Statement of Thailand: Preliminary Results of With respect to the reliability aspect
Administrative Action accompanying Antidumping Duty Administrative of corroboration, the Department found
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Review, 71 FR 53405, 53406 (September the rate of 122.88 percent to be reliable
H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) 11, 2006) (collapsing King Pak, Dpac in the investigation. See Final LTFV, 69
(SAA), is ‘‘to ensure that the party does Industrial Co., Ltd., Zippac, and King FR at 34123–24. There, the Department
not obtain a more favorable result by Bag Co.). The rate has not yet induced pointed out that the rate was calculated
failing to cooperate {to the best of its King Pak’s compliance, cooperation, from source documents included with
ability} than if it had cooperated fully.’’ and participation in the administrative– the petition, namely, a price quotation
See SAA at 870. Further, as explained review process. for various sizes of PRCBs commonly
in the SAA, in employing adverse When a respondent is not cooperative, produced in Thailand, import statistics,
inferences the Department will consider like King Pak here, the Department has and affidavits from company officials,
‘‘the extent to which a party may benefit the discretion to presume that the all from a different Thai producer of
from its own lack of cooperation.’’ Id. highest prior margin reflects the current subject merchandise. Because the
On November 9, 2006, we sent a margins. If this were not the case, the information is supported by source
questionnaire to King Pak, one of the party would have produced current documents, we preliminarily determine
companies for which the petitioners information showing the margin to be that the information is still reliable. See
requested an administrative review, less. See Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Memorandum to the File entitled
seeking information related to King Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330, ‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Pak’s corporate structure and its 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Rhone Thailand: Inclusion of Memorandum,
production and sales of PRCBs. King Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d dated August 31, 2006, to the record of
Pak did not respond to the 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Further, by
this administrative review’’ dated July 2,
questionnaire. Because King Pak did not using the highest prior antidumping
respond, on December 21, 2006, we sent duty rate we offer the assurance that the
a letter to King Pak requesting that it exporter will not benefit from refusing With respect to the relevance aspect
respond to our November 9, 2006, to provide information and we apply an of corroboration, the Department will
questionnaire, thus providing King Pak antidumping duty rate that bears some consider information reasonably at its
a second opportunity to respond to the relationship to past practices by this disposal to determine whether a margin
questionnaire. The information company as it is part of the industry in continues to have relevance. In the
requested in the questionnaire is question. See Shanghai Taoen Int’l investigation, the Department
necessary for us to complete the Trading Co. v. United States, 360 F. determined that, because the price quote
administrative review. King Pak has not Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (citing reflected commercial practices of the
responded to our November 9, 2006, D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 particular industry during the period of
questionnaire or to our December 21, F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). investigation, the information was
2006, letter. Because King Pak has failed Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, relevant to mandatory respondents
to provide the information requested to the extent practicable, the which refused to participate in the
and thus has significantly impeded this Department corroborate secondary investigation. See Final LTFV, 69 FR at
proceeding, we must use facts available. information from independent sources 34123–24. No party, including Zippac,
See section 776(a) of the Act. that are reasonably at its disposal. contested the application of that rate in
Furthermore, because King Pak could Secondary information is defined as the investigation. Id. Furthermore, the
have provided correct and verifiable ‘‘information derived from the petition rate of 122.88 percent is King Pak’s
data about its corporate structure, that gave rise to the investigation or current rate and has been applied to
production, and sales but did not do so, review, the final determination Zippac since the less–than-fair–value
we determine that King Pak has failed concerning the subject merchandise, or investigation. Therefore, we find this
to cooperate by not acting to the best of any previous review under section 751 rate to continue to have relevance.
its ability. Therefore, we conclude that concerning the subject merchandise.’’ Export Price and Constructed Export
the use of an adverse inference is See SAA at 870. As clarified in the SAA, Price
warranted. See section 776(b) of the Act ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the
and Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Department will satisfy itself that the For the price to the United States, we
337 F.3d 1373, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). secondary information to be used has used export price (EP) or constructed
As total AFA, we have preliminarily probative value. See SAA at 870. To export price (CEP) as defined in sections
assigned King Pak the highest rate found corroborate secondary information, the 772(a) and (b) of the Act, as appropriate.
in the less–than-fair–value Department will examine, to the extent We calculated EP and CEP based on the
investigation, which was 122.88 practicable, the reliability and relevance packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price
percent. See Notice of Final of the information. See 19 CFR to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for
Determination of Sales at Less Than 351.308(d) and F.Lii de Cecco di Filippo exportation to, the United States. See
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Fara S. Martino, S.p.A. v. United States, section 772(c) of the Act. We made
Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 34122, 216 F.3d 1027, 1030 (2000). As deductions, as appropriate, for
34125 (June 18, 2004) (Final LTFV). We emphasized in the SAA, however, the discounts and rebates. See section
applied this rate to Zippac Co., Ltd. Department need not prove that the 772(d) of the Act. We also made
(Zippac) during the less–than-fair–value selected facts available are the best deductions for any movement expenses

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:56 Jul 10, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Notices 37721

in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) extent practicable, at the same level of within a reasonable period of time. See
of the Act. trade as the CEP sales. See section section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. compared model–specific COPs to the
of the Act and the SAA, we calculated reported comparison–market prices less
the CEP by deducting selling expenses Cost of Production
any applicable movement charges,
associated with economic activities In accordance with section 773(b) of discounts, and rebates.
occurring in the United States, which the Act, we disregarded below–cost Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the
includes commissions, direct selling sales in the less–than-fair–value Act, when less than 20 percent of a
expenses, and U.S. repacking expenses. investigation of PRCBs from Thailand respondent’s sales of a given product
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of sold by TPBG. See Final LFTV, 69 FR at were at prices less than the COP, we did
the Act, we also deducted those indirect 34124. Therefore, we have reasonable not disregard any below–cost sales of
selling expenses associated with grounds to believe or suspect that that product because the below–cost
economic activities occurring in the TPBG’s sales of the foreign like product sales were not made in substantial
United States and the profit allocated to under consideration for the quantities within an extended period of
expenses deducted under section determination of normal value in this
time. When 20 percent or more of a
772(d)(1) in accordance with sections review may have been made at prices
respondent’s sales of a given product
772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In below the cost of production (COP) as
during the POR were at prices less than
accordance with section 772(f) of the provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
the COP, we disregarded the below–cost
Act, we computed profit based on the the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section
sales because they were made in
total revenues realized on sales in both 773(b)(1) of the Act, in this review we
substantial quantities within an
the U.S. and comparison markets, less have conducted a COP investigation of
extended period of time pursuant to
all expenses associated with those sales. TPBG’s sales in the comparison market.
The petitioners in this proceeding sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act
We then allocated profit to expenses and because, based on comparisons of
incurred with respect to U.S. economic filed allegations that UPC/API and CP
Packaging made sales below COP in prices to weighted–average COPs for the
activity based on the ratio of total U.S.
their respective comparison markets. POR, we determined that these sales
expenses to total expenses for both the
Based on the information in the were at prices which would not permit
U.S. and comparison markets.
allegations, we found that we had recovery of all costs within a reasonable
Comparison–Market Sales reasonable grounds to believe or suspect period of time in accordance with
Based on a comparison of the that sales of the foreign like product section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See the
aggregate quantity of comparison– were made by UPC/API and CP Department’s analysis memoranda for
market and U.S. sales and absent any Packaging at prices that are less than the TPBG, UPC/API, and CP Packaging
information that a particular market COP of the product. See Memorandum dated July 2, 2007. Based on this test,
situation in the exporting country did to Laurie Parkhill entitled we disregarded below–cost sales with
not permit a proper comparison, with ‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from respect to TPBG, UPC/API, and CP
the exception of UPC/API, we Thailand - Request to Initiate Cost Packaging.
determined that the quantity of foreign Investigation for Universal Polybag Co., Model–Match Methodology
like product sold by all respondents in Ltd., Advance Polybag Inc., API
Thailand was sufficient to permit a Enterprises Inc., and Alpine Plastics, We compared U.S. sales with sales of
proper comparison with the sales of the Inc.,’’ dated January 24, 2007; the foreign like product in the
subject merchandise to the United Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled comparison market. Specifically, in
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the ‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from making our comparisons, we used the
Act. With the exception of UPC/API, Thailand - Request to Initiate Cost following methodology. If an identical
each company’s quantity of sales in Investigation for CP Packaging Industry comparison–market model was
Thailand was greater than five percent Co., Ltd.,’’ dated January 26, 2007. reported, we made comparisons to
of its sales to the U.S. market. See Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) weighted–average comparison–market
section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act. of the Act, we conducted COP prices that were based on all sales
Therefore, in accordance with section investigations of sales by these firms in which passed the COP test of the
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, with the their respective comparison markets. identical product during the relevant or
exception of UPC/API, we based normal In accordance with section 773(b)(3) contemporary month. We calculated the
value on the prices at which the foreign of the Act, we calculated the COP based weighted–average comparison–market
like product was first sold for on the sum of the costs of materials and prices on a level of trade–specific basis.
consumption in Thailand in the usual fabrication employed in producing the If there were no contemporaneous sales
commercial quantities and in the foreign like product, the selling, general, of an identical model, we identified the
ordinary course of trade and, to the and administrative (SG&A) expenses, most similar comparison–market model.
extent practicable, at the same level of and all costs and expenses incidental to To determine the most similar model,
trade as the EP or CEP sales. packing the merchandise. In our COP we matched the foreign like product
Although UPC/API did not have a analysis, we used the comparison– based on the physical characteristics
viable home market within the meaning market sales and COP information reported by the respondents in the
of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act, provided by each respondent in its following order of importance: (1)
Canada was a viable third–country questionnaire responses. quality; (2) bag type; (3) length; (4)
market for UPC/API under section After calculating the COP, in width; (5) gusset; (6) thickness; (7)
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Therefore, we accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the percentage of high–density resin; (8)
based normal value for UPC/API’s U.S. Act, we tested whether comparison– percentage of low–density resin; (9)
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

sales on the prices at which the foreign market sales of the foreign like product percentage of linear low–density resin;
like product was first sold for were made at prices below the COP (10) percentage of color concentrate;
consumption in Canada in the usual within an extended period of time in (11) percentage of ink coverage; (12)
commercial quantities and in the substantial quantities and whether such number of ink colors; and (13) number
ordinary course of trade and, to the prices permitted the recovery of all costs of sides printed.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:56 Jul 10, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1
37722 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Notices

Normal Value for merchandise comparable to that sold market sales at a different level of trade.
Comparison–market prices were to the affiliated party, we determined The normal–value level of trade is that
based on the packed, ex–factory, or that the sales to the affiliated party were of the starting–price sales in the
delivered prices to affiliated or at arm’s–length prices. See comparison market. When normal value
unaffiliated purchasers. When Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated is based on constructed value, the level
applicable, we made adjustments for Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of of trade is that of the sales from which
differences in packing and for Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, we derived SG&A and profit.
movement expenses in accordance with 2002) (explaining the Department’s To determine whether comparison–
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. practice). We included in our market sales are at a different level of
We also made adjustments for calculations of normal value those sales trade than U.S. sales, we examined
differences in cost attributable to to affiliated parties that were made at stages in the marketing process and
differences in physical characteristics of arm’s–length prices. selling functions along the chain of
the merchandise pursuant to section distribution between the producer and
Constructed Value
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR the unaffiliated customer.
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) No company reported any significant
351.411 and for differences in of the Act, we used constructed value as differences in selling functions between
circumstances of sale in accordance the basis for normal value when there different channels of distribution or
with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act were no usable sales of the foreign like customer type in either the comparison
and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to product in the comparison market. We or U.S. markets. Therefore, for each
EP, we made circumstance–of-sale calculated constructed value in respondent, we determined that all
adjustments by deducting comparison– accordance with section 773(e) of the comparison–market sales were made at
market direct selling expenses from and Act. We included the cost of materials one level of trade. Moreover, for each
adding U.S. direct selling expenses to and fabrication, SG&A expenses, U.S. respondent that had EP sales, we
normal value. For comparisons to CEP, packing expenses, and profit in the determined that all comparison–market
we made circumstance–of-sale calculation of constructed value. In sales were made at the same level of
adjustments by deducting comparison– accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of trade as the EP customer.
market direct selling expenses from the Act, we based SG&A expenses and UPC/API was the only respondent
normal value. We also made profit on the amounts incurred and with CEP sales. We found that the
adjustments, when applicable, for realized by each respondent in comparison–market level of trade was
comparison–market indirect selling connection with the production and sale equivalent to the CEP level of trade.
expenses to offset U.S. commissions in of the foreign like product in the
EP and CEP calculations and for U.S. ordinary course of trade for Preliminary Results of Review
indirect selling expenses to offset consumption in the comparison market. As a result of our review, we
comparison–market commissions. When appropriate, we made preliminarily determine that the
In accordance with section adjustments to constructed value in following percentage weighted–average
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the dumping margins on PRCBs from
normal value, to the extent practicable, Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 CFR Thailand exist for the period August 1,
on sales at the same level of trade as the 351.412 for circumstance–of-sale 2005, through July 31, 2006:
EP or CEP. If normal value was differences and level–of-trade
calculated at a different level of trade, differences. For comparisons to EP, we Producer/Exporter Percent Margin
we made an adjustment, if appropriate made circumstance–of-sale adjustments
and if possible, in accordance with by deducting comparison–market direct TPBG ............................ 0.87
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See the UPC/API ....................... 1.52
selling expenses from and adding U.S. CP Packaging ............... 0.74
Level of Trade section below. direct selling expenses to constructed King Pak ....................... 122.88
The Department may calculate normal value. For comparisons to CEP, we Review–Specific Aver-
value based on a sale to an affiliated made circumstance–of-sale adjustments age Rate Applicable
party only if it is satisfied that the price by deducting comparison–market direct to the Following Com-
to the affiliated party is comparable to selling expenses from constructed value. panies:3.
the price at which sales are made to We also made adjustments, when 3The petitioners are the Polyethylene Retail
parties not affiliated with the exporter applicable, for comparison–market Carrier Bag Committee and its individual
or producer, i.e., sales at arm’s–length indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag
prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where commissions in EP and CEP Corporation.
affiliated–party sales were reported, we comparisons.
excluded from our analysis sales to When possible, we calculated Producer/Exporter Percent Margin
affiliated customers for consumption in constructed value at the same level of
the comparison market that we Apple Film Co., Ltd. ...... 1.13
trade as the EP or CEP. If constructed Naraipak Co., Ltd. ........ 1.13
determined not to be at arm’s–length value was calculated at a different level Polyplast (Thailand)
prices. To test whether these sales were of trade, we made an adjustment, if Co., Ltd. .................... 1.13
made at arm’s–length prices, the appropriate and if possible, in Sahachit Watana Plastic
Department compared the prices of sales accordance with sections 773(a)(7) and Ind. Co., Ltd. ............. 1.13
of comparable merchandise to affiliated (8) of the Act. Thantawan Industry
and unaffiliated customers, net of all Public Co., Ltd. ......... 1.13
rebates, movement charges, direct Level of Trade U. Yong Ltd., Part. ........ 1.13
selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant To the extent practicable, we U. Yong Industry Co.,
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

Ltd. ............................ 1.13

to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance determined normal value for sales at the
with our practice, when the prices same level of trade as the U.S. sales
charged to an affiliated party were, on (either EP or CEP). When there were no Comments
average, between 98 and 102 percent of sales at the same level of trade, we We will disclose the calculations used
the prices charged to unaffiliated parties compared U.S. sales to comparison– in our analysis to parties to this review

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:56 Jul 10, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Notices 37723

within five days of the date of The Department clarified its companies not listed above, the cash–
publication of this notice. Any ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on deposit rate will continue to be the
interested party may request a hearing May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and company–specific rate published for the
within 30 days of the date of publication Countervailing Duty Proceedings: most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310. Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 not a firm covered in this review, a prior
Interested parties who wish to request a FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of review, or the less–than-fair–value
hearing or to participate in a hearing if Antidumping Duties). This clarification investigation but the manufacturer is,
a hearing is requested must submit a will apply to entries of subject the cash–deposit rate will be the rate
written request to the Assistant merchandise during the POR produced established for the most recent period
Secretary for Import Administration by companies included in these for the manufacturer of the
within 30 days of the date of publication preliminary results of review for which merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter
of this notice. Requests should contain the reviewed companies did not know nor the manufacturer has its own rate,
the following: (1) the party’s name, their merchandise was destined for the the cash–deposit rate will be 2.80
address, and telephone number; (2) the United States. In such instances, we will percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate for this
number of participants; (3) a list of instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed proceeding. These deposit requirements,
issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR entries at the all–others rate if there is when imposed, shall remain in effect
351.310(c). no rate for the intermediate until further notice.
Issues raised in the hearing will be company(ies) involved in the
Notification to Importer
limited to those raised in the case and transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Assessment of This notice also serves as a
rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Antidumping Duties. We will issue preliminary reminder to importers of
Case briefs from interested parties may
liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days their responsibility under 19 CFR
be submitted not later than 30 days after
after publication of the final results of 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the date of publication of this notice of
review. the reimbursement of antidumping
preliminary results of review. See 19
duties prior to liquidation of the
CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs Export–Price Sales relevant entries during this review
from interested parties, limited to the
With respect to EP sales, for these period. Failure to comply with this
issues raised in the case briefs, may be
preliminary results, we divided the total requirement could result in the
submitted not later than five days after Department’s presumption that
dumping margins (calculated as the
the time limit for filing the case briefs reimbursement of antidumping duties
difference between normal value and
or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) occurred and the subsequent assessment
EP) for each exporter’s importer or
and 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, any of doubled antidumping duties.
customer by the total number of units
hearing will be held two days after the These preliminary results of
the exporter sold to that importer or
scheduled date for submission of administrative review are issued and
customer. We will direct CBP to assess
rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). published in accordance with sections
the resulting per–unit dollar amount
Parties who submit case briefs or 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
against each unit of merchandise in
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are
each of that importer’s/customer’s Dated: July 2, 2007.
requested to submit with each argument
entries during the review period. David M. Spooner,
a statement of the issue, a summary of
the arguments not exceeding five pages, Constructed Export–Price Sales Assistant Secretary for Import
and a table of statutes, regulations, and Administration.
For CEP sales, we divided the total
cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). [FR Doc. E7–13381 Filed 7–10–07; 8:45 am]
dumping margins for the reviewed sales
The Department will issue the final by the total entered value of those BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
results of this administrative review, reviewed sales for each importer. We
including the results of its analysis of will direct CBP to assess the resulting
issues raised in any such written briefs DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
percentage margin against the entered
or at the hearing, if held, not later than customs values for the subject International Trade Administration
120 days after the date of publication of merchandise on each of that importer’s
this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of [A–351–826]
entries during the review period. See 19
the Act. CFR 351.212(b). Certain Small Diameter Seamless
Assessment Rates Cash–Deposit Requirements Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line
The Department shall determine, and The following deposit requirements and Pressure Pipe from Brazil;
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on will be effective upon publication of the Preliminary Results of Antidumping
all appropriate entries. In accordance notice of final results of administrative Duty Administrative Review
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have review for all shipments of polyethylene AGENCY: Import Administration,
calculated, whenever possible, an retail carrier bags from Thailand International Trade Administration,
exporter/importer (or customer)-specific entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, Department of Commerce.
assessment rate or value for for consumption on or after the date of SUMMARY: In response to requests from
merchandise subject to this review. publication, as provided by section V&M do Brasil, S.A. (VMB), the
For the responsive companies which 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash–deposit respondent, and United States Steel
were not selected for individual review, rates for the reviewed companies will be Corporation (U.S. Steel), the petitioner,
we have calculated an assessment rate the rates established in the final results the Department of Commerce (the
based on the weighted average of the of this review except if the rate is less Department) is conducting an
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

weighted–average margins we than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de administrative review of the
calculated for the companies selected minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR antidumping duty order on certain
for individual review, excluding any 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash– small diameter seamless carbon and
which are de minimis or determined deposit rate will be zero; (2) for alloy steel standard, line and pressure
entirely on AFA. previously reviewed or investigated pipe (seamless pipe) from Brazil. This

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:56 Jul 10, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN1.SGM 11JYN1