Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 18519 

1See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 

Strip From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 9745 (February 

22, 2011) (Final Results) and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum (IDM). 

2See Nan Ya’s Letter to the Secretary of 

Commerce dated March 8, 2011 (Allegation of 

Ministerial Errors). 

3See Petitioners’ Letter to the Secretary of 

Commerce dated March 14, 2011. 

4See also 19 CFR 351.224(f). 

5See Allegation of Ministerial Errors at 1–3. 

6See Petitioners’ Rebuttal Comments at 1–3. 

7See the Department’s Letter to Nan Ya dated 

May 27, 2010 at 1. 

8See, e.g., Letters to the Secretary of Commerce 

regarding the section C questionnaire responses of 

Forplax LLC and Forplax Los Angeles, Inc. dated 

July 7, 2010 at C–2, and Letter to the Secretary of 

Commerce regarding the section C questionnaire 

response of Rocheux International dated July 9, 

2010 at C–1. 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.305(a)(3). Timely written 

notification of the destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: March 28, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7793 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–837] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: 

Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On February 22, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the final results 

of the antidumping duty administrative 

review of polyethylene terephthalate 

film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from 

Taiwan.1 The period of review (POR) is 

July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. We 

are amending the Final Results to 

correct a ministerial error that was made 

in the calculation of the antidumping 

duty margin for Nan Ya Plastics 

Corporation, Ltd. (Nan Ya), pursuant to 

section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: (February 22, 

2011) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3586. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 8, 2011, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.224(c)(1), Nan Ya filed a timely 

submission alleging ministerial errors 

with respect to the Department’s use of 

sales datasets and matching of 

CONNUMs in the antidumping duty 

margin calculation for Nan Ya in the 

Final Results.2 On March 14, 2011, 

DuPont Teijin Films; Mitsubishi 

Polyester Film Inc.; SKC, Inc.; and 

Toray Plastics (America), Inc. 

(collectively, Petitioners) provided 

timely rebuttal comments to Nan Ya’s 

model matching allegation.3

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the 

antidumping order are all gauges of raw, 

pretreated, or primed polyethylene 

terephthalate film, whether extruded or 

coextruded. Excluded are metallized 

films and other finished films that have 

had at least one of their surfaces 

modified by the application of a 

performance-enhancing resinous or 

inorganic layer more than 0.00001 

inches thick. Imports of PET Film are 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item number 

3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written description of the 

scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 

Ministerial Error Allegation 

A ministerial error is defined in 

section 751(h) of the Act as ‘‘* * * 

errors in addition, subtraction, or other 

arithmetic function, clerical errors 

resulting from inaccurate copying, 

duplication, or the like, and any other 

type of unintentional error which the 

administering authority considers 

ministerial.’’ 4 In its Allegation of 

Ministerial Errors, Nan Ya alleged that: 

(1) The Department inadvertently used 

the incorrect U.S. and home market 

sales datasets to calculate Nan Ya’s 

antidumping duty margin for the final 

results; and (2) the Department 

erroneously matched similar home 

market subject merchandise to U.S. 

sales where there was no identical sale 

during the comparison period.5

Specifically, Nan Ya argues that the last 

criteria in the Department’s model 

matching hierarchy, surface treatment, 

has a greater impact on the sales price 

and the production costs of PET Film 

compared to the other criteria in the 

hierarchy, and that it should receive 

more weight during the model matching 

process. Petitioners commented only on 

Nan Ya’s model matching allegation, 

contending that the Department did not 

commit a ministerial error. According to 

Petitioners, the Department acted in 

accordance with its well established 

methodology with respect to model 

matching.6

Analysis of Allegations 

After analyzing the interested parties’ 

allegations and rebuttal comments, we 

find, in accordance with section 751(h) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that 

with respect to Nan Ya’s first allegation, 

the Department did, indeed, 

inadvertently use the incorrect sales 

datasets to calculate Nan Ya’s 

antidumping duty margin for the Final 

Results. In its May 27, 2010 

supplemental questionnaire to Nan Ya, 

the Department requested that Nan Ya 

and its three U.S. affiliates provide a 

single, consolidated constructed export 

price (CEP) sales dataset to report their 

sales in the U.S. market.7 However, the 

three U.S. affiliates stated that they are 

not affiliated with Nan Ya, and each 

submitted an individual CEP sales 

dataset.8 Subsequently, the Department 

requested that Nan Ya and its three U.S. 

affiliates provide several revised sales 

datasets for home market, export price 

(EP) and CEP sales. While the correct 

datasets were used for the CEP sales for 

the Final Results, we erroneously used 

an older version of the home market and 

U.S. EP sales datasets submitted by Nan 

Ya. Thus, the Department has 

determined that the use of the wrong 

datasets constitutes a ministerial error, 

in accordance with section 751(h) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e). For these 

amended final results, we recalculated 

Nan Ya’s antidumping duty margin 

using the correct sales datasets. 

Regarding Nan Ya’s second allegation 

with respect to model matching, the 

Department disagrees that it made a 

ministerial error as defined by section 

751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e). 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
18520 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 

9See, e.g., the Department’s September 3, 2009 

Initial Questionnaire to Nan Ya Plastics Corporation 

at B–9. 

10See id. 

11See IDM at Comment 1. 

The model matching hierarchy 

methodology used for the Final Results 

consists of four criteria (in order of 

importance): Specification; thickness in 

microns; thickness code; and surface 

treatment.9 The model matching 

hierarchy used by the Department does 

not fall under the ‘‘ministerial error’’ 

definition because it is a methodology 

that the Department applied correctly. It 

did not involve any incorrect copying, 

duplication or unintentional error of 

any type. This hierarchy methodology is 

consistent with the hierarchy as 

described in the Department’s initial 

questionnaire to Nan Ya regarding this 

administrative review,10 and used for 

the preliminary results. We note that 

Nan Ya did not comment on the model 

matching hierarchy in its case brief 

regarding the preliminary results. We 

also note that in the Final Results, based 

on the information placed on the record 

by the other respondent in this 

administrative review, Shinkong 

Synthetic Fibers Corporation and 

Shinkong Materials Technology Co., 

Ltd., we determined that there are little 

or no cost differences between surface 

treatments,11 which is contradictory to 

Nan Ya’s argument. As such, we find 

that, for the Final Results, the 

Department relied upon its intended 

model matching hierarchy and, thus, 

determine that the Department did not 

commit a ministerial error in 

accordance with section 751(h) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e). 

Amended Final Results 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), 

we are amending the Final Results of 

this administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on PET Film 

from Taiwan. The revised weightedaverage dumping margin for Nan Ya as 

a result of these amended final results 

is as follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Original 

weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Amended 

weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Nan Ya Plastics 

Corporation, 

Ltd ................. 20.76 18.30 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department shall determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. We will instruct 

CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise 

produced and/or exported by Nan Ya. 

For assessment purposes, where the 

respondent reports the entered value for 

their sales, we calculate importerspecific (or customer-specific) ad 

valorem assessment rates based on the 

ratio of the total amount of the dumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of those same 

sales. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). However, 

where the respondent does not report 

the entered value for their sales, we 

calculate importer-specific (or customerspecific) per unit duty assessment rates. 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of these amended final 

results of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification applies to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by the companies included in the final 

results of review for which the reviewed 

companies did not know their 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate non-reviewed 

entries at the all-others rate of 2.40 

percent from the investigation if there is 

no rate for the intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction. See Notice of Amended 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

(PET Film) from Taiwan, 67 FR 44174 

(July 1, 2002), as corrected in 67 FR 

46566 (July 15, 2002). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for any 

entries made on or after February 22, 

2011, the date of publication of the 

Final Results, for all shipments of 

subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the Final Results, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For 

Nan Ya, the cash deposit rate will be the 

amended weighted-average margin rate 

shown above in the ‘‘Amended Final 

Results’’ section of this notice; (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed 

Taiwanese and non-Taiwanese 

exporters of subject merchandise not 

listed above that have separate rates, the 

cash deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all Taiwanese 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the Taiwan-wide rate of 2.40 percent; 

and (4) for all non-Taiwanese exporters 

of subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

Taiwanese exporters that supplied that 

non-Taiwanese exporter. These deposit 

requirements will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed for these amended final 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice to interested 

parties in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred, and in the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation that 

is subject to sanction. 

These amended final results are 

published in accordance with sections 

751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 29, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7929 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES