[Federal Register: January 26, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 3557-3562]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26ja04-23]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-557-813]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyethylene Retail
Carrier Bags from Malaysia
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 2004.
[[Page 3558]]
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that polyethylene retail carrier
bags from Malaysia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Interested parties are invited to
comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final
determination not later than 135 days after the date of publication of
this preliminary determination.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. David Dirstine (Bee Lian Plastic
Industries Sdn. Bhd.) or Catherine Cartsos (Teong Chuan Plastic and
Timber Sdn. Bhd.), Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4033 or (202) 482-1757, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preliminary Determination
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted this
antidumping investigation in accordance with section 733 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We preliminarily determine that
polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Malaysia are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as
provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at
less than fair value are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation''
section of this notice.
Case History
We initiated this investigation on July 10, 2003. See Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
The People's Republic of China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 68 FR 42002
(July 16, 2003) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of this
investigation the following events have occurred.
On July 14, 2003, we issued a letter to interested parties in this
investigation providing an opportunity to comment on the
characteristics we should use in identifying the different models the
respondents sold in the United States. The petitioners submitted
comments on July 28, 2003. No other party submitted comments. After
reviewing the parties' comments, we have adopted the characteristics
and hierarchy as explained in the ``Fair Value Comparisons'' section
below.
On July 14, 2003, we sent a partial Section A questionnaire to all
of the producers/exporters named in the petition and to the producers/
exporters who comprise the top 80 percent of producers/exporters in
terms of quantity (in thousands of units) of the subject merchandise
shipped to the United States according to data from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP). We requested information on the quantity and
value of merchandise sold by these producers and exporters in order to
identify potential respondents in the investigation. We received
responses from 17 firms which reported exports of subject merchandise
during the period of investigation (POI). We did not receive responses
from two firms in Malaysia, Branpak Industries Sdn. Bhd. and Gants Pac
Industries, although the record indicates that these companies received
our July 14, 2003, questionnaire. On August 1, 2003, we sent a letter
to these firms to reiterate our request for a response to the July 14,
2003, questionnaire. We received no response from these firms.
On August 4, 2003, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)
issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of imports of the subject merchandise from
the People's Republic of China, Malaysia, and Thailand. See
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 68
FR 47609 (August 11, 2003).
On August 14, 2003, the Department selected the following four
mandatory respondents: Bee Lian Plastic Industries Sdn. Bhd. (Bee
Lian), Sido Bangun Sdn. Bhd., Zhin Hin/Chin Hin Plastic Manufacturer
Sdn. Bhd., Teong Chuan Plastic and Timber Sdn. Bhd. (Teong Chuan). See
Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Jeff May regarding selection of
respondents dated August 14, 2003.
On August 14, 2003, the Department issued its full antidumping
questionnaire to the mandatory respondents. Only Bee Lian and Teong
Chuan responded to our questionnaire. On November 21, and November 28,
2003, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Bee Lian and Teong
Chuan, respectively. Bee Lian submitted its supplemental questionnaire
response to the Department on December 5, 2003. Although Teong Chuan
submitted a supplemental questionnaire response on November 28, 2003,
it was neither fully responsive to our questionnaire nor filed in
proper form pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303 and 351.304.
On October 16, 2003, the petitioners requested that the Department
postpone its preliminary determination by 50 days. In accordance with
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we postponed our preliminary
determination by 50 days. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary
Determinations in Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyethylene Retail
Carrier Bags From the People's Republic of China, Malaysia, and
Thailand, 68 FR 61656 (October 29, 2003).
Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional
Measures
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.210(e)(2), the Department requires that exporters requesting
postponement of the final determination must also request an extension
of the provisional measures in section 733(d) of the Act from a four-
month period until not more than six months. We received a request to
postpone the final determination from Bee Lian, dated November 20,
2003. In its request, the respondent consented to the extension of
provisional measures to no longer than six months. Since this
preliminary determination is affirmative, the request for postponement
is made by an exporter that accounts for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise, and there is no compelling reason
to deny the respondent's request, we have extended the deadline for
issuance of the final determination until the 135th day after the date
of publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal
Register and have extended provisional measures to no longer than six
months.
Period of Investigation
The POI corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior
to the filing of the petition, i.e., April 1, 2002, through March 31,
2003.
Scope Comments
In accordance with the preamble to our regulations (see Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we
set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within
20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice (see 66 FR
33048-33049). Interested parties submitted such comments by August 5,
2003.On August 4, 2003, Regal Import Packaging, an importer of PRCBs,
[[Page 3559]]
requested that four- dimensional bags, bags with handles made of a
different material than the bag itself, and custom-printed bag orders
of 50 thousand bags or less be excluded from the scope of the
investigation. On August 12, 2003, the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag
Committee and its individual members, PCL Packaging, Inc., Sonoco
Products Company, Superbag Corp., Vanguard Plastics, Inc., and
Inteplast Group, Ltd. (collectively, ``the petitioners''), requested
that the investigation not exclude those products specified by Regal
Import Packaging. We have not adopted the changes in the scope of the
investigation requested by Regal Import Packaging because we find the
petitioners have placed sufficient evidence on the record to show that
the bags in question are manufactured in the United States and fall
within the scope of the petition.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise subject to this investigation is polyethylene
retail carrier bags, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks,
merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject
merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles
(including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures,
with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film
having a thickness no greater than .035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less
than .00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than
6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of
the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches
(101.6 cm).
PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and
free of charge by retail establishments (e.g., grocery, drug,
convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and
restaurants) to their customers to package and carry their purchased
products. The scope of the investigation excludes (1) polyethylene bags
that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable
with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags
that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to
specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from
retail establishments (e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can
liners).
Imports of the subject merchandise are classified under statistical
category 3923.21.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS). This subheading also covers products that are outside
this investigation. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Selection of Respondents
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the
subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department
discretion, however, when faced with a large number of exporters/
producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such
companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. There is
no data on the record that indicates conclusively the number of
producers/exporters from Malaysia that exported the subject merchandise
to the United States during the POI.
On July 14, 2003, the Department sent partial section A
questionnaires addressed to all producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise listed in the petition. We received responses from a number
of firms. As discussed below, we did not receive responses from two
companies. Based on the responses we received to our July 14, 2003,
questionnaire, we selected Bee Lian, Sido Bangun, Zhin Hin/Chin Hin,
and Teong Chuan as mandatory respondents. See Memorandum from Laurie
Parkhill to Jeff May dated August 14, 2003.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or provides such information but the information cannot be
verified, the Department shall, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of
the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department
shall not decline to consider submitted information if that information
is necessary to the determination but does not meet all of the
requirements established by the Department provided that all of the
following requirements are met: (1) the information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; (5)
the information can be used without undue difficulties.
Section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act requires the Department to use
facts available when a party does not provide the Department with
information by the established deadline or in the form and manner
requested by the Department. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that,
if the Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information,'' the Department may use information that is
adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available.
As explained above, Branpak Industries Sdn. Bhd. and Gants Pac
Industries did not respond to our July 14, 2003, request for
information. Furthermore, Sido Bangun and Zhin Hin/Chin Hin did not
respond to our August 14, 2003, antidumping questionnaire.
Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, in reaching our preliminary
determination, we have used total facts available for Branpak
Industries Sdn. Bhd. and Gants Pac Industries because the firms did not
provide the data we needed to decide whether they should be selected as
mandatory respondents. Also, we have used total facts available for
Sido Bangun and Zhin Hin/Chin Hin because these firms did not respond
to our August 14, 2003, antidumping questionnaire as mandatory
respondents. Also, because all these companies failed to respond,
wholly or in part, to our request for information, we have found that
they failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. Therefore,
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we have used an adverse
inference in selecting from the facts available for the margins for
these companies. See Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Jeffrey May
dated January 16, 2004, ``Determination to Apply Adverse Facts
Available and the Calculation of the Adverse Facts-Available Rate''
(AFA Memo).
Regarding Teong Chuan, we found that it did not meet the filing
requirements of our regulations in regards to most of its questionnaire
responses and subsequent re-submissions, resulting in our rejection of
the majority of its submissions. Despite our repeated attempts to allow
Teong Chuan to correct for the procedural and substantive deficiencies
in its response, the firm did not do so. The information Teong Chuan
provided which remains on the record is inadequate and does not allow
us to calculate a dumping margin. For example, we have no cost-of-
production (COP) information necessary to test whether Teong Chuan made
sales in the home market at below-cost prices or to
[[Page 3560]]
calculate constructed value in the absence of usable home-market sales.
In effect, Teong Chuan did not respond to our questionnaires. See AFA
Memo for further discussion. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a) of
the Act, in reaching our preliminary determination, we have used total
facts available for Teong Chuan because crucial information necessary
to calculate a margin is not on the record.
Further, we find that Teong Chuan did not cooperate to the best of
its ability because it did not seek our guidance and clarifications in
its attempts to provide us with acceptable responses and it ignored
instructions we had given the company previously. Therefore, pursuant
to section 776(b) of the Act, we have used an adverse inference in
selecting from the facts available for the margins for Teong Chuan. See
AFA Memo.
As adverse facts available, we have examined the margins that the
petitioners alleged in their June 25, 2003, response to our June 25,
2003, letter requesting supplemental information with respect to the
petition and selected the higher of the two margins; that rate is
101.74 percent.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for
facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its
disposal. Information from the petitioners constitutes secondary
information. The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994)
(SAA), provides that the word ``corroborate'' means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has
probative value. As explained in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative
Review, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof from Japan), in order to corroborate secondary
information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable,
the reliability and relevance of the information used.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard
the margin and determine an appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded the
highest dumping margin as best information available because the margin
was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin. Further, in accordance with
F.LII De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216
F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2000), we also examine whether
information on the record would support the selected rates as
reasonable facts available.
Our analysis of the petitioners' methodology for calculating the
export price and normal value in the petition is discussed in the
initiation notice. See Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 42003-4. To
corroborate the petitioners' export-price and normal-value
calculations, we compared the prices and expenses used by the
petitioners to the source documents upon which the petitioners'
methodology was based.
As discussed in the AFA Memo, we found that the export-price and
normal-value information in the supplemental petition was reasonable
and, therefore, we preliminarily determine that the information has
probative value. Accordingly, we find that the highest margin based on
that information, 101.74 percent, is corroborated within the meaning of
section 776(c) of the Act.
Furthermore, there is no information on the record that
demonstrates that the rate we have selected is an inappropriate total
adverse facts-available rate for the companies in question. On the
contrary, our existing record, which includes a Malaysian company's
quotation for a commonly produced type of PRCB, a freight quotation,
and a specification sheet for a purchase- order inquiry, supports the
use of this rate as the best indication of the export price and dumping
margin for these firms. Therefore, we consider the selected rate to
have probative value with respect to the firms in question and to
reflect the appropriate adverse inference.
Accordingly, for the preliminary determination, we have applied a
margin of 101.74 percent to Branpak Industries Sdn. Bhd., Gants Pac
Industries, Sido Bangun, Zhin Hin/Chin Hin, and Teong Chuan. Because
these are preliminary margins, the Department will consider all margins
on the record at the time of the final determination for the purpose of
determining the most appropriate final margins for these companies.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of PRCBs to the United States by Bee
Lian in this investigation were made at less than fair value, we
compared export price to normal value, as described in the ``U.S.
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance
with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(I) of the Act, we calculated weighted-
average export prices.
In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products
based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in
the following order of importance: (1) quality, (2) bag type, (3)
length, (4) width, (5) gusset, (6) thickness, (7) percent of high
density polyethylene resin, (8) percent of low density polyethylene
resin, (9) percent of low linear density polyethylene resin, (10)
percent of color concentrate, (11) percent of ink coverage, (12) number
of ink colors, (13) number of sides printed.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used export price
for Bee Lian because the subject merchandise was sold directly to
unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI-
wide weighted-average export prices to the weighted-average normal
values.We calculated export price based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F.,
or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation
to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for
discounts and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Normal Value
1. Home-Market Viability
Bee Lian did not make sales of the foreign like product for
consumption in its home market. Therefore, in accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we based normal value on the prices at
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in a
country other than the exporting country and the United States.
Specifically, we based normal value on the prices at which the foreign
like product is sold for consumption in the United Kingdom. The
aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by Bee Lian in the
United Kingdom was, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, five
percent or more of the
[[Page 3561]]
aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in the United
States.
2. Affiliated-Party Transactions
Bee Lian's production unit sold the foreign like product and
subject merchandise to a wholly owned affiliate located in Singapore
that acted as the sales arm of Bee Lian. Bee Lian reported the prices
of its affiliate to the first unrelated customers in the United States
and the United Kingdom.
3. Cost-of-Production Analysis
The petitioners submitted evidence on October 16, 2003, alleging
that Bee Lian sold the foreign like product in the comparison market at
prices that may have been below COP as provided by section
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Based on this evidence, we determined that
we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of
normal value in this investigation may have been made at prices below
the COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we
conducted a COP investigation of sales by Bee Lian in the comparison
market.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed
in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental
to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the
comparison-market sales and COP information provided by Bee Lian in its
questionnaire responses, except we excluded the claimed offset to the
company's reported cost of manufacturing for the sale of waste. For
further discussion of this adjustment, see the cost memorandum from
Mark Todd to Neal Halper, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination,'' dated
January 16, 2004.
After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of
the Act, we tested whether comparison-market sales of the foreign like
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared
model-specific COPs to the reported comparison-market prices less any
applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that
product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial
quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more
of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at
prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because
they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of
time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and, based on
comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POI, we
determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we
disregarded certain sales because they were below cost. We used the
remaining third-country sales to calculate normal value.
4. Calculation of Normal Value
We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in
the comparison market on the basis of the physical characteristics
described under Fair Value Comparisons above. Wherever we were unable
to match a U.S. model to identical merchandise sold in the comparison
market, we selected the most similar model of subject merchandise in
the comparison market as the foreign like product.
Comparison-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory, or
delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of
the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for differences in
circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made circumstances-of-sale adjustments
by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from, and adding
U.S. direct selling expenses to, normal value. We also made
adjustments, where applicable, for comparison-market indirect selling
expenses to offset U.S. commissions.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we based
normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of
trade as the export price. If normal value was calculated at a
different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if
possible, in accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act. See the
Level of Trade section below.
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used
constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no
usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. In
accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated constructed
value based on the sum of Bee Lian's cost of materials and fabrication
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A, profit, and U.S.
packing costs. We relied on the submitted constructed-value information
for Bee Lian except as adjusted for the sale of waste (see above).
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for
circumstances-of-sale differences and level-of-trade differences. We
made circumstances-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market
direct selling expenses from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
to, normal value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for
comparison-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions.
Level of Trade
To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. When there were no sales at
the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales to comparison-market
sales at a different level of trade. The normal-value level of trade is
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. When normal
value is based on constructed value, the level of trade is that of the
sales from which we derived SG&A and profit. To determine whether
comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade than U.S.
sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales were at a
different level of trade from that of a U.S. sale and the difference
affected price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent
price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and
comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export
transaction, we made a level-of-trade adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).
[[Page 3562]]
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the
dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the
information upon which we will rely in making our final determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing
CBP to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from
Malaysia (except for entries of Bee Lian because this company has a de
minimis margin) that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the
posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the
normal value exceeds the export price, as indicated in the chart below.
These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect
until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter or Producer Weighted-average percent margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bee Lian Plastic Industries Sdn. Bhd.................. 00.14
Teong Chuan Plastic and Timber Sdn. Bhd............... 101.74
Brandpak Industries Sdn. Bhd.......................... 101.74
Gants Pac Industries.................................. 101.74
Sido Bangun Sdn.Bhd................................... 101.74
Zhin Hin/Chin Hin Plastic Manufacturer Sdn. Bhd....... 101.74
All Others............................................ 84.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All companies that we examined have either a de minimis margin or
rates based on total adverse facts available. Therefore, for purposes
of determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B)
of the Act, we have calculated a simple average of the six margin rates
we have determined in the investigation. See All-Others Rate
Calculation Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Jeffrey May dated
January 16, 2004.The Department will disclose calculations performed
within five days of publication of this notice to parties in this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination of sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act
requires that the ITC make a final determination before the later of
120 days after the date of the Department's preliminary determination
or 45 days after the Department's final determination whether the
domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or
threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the
likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise.
Because we have postponed the deadline for our final determination to
135 days from the date of publication of this preliminary
determination, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days
of our final determination.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days
after the date of the final verification report issued in this
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case
briefs, no later than five days after the deadline date for case
briefs. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues
should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary
should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In
accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing,
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, any hearing
will be held three days after the deadline for submission of the
rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location
to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time,
and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if
one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19
CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain (1) the party's name, address,
and telephone number, (2) the number of participants, and (3) a list of
the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in
that party's rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after
the date of publication of the preliminary determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 16, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-1576 Filed 1-23-04; 8:45 am]