62850 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 

Funding Restrictions 

Grants to provide emergency services 

may not exceed $500,000 and may be 

limited by geographic area so that 

multiple grant recipients are not 

providing similar services to the same 

service areas. Grants for emergency 

services may not be used for pre-award 

costs. 

Grants for the construction or repair 

of section 516 off-farm FLH are not 

limited to $500,000, but the grant may 

not exceed 90 percent of the total 

development cost of the housing. Grants 

for the construction or repair of section 

516 off-farm FLH is subject to the 

limitations and conditions listed at 7 

CFR 1944.164. 

All grants made in response to this 

Notice are subject to the restrictions 

contained in 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, 

and 3019.

Intergovernmental review. The 

construction of new section 516 off-farm 

FLH is subject to the Intergovernmental 

Review provisions of Executive Order 

12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. 

Submission address. Preapplications 

should be submitted to USDA—Rural 

Housing Service; Attention: Douglas H. 

MacDowell, Multi-Family Housing 

Processing Division—STOP 0781 (Room 

1263–S), 1400 Independence Ave. SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0781. 

V. Application Review Information 

All applications will be evaluated by 

a grant committee. The grant committee 

will make recommendations to the 

Agency Administrator concerning 

preliminary eligibility determinations 

and for the selection of applications for 

further processing based on the 

selection criteria contained in this RFP 

and the availability of funds. The 

Administrator will inform applicants of 

the status of their application within 30 

days of the closing date of the RFP. 

Applications for grants to construct or 

repair section 516 off-farm FLH will 

compete against other applications to 

construct or repair section 516 off-farm 

FLH. Likewise, applications for grants to 

provide emergency services to lowincome migrant and seasonal 

farmworkers will compete against other 

applications for grants for emergency 

services. 

Applications for grants to provide 

emergency services to low-income 

migrant and seasonal farmworkers will 

be evaluated by the types of assistance 

to be provided. Because the types of 

assistance may differ depending on the 

geographic area to be served and the 

nature of the disaster or emergency 

experienced, equal weight will be 

applied to each form of assistance to be 

rendered. 

Selection Criteria 

(1) Applications to provide emergency 

services to low-income migrant and 

seasonal farmworkers will be scored on 

the following basis: 

(a) Experience of applicant providing 

emergency services. 

(b) The number of low-income 

migrant and seasonal farmworkers (as 

defined in this Notice) affected by the 

emergency. 

(c) The number of low-income 

migrant and seasonal farmworkers (as 

defined in this Notice) to be assisted by 

the proposal. 

(d) Economic and social benefits to 

low-income migrant and seasonal 

farmworkers (as defined in this Notice) 

and their families from the services to 

be provided. 

(2) Proposals for construction or 

repair of section 516 off-farm FLH for 

domestic farm laborers will be scored on 

the following basis: 

(a) The number of domestic farm 

laborers (as defined in 7 CFR part 1944, 

subpart D) that will be provided with 

decent, safe and sanitary housing as a 

result of the proposed use of the grant 

funds. 

(b) The degree to which health and 

safety issues will be addressed through 

the use of the grant funds.

Dated: October 22, 2004. 

Russell T. Davis, 

Administrator, Rural Housing Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24099 Filed 10–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: Rural Telephone Bank, USDA.

ACTION: Staff briefing for the Board of 

Directors. 

TIME AND DATE: 2 p.m., Thursday, 

November 4, 2004.

PLACE: Conference Room 104–A, Jamie 

L. Whitten Federal Building, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 12th & 

Jefferson Drive, SW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED:

1. FY 2005 Budget status. 

2. Year end Program report. 

3. Privatization discussion. 

4. Administrative and other issues.

ACTION: Board of Directors meeting.

TIME AND DATE: 9 a.m., Friday, November 

5, 2004.

PLACE: Conference Room 104–A, Jamie 

L. Whitten Federal Building, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 12th & 

Jefferson Drive, SW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The 

following matters have been placed on 

the agenda for the Board of Directors 

meeting: 

1. Call to order. 

2. Action on Minutes of the August 

10, 2004, board meeting. 

3. Secretary’s Report on loans 

approved, FY 2004. 

4. Treasurer’s Report. 

5. Privatization discussion. 

6. Establish date for next Board 

meeting. 

7. Governor’s Remarks. 

8. Adjournment.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Roberta D. Purcell, Assistant Governor, 

Rural Telephone Bank, (202) 720–9554.

Curtis M. Anderson, 

Acting Governor, Rural Telephone Bank.

[FR Doc. 04–24159 Filed 10–25–04; 4:21 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–823] 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Bottle-Grade Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (PET) Resin From 

Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 28, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Twyman or Natalie Kempkey 

(202) 482–3534 or (202) 482–1698, 

respectively; AD/CVD Operations Office 

I, Import Administration, Room 1870, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preliminary Determination 

We preliminarily determine that 

bottle-grade polyethylene terephthalate 

resin (‘‘PET resin’’) from Thailand is 

being sold, or is 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 (‘‘the Act’’). The 

preliminary margin assigned to Thai 

Shinkong Industry Corporation Ltd. 

(‘‘Thai Shinkong’’) is based on adverse 

facts available (‘‘AFA’’). The estimated 

margins of sales at less than fair value 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 62851

1See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, dated May 

20, 2004, entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Teraphthalate (‘‘PET) 

Resin from Thailand, Selection of Respondents’’

(‘‘Respondent Selection Memorandum’’

2Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning the company corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 

which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 

Section B requests a complete listing of all home 

market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, 

of sales in the most appropriate third-country 

market (this section is not applicable to respondents 

in non-market economy cases). Section C requests 

a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests 

information on the cost of production of the foreign 

like product and the constructed value of the 

merchandise under investigation. Section E 

requests information on further manufacturing.

3See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, dated 

August 26, 2004, entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Bottle-Grade Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (PET) Resin from Thailand: United 

States PET Resin Producers Coalition’s Allegation 

of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Bangkok 

Polyester Public Company Limited.’’

are shown in the Suspension of 

Liquidation section of this notice 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. Since we are postponing 

the final determination, we will make 

our final determination not later than 

135 days after the date of publication of 

this preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. 

Petitioner 

The petitioner in this investigation is 

the United States PET Resin Producers 

Coalition (‘‘the petitioner’’). 

Case History 

On April 20, 2004, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published the initiation of the 

antidumping duty investigations of 

imports of PET resin from India, 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand. See 

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigations: Bottle-Grade 

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin 

from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and 

Thailand, 69 FR 21082 (April 20, 2004) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). Since the 

initiation of the investigation, the 

following events have occurred. 

On May 17, 2004, the United States 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of the 

products subject to this investigation are 

materially injuring an industry in the 

United States producing the domestic 

like product. See United States 

International Trade Commission Report 

on Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin 

from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and 

Thailand, Nos. 701–TA–439–440 and 

731–TA–1077–1080 (May 17, 2004). 

On May 10, 2004, the Department 

solicited comments from interested 

parties in all of the concurrent PET 

Resin antidumping investigations, 

providing an opportunity to comment 

on the criteria to be used for model 

matching. Between May 17 and June 3, 

2004, the Department received 

comments and/or rebuttal comments on 

model matching from the petitioner, Far 

Eastern Textiles, Reliance Industries 

Ltd., South Asian Petrochem Ltd. and 

P.T. Indorama Synthetics. the 

Department took these comments into 

consideration by the Department in 

developing the model matching 

characteristics and hierarchy for all of 

the PET Resin antidumping 

investigations. See June 9, 2004, 

memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Senior 

Office Director, ‘‘Selection of Model 

Matching Criteria for Purposes of the 

Antidumping Questionnaire’’ (‘‘Model 

Match Memorandum’’). 

On May 20, 2004, the Department 

selected the two largest producers/

exporters of PET resin from Thailand, 

Bangkok Polyester Public Company Ltd. 

(‘‘Bangkok Polyester’’) and Thai 

Shinkong, as mandatory respondents in 

this investigation.1

On June 9, 2004, the antidumping 

questionnaire 2 was issued to Thai 

Shinkong and Bangkok Polyester. 

During the period July through October 

2004, the Department received 

responses to sections A, B and C of the 

Department’s original and supplemental 

questionnaires from Bangkok Polyester 

and Thai Shinkong. See the Use of Facts 

Otherwise Available section of this 

notice regarding the Department’s 

rejection of Thai Shinkong’s responses. 

On May 18, 2004, Indo Pet (Thailand) 

Ltd. (‘‘Indo Pet’’) formally requested to 

be treated as a voluntary respondent in 

this investigation in response to the 

Department’s invitation to do so in the 

Respondent Selection Memorandum. 

On July 26, 2004, Indo Pet withdrew its 

request for individual examination as a 

voluntary respondent.

On July 30, 2004, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.205(e), the petitioner made a timely 

request to postpone the preliminary 

determination. We granted this request 

and postponed the preliminary 

determination until no later than 

October 20, 2004. See Notice of 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Antidumping Duty Determinations: 

Bottle-Grade Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand, 69 FR 

48842 (August 11, 2004). 

On August 10, 2004, the petitioner 

made an allegation that sales by 

Bangkok Polyester in Thailand were 

below the cost of production (‘‘COP’’). 

On August 26, 2004, pursuant to section 

7773(b) of the Act, the Department 

initiated a cost investigation for 

Bangkok Polyester’s Thailand sales of 

PET Resin.3 On August 26, 2004, the 

Department issued a section D 

questionnaire to Bangkok Polyester. 

Responses to the questionnaire and 

supplemental questionnaires were 

received in September and October 

2004.

On October 6, 2004, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i), the petitioner 

requested that the Department postpone 

the final determination in the 

investigation of PET Resin from 

Thailand in the event of a negative 

preliminary determination. 

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 also request an extension 

of the provisional measures referred to 

in section 733(d) of the Act from a fourmonth period until not more than six 

months. 

On September 29, 2004, we received 

a request to postpone the final 

determination from Bangkok Polyester. 

In its request, Bangkok Polyester 

consented to the extension of 

provisional measures to no longer than 

six months. Since this preliminary 

determination is affirmative, and 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 period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

January 1, 2003, through December 31, 

2003. This period corresponds to the 

four most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of filing of the petition in 

March 2004 in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1).

62852 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is bottle-grade 

polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin, 

defined as having an intrinsic viscosity 

of at least 0.68 deciliters per gram but 

not more than 0.86 deciliters per gram. 

The scope includes bottle-grade PET 

resin that contains various additives 

introduced in the manufacturing 

process. The scope does not include 

post-consumer recycle (PCR) or postindustrial recycle (PIR) PET resin; 

however, included in the scope is any 

bottle-grade PET resin blend of virgin 

PET bottle-grade resin and recycled PET 

(RPET). Waste and scrap PET is outside 

the scope of the investigation. Fibergrade PET resin, which has an intrinsic 

viscosity of less than 0.68 deciliters per 

gram, is also outside the scope of the 

investigation. 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is properly classified 

under subheading 3907.60.0010 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’); however, 

merchandise classified under HTSUS 

subheading 3907.60.0050 that otherwise 

meets the written description of the 

scope is also subject to this 

investigation. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

our regulations (see Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 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. We did not receive any scope 

comments from interested parties 

within the comment period. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

Sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) 

of the Act provide that the Department 

shall use facts available when a party 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the administering 

authority under this subtitle; does not 

provide the Department with 

information by the established deadline 

or in the form and manner requested by 

the Department; significantly impedes a 

proceeding; or provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified. In addition, 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 in selecting 

from among the facts available. Such 

adverse inference may include reliance 

on information derived from: (1) The 

petition; (2) A final determination in the 

investigation under this title; (3) Any 

previous review under section 751 or 

determination under 753; or (4) Any 

other information placed on the record. 

See 19 CFR 351.308(c). 

On June 9, 2004, the Department sent 

an antidumping questionnaire to Thai 

Shinkong. Although Thai Shinkong did, 

as discussed below, submit several 

questionnaire responses in July and 

August 2004, on August 31, 2004, the 

Department informed Thai Shinkong 

that it was rejecting Thai Shinkong’s 

latest attempt to submit a response to 

the Department’s questionnaire because 

Thai Shinkong’s submission was not in 

compliance with the filing requirements 

of the statute and regulations. See letter 

to Thai Shinkong from John Brinkmann 

dated August 31, 2004. On the basis of 

our findings in this investigation, which 

are detailed below, we have determined 

that the use of facts otherwise available 

is appropriate for Thai Shinkong 

because it has not provided certain 

information in the form and manner 

requested. 

The Department received Thai 

Shinkong’s first section A response on 

July 1, 2004. This submission was 

rejected by the Department because: (1) 

It was not filed by the Department’s 

deadline of June 30, 2004; (2) The 

submission was not properly bracketed 

and marked as either a public or 

proprietary version; and (3) Thai 

Shinkong did not include with its 

submission the correct number of copies 

of the public and proprietary versions of 

the submission and the required 

certificates of service and accuracy. The 

Department extended the deadline for 

submitting the section A response until 

July 16, 2004.

Thai Shinkong resubmitted its section 

A response on July 16, 2004. This 

submission was also rejected by the 

Department because: (1) It was filed 

under the incorrect case number; (2) It 

did not contain the correct number of 

proprietary versions; (3) It did not 

contain the required public version of 

section A; (4) Bracketing of business 

proprietary information was incorrectly 

identified both on the top of the page 

and in the text of the actual document; 

and (5) The Certificate of Service did 

not list the names of the parties on 

whom the response was served. The 

Department further extended the 

deadline for the section A response to 

July 26, 2004, to coincide with the due 

date for Thai Shinkong’s responses to 

sections B and C of the questionnaire. 

The Department did not receive an 

official submission of sections A–C from 

Thai Shinkong until July 30, 2004, four 

days after the July 26 deadline. While 

the Department did receive e-mails on 

July 24 and 26, 2004, from Thai 

Shinkong with attached copies of the 

section A–C submissions, e-mailing is 

not an acceptable format for filing 

submissions. The sections A–C 

responses received by the Department 

on July 30, 2004, had further problems 

with correct filing and formatting 

procedures. While the Department notes 

that some earlier problems had been 

corrected, such as filing the correct 

number of proprietary versions for 

section A and fixing previously noted 

bracketing errors, we noted that there 

were still several consistent errors with 

the filing of sections A–C: (1) There was 

no cover page to each section (A, B or 

C) identifying the case number and 

whether the attached section was public 

or proprietary; (2) The Certificates of 

Service and Accuracy were not 

provided; (3) Only one copy each of 

both the public version and proprietary 

version of Thai Shinkong’s responses 

were submitted to the Department for 

sections B and C; (4) Page C–32 of what 

appears to be the public version of 

section C contained bracketed 

proprietary information; and (5) The 

required electronic databases for 

sections B and C sales were not 

submitted. 

On August 4, 2004, the Department 

advised Thai Shinkong that it was 

rejecting Thai Shinkong’s July 30, 2004, 

sections A–C submission as improperly 

filed, and that it would not be able to 

consider a revised response in the 

preliminary determination, then 

scheduled for August 31, 2004. The 

Department also informed Thai 

Shinkong that it would not be able to 

consider a revised response in the final 

determination unless received by 

August 16, 2004. The Department’s 

August 4 letter did note that if the 

preliminary determination were to be 

postponed, it may be possible for the 

Department to consider Thai Shinkong’s 

factual information in that postponed 

preliminary determination, if any 

factual information was properly filed 

with the Department no later than 

August 16, 2004. 

On August 13, 2004, the Department 

received a timely submission of the 

sections A–C response from Thai 

Shinkong. Since the Department had 

extended the preliminary determination 

on August 11, 2004, to October 20, 2004, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 62853

4See Memo to File dated August 23, 2004, 

entitled ‘‘Bottle Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate 

(PET) Resin from Thailand: E-mail Regarding 

Sections A–C Submissions.’’

5See Id.

the Department reviewed Thai 

Shinkong’s August 13, 2004, submission 

for consideration in the extended 

preliminary determination. While this 

submission appeared to have corrected 

some of the filing and bracketing 

problems previously identified by the 

Department, several filing problems still 

remained. Most significantly, while 

Thai Shinkong did certify that the 

public version of sections A–C was 

served to those parties on the 

administrative protective order service 

list, it failed to certify that the 

proprietary version had been served to 

the parties on that list. The Department 

was also unable to ascertain by what 

means these parties had been served, 

i.e., first class mail or express mail. 

On August 16, 2004, the Department 

sent an e-mail to Thai Shinkong 

inquiring whether the parties on the 

APO service list had been served with 

the August 13 submission and how 

these documents were sent.4 The 

Department received an e-mail 

response 5 from Thai Shinkong on 

August 23, 2004, in which Thai 

Shinkong stated that it only sent the 

public version of the response to 

interested parties because its proprietary 

version contained confidential 

information. It stated that for that 

reason, Thai Shinkong only provided 

the public version of its August 13, 

2004, submission to the parties. Thai 

Shinkong also asserted that it sent the 

public version of that submission to the 

petitioner. However, we note that as of 

August 26, 2004, the petitioner stated it 

had not received any service of Thai 

Shinkong’s sections A–C response. On 

August 31, 2004, the Department 

advised Thai Shinkong that it was 

rejecting Thai Shinkong’s August 13, 

2004, submission because of its failure 

to serve parties on the administrative 

protective order service list with a 

proprietary version of the response. The 

Department also advised Thai Shinkong 

that it was unable to further extend the 

deadline for filing the questionnaire 

responses due to the statutorily 

mandated deadlines that govern the 

investigation.

The Department is applying facts 

available to calculate a dumping margin 

for Thai Shinkong because Thai 

Shinkong failed to serve the Proprietary 

Version of its most recent submission on 

parties to this proceeding that were 

authorized to receive this information 

under an administrative protective 

order. By failing to provide this 

information to the interested parties, 

Thai Shinkong has not provided the 

requested information in the form and 

manner requested by the Department’s 

August 16 due date for filing factual 

information. As a consequence, the 

petitioner would not have had adequate 

time to conduct its own analysis and 

submit comments on Thai Shinkong’s 

factual submission. Moreover, the 

Department was unable to further 

extend the filing deadline because there 

was no longer sufficient time to evaluate 

interested party comments on Thai 

Shinkong’s response, follow-up with 

supplemental questions, and conduct a 

margin analysis by the October 20, 2004, 

preliminary determination. Therefore, 

we determine that the Department’s 

calculation of an antidumping margin 

for Thai Shinkong should be based on 

facts otherwise available, in accordance 

with section 776(a)(2) of the Act. 

In applying facts otherwise available, 

section 776(b) of the Act provides that 

the Department may use an inference 

adverse to the interests of a party that 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with the 

Department’s requests for information. 

See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Final Negative Critical Circumstances: 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–

96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse 

inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure 

that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 

at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). Furthermore, 

‘‘{a}ffirmative evidence of bad faith on 

the part of a respondent is not required 

before the Department may make an 

adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping 

Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). 

We find that the application of 

adverse facts available is appropriate 

because Thai Shinkong has failed to 

comply with the Department’s requests 

for information and has not acted to the 

best of its ability. After each of the 

submissions by Thai Shinkong, the 

Department sent a detailed letter to Thai 

Shinkong, which not only specified the 

deficiencies in the filing, but also 

provided examples and citations to 

appropriate sources for rectifying the 

deficiencies. Filing deadlines were also 

extended to the maximum extent 

practicable. However, as described in 

detail above, each subsequent filing by 

Thai Shinkong contained significant 

deficiencies that caused the Department 

to reject each submission. Therefore, we 

find that, despite being provided ample 

opportunities to do so, by not 

remedying the deficiencies in its 

responses, Thai Shinkong failed to act to 

the best of its ability to provide the 

information requested by the 

Department. 

Where the Department applies 

adverse facts available because a 

respondent failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information, section 

776(b) of the Act authorizes the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from the petition, a final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. See 

also 19 CFR 351.308(c); SAA at 829–

831. Because there are no prior 

administrative reviews and no other 

information has been placed on the 

record, as adverse facts available, we are 

assigning Thai Shinkong the higher of: 

(1) The highest margin listed in the 

notice of initiation; or (2) The margin 

calculated for any respondent in this 

investigation.

For adverse facts available, we have 

selected the margin from the petition, 

since the margin derived from 

information in the petition exceed the 

margin calculated for the mandatory 

respondent. When using facts otherwise 

available, section 776(c) of the Act 

provides that, when the Department 

relies on secondary information (such as 

the petition) in using facts otherwise 

available, it must, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources that are 

reasonably at its disposal. The SAA 

clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that 

the Department will satisfy itself that 

the secondary information to be used 

has probative value. See SAA at 870. 

The Department’s regulations state that 

independent sources used to corroborate 

such evidence may include, for 

example, published price lists, official 

import statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d); 

see also SAA at 870. As discussed in the 

October 20, 2004, memorandum from 

Susan Kuhbach, Senior Office Director 

to Jeffrey May, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, ‘‘Preliminary Determination 

of Polyethylene Terephthalate (‘‘PET’’) 

Resin from Thailand: Corroboration 

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Corroboration 

Memorandum’’) regarding the 

corroboration of facts available, we find 

that the margin of 41.28 percent has 

probative value. Accordingly, we find 

that the highest margin, based on 

petition information and adjusted as 

62854 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 

described in the Corroboration 

Memorandum, of 41.28 percent is 

corroborated within the meaning of 

section 776(c) of the Act. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, all products produced by the 

respondents covered by the description 

in the Scope of Investigation section, 

above, and sold in Thailand during the 

POI, are considered to be foreign like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. We have relied on four 

criteria to match U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise to comparison-market 

sales of the foreign like product: 

Intrinsic viscosity, blend, copolymer/

homopolymer, and additives. See Model 

Match Memorandum. Where there were 

no sales of identical merchandise in the 

home market to compare to U.S. sales, 

we compared U.S. sales to the next most 

similar foreign like product on the basis 

of the characteristics listed above. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of PET 

resin from Thailand were made in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’), we compared the export price 

(‘‘EP’’) to the normal value (‘‘NV’’), as 

described in the Export Price and 

Normal Value sections of this notice. In 

accordance with section 

777A(d)(1)(A)(I) of the Act, we 

calculated weighted-average EPs. We 

compared these to weighted-average 

home market prices in Thailand. For 

Bangkok Polyester, we compared all 

U.S. and home market sales made 

during the POI, based on the date of 

issuance of Bangkok Polyester’s 

invoices. We determined this to be the 

appropriate date of sale because, based 

on the description of the sales process 

provided by Bangkok Polyester, the 

quantity, sales price, and product 

specifications were frequently 

renegotiated after the purchase order. 

Export Price 

For Bangkok Polyester’s price to the 

United States, we used EP. Section 

772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price 

at which the subject merchandise is first 

sold before the date of importation by 

the producer or exporter outside of the 

United States to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States or to an 

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 

the United States, as adjusted under 

subsection 722(c) of the Act. We 

calculated Bangkok Polyester’s EP based 

on the packed prices charged to the first 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States. These sales are properly 

classified as EP sales because they were 

made outside the United States by the 

exporter or producer to unaffiliated 

customers in the United States prior to 

the date of importation. 

In accordance with section 772(c)(2) 

of the Act, we made deductions from 

the starting price for movement 

expenses where appropriate. These 

included inland freight and brokerage 

and handling fees. In accordance with 

section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we have 

preliminarily added to the starting price 

the amount of import duties imposed by 

the Government of Thailand that were 

rebated upon export of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. We 

will verify the terms and conditions of 

this duty drawback claim for the final 

determination. 

Normal Value 

A. Selection of Comparison Markets 

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs 

that NV be based on the price at which 

the foreign like product is sold in the 

home market, provided that the 

merchandise is sold in sufficient 

quantities (or value, if quantity is 

inappropriate), that the time of the sales 

reasonably corresponds to the time of 

the sale used to determine EP, and that 

there is no particular market situation 

that prevents a proper comparison with 

the EP or CEP. The statute contemplates 

that quantities (or value) will normally 

be considered insufficient if they are 

less than five percent of the aggregate 

quantity (or value) of sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. 

We found that Bangkok Polyester had 

a viable home market for PET resin. As 

such, Bangkok Polyester submitted 

home market sales data for purposes 

calculating NV. 

In deriving NV, we made adjustments 

as detailed in the Calculation of Normal 

Value Based on Home Market Prices

section, below. 

B. Cost of Production Analysis 

Based on allegations contained in the 

petitioner’s August 10, 2004, salesbelow-cost allegation with respect to 

Bangkok Polyester (See August 10, 2004, 

letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Bangkok 

Polyester Public Company Limited Sales 

Below Cost Allegation’’), and in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) 

of the Act, we found reasonable grounds 

to believe or suspect that PET resin sales 

were made in Thailand at prices below 

the cost of production (‘‘COP’’). See

August 26, 2004, memorandum to Susan 

Kubach, Senior Office Director, 

‘‘Petitioner’s Allegation of Sales Below 

the Cost of Production for Bangkok 

Polyester Public Company Limited.’’ As 

a result, the Department has conducted 

an investigation to determine whether 

Bangkok Polyester made home market 

sales at prices below their respective 

COPs during the POI within the 

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We 

conducted the COP analysis described 

below. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated a weightedaverage COP based on the sum of the 

cost of materials and fabrication for the 

foreign like product, plus amounts for 

the home market general administrative 

(‘‘G&A’’) expenses, including interest 

expenses, and packing expenses. We 

relied on the COP data submitted by 

Bangkok Polyester in its cost 

questionnaire response, with the 

following adjustments: (1) We revised 

the financial expense ratio to include 

the net exchange gains; (2) For both the 

G&A and financial expense ratios, we 

subtracted Bangkok Polyester’s packing 

expenses from the cost of goods sold 

denominator. See ‘‘Bangkok Polyester 

Cost Calculation Memorandum,’’ from 

Gina Lee to Neal Halper, dated October 

20, 2004. 

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices 

We compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP for Bangkok Polyester to its 

home-market sales prices of the foreign 

like product, as required under section 

773(b) of the Act, to determine whether 

these sales had been made at prices 

below the COP within an extended 

period of time (i.e., a period of one year) 

in substantial quantities and whether 

such prices were sufficient to permit the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. 

On a model-specific basis, we 

compared the revised COP to the home 

market prices, less any applicable 

movement charges, and direct and 

indirect selling expenses (which were 

also deducted from COP). 

3. Results of the COP Test 

Where 20 percent or more of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the POI were at prices less than 

the COP, we determined such sales to 

have been made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities’’ within an extended period 

of time in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, 

because we compared prices to POI 

average costs, pursuant to section 

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we also 

determined that such sales were not 

made at prices that would permit 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. Therefore, we 

disregarded these home-market sales for 

Bangkok Polyester. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 62855

6The marketing process in the United States and 

home market begins with the producer and extends 

to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain 

of distribution between the two may have many or 

few links, and the respondents’ sales occur 

somewhere along this chain. In performing this 

evaluation, we considered each respondent’s 

narrative response to properly determine where in 

the chain of distribution the sale occurs.

7Selling functions associated with a particular 

chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) 

of trade in a particular market. For purposes of 

these preliminary results, we have organized the 

common selling functions into four major 

categories: sales process and marketing support, 

freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, 

and quality assurance/warranty services.

8Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV 

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 

derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV, 

where possible.

C. Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) 

as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 

different LOTs if they are made at 

different marketing stages (or their 

equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 

Substantial differences in selling 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. Id.; see also 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). In order to determine whether the 

comparison sales were at different 

stages in the marketing process than the 

U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution 

system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain 

of distribution’’),6 including selling 

functions,7 class of customer (‘‘customer 

category’’), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying levels of trade for 

EP and comparison market sales (i.e.,

NV based on either home market or 

third country prices,) 8 we consider the 

starting prices before any adjustments. 

For CEP sales, we consider only the 

selling expenses reflected in the price 

after the deduction of expenses and 

profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 

See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 

States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001).

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign 

like product in the comparison market 

at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 

CEP sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, we make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP 

sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote 

from the factory than the CEP LOT and 

we are unable to make a LOT 

adjustment, the Department shall grant 

a CEP offset, as provided in section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997). 

In conducting our LOT analysis for 

Bangkok Polyester, we examined the 

specific types of customers, the 

channels of distribution, and the 

company selling practices. Generally, if 

the reported LOTs are the same, the 

functions and activities of the seller 

should be similar. Conversely, if a party 

reports LOTs that are different for 

different categories of sales, the 

functions and activities may be 

dissimilar. 

We found the following: 

Bangkok Polyester reported that it 

sells PET resin to trading companies 

and converters (end users) in the home 

market, and to distributors in the United 

States. Bangkok Polyester claims that 

the selling function it performs are 

limited and do not materially differ 

among channels of trade or between the 

U.S. and home market. We examined 

the information reported by Bangkok 

Polyester and found that home market 

sales in both channels of distribution 

were similar with respect to sales 

process, freight services, warehouse/

inventory maintenance, advertising 

activities, technical service, and 

warranty service. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily find that Bangkok 

Polyester had only one LOT for its home 

market sales. 

Bangkok Polyester made only EP sales 

to the United States during the POI. All 

of Bangkok Polyester’s EP sales were 

made through the same channel of 

distribution (i.e., sales from the 

manufacturer to distributors). The EP 

selling activities do not differ 

significantly from the home market 

selling activities. Therefore, we find that 

the U.S. LOT is similar to the home 

market LOT and a LOT adjustment is 

not appropriate. See section 773(a)(7)(A) 

of the Act. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Home Market Prices 

We determined NV for Bangkok 

Polyester as follows. We made 

adjustments for any differences in 

packing and deducted home market 

movement expenses pursuant to 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) 

of the Act. We also adjusted home 

market prices, where appropriate, by 

adding or subtracting billing 

adjustments to home market prices. In 

addition, where applicable in 

comparison to EP transactions, we made 

adjustments for differences in 

circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We 

made COS adjustments for Bangkok 

Polyester’s EP transactions by deducting 

direct selling expenses incurred for 

home market sales (i.e., credit expense) 

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 

(i.e., credit expenses). 

Currency Conversions 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A of the Act based on exchange rates 

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sale, 

as obtained from the Federal Reserve 

Bank (the Department’s preferred source 

for exchange rates). 

Verification 

In accordance with section 782(i) of 

the Act, we intend to verify all 

information relied upon in making our 

final determination for Bangkok 

Polyester. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we are directing the U. S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to suspend liquidation of all entries of 

PET resin from Thailand, that are 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We are also instructing CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

dumping margin as indicated in the 

chart below. These instructions 

suspending liquidation will remain in 

effect until further notice.

Producer/exporter 

Weighted-average margin 

(percentage) 

Bangkok Polyester Public 

Company, Ltd ...................... 26.03 

Thai Shinkong Industry Corporation, Ltd ........................ 41.28 

All Others ................................ 26.03 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

to the 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 the 

Department’s preliminary affirmative 

determination. If the final determination 

62856 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 

1Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning a company’s corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 

which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 

Section B requests a complete listing of all home 

market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, 

of sales in the most appropriate third-country 

market (this section is not applicable to respondents 

in non-market economy cases). Section C requests 

a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests 

information on the cost of production of the foreign 

like product and the constructed value of the 

merchandise under investigation. Section E 

requests information on further manufacturing.

in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine before the later of 120 

days after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after the final 

determination whether imports of PET 

resin from Thailand are materially 

injuring, or threaten material injury to, 

the U.S. industry. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs by the later of 50 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice or one week after the issuance of 

the verification reports. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(I). Rebuttal briefs, the 

content of which is limited to the issues 

raised in the case briefs, must be filed 

within five days after the deadline for 

the submission of case briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). A list of authorities 

used, a table of contents, and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. Executive summaries 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. Further, we request 

that parties submitting briefs and 

rebuttal briefs provide the Department 

with a copy of the public version of 

such briefs on diskette. 

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. If a 

request for a hearing is made, we will 

tentatively hold the hearing two days 

after the deadline for submission of 

rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at 

a time and in a room to be determined. 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

48 hours before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 

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. 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, oral presentations will be 

limited to issues raised in the briefs. See

19 CFR 351.310(c). 

The Department will make its final 

determination no later than 135 days 

after the date of publication of this 

preliminary determination. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

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

Dated: October 20, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–24094 Filed 10–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A–533–841)

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Bottle–Grade Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 28, 2004

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel O’Brien or Saliha Loucif at (202) 

482–1376 or (202) 484–1779, 

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, 

Office 1, Import Administration, Room 

1870, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that 

bottle–grade polyethylene terephthalate 

(PET) resin from India is being sold, or 

is likely to be sold, in the United States 

at less than fair value (LTFV), as 

provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 

preliminary margin assigned to Reliance 

Industries Limited (Reliance) is based 

on adverse facts available. The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the Suspension of Liquidation

section of this notice.

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 in the 

Federal Register.

Petitioner

The petitioner in this investigation is 

the United States PET Resin Producers 

Coalition (the petitioner).

Case History

This investigation was initiated on 

April 20, 2004. See Notice of Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty Investigations: 

Bottle–Grade Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Resin from India, 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand, 69 FR 

21082 (April 20, 2004) (Initiation 

Notice). Since the initiation of the 

investigation, the following events have 

occurred:

The Department of Commerce (the 

Department) set aside a period for all 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. See 

Initiation Notice, 69 FR 21083. No 

comments were received from 

respondents or the petitioner.

The Department issued a letter on 

May 10, 2004, to interested parties in all 

of the concurrent PET resin 

antidumping investigations, providing 

an opportunity to comment on the 

Department’s proposed model match 

characteristics and its hierarchy of 

characteristics. On May 17, 2004, the 

Department received comments on 

model matching from the petitioner, 

Reliance, South Asia Petrochem Ltd. 

(SAPL), Far Eastern Textiles and P.T. 

Indorama Synthetics. The Department 

took these comments were taken into 

consideration in developing the model 

matching characteristics and hierarchy 

for all of the PET resin antidumping 

investigations. See Memorandum to 

Susan Kuhbach, Senior Director, Re: 

Selection of Model Matching Criteria for 

Purposes of the Antidumping Duty 

Questionnaire (June 9, 2004).

On May 17, 2004, the United States 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of the 

products subject to this investigation are 

materially injuring an industry in the 

United States producing the domestic 

like product. See United States 

International Trade Commission Report 

on Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin 

from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and 

Thailand, Nos. 701–TA–439–440 and 

731–TA–1077–1080 (May 17, 2004).

On June 9, 2004, the Department 

issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire (the questionnaire) to 

SAPL and Reliance, specifying that the 

responses to Section A and Sections B 

and C would be due on June 30 and July 

16, 2004, respectively.1 We received