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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 62857

2See Facts Available section of this notice.

responses to Sections A–C of the 

questionnaire and issued supplementary 

questionnaires where appropriate.2 On 

July 29, 2004, the petitioner requested 

that the Department revise the estimated 

antidumping duty margin used for 

purposes of initiation in this proceeding 

from 35.51 to 52.54 percent. 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 11, 2004, the petitioner 

alleged that sales made by SAPL in 

India were below the cost of production 

(COP). On September 1, 2004, pursuant 

to section 773(b) of the Act, the 

Department initiated a cost investigation 

for SAPL’s Indian sales of PET Resin.

See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, 

Senior Office Director, Re: Investigation 

of Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin 

from India: Petitioner’s Allegation of 

Sales Below the Cost of Production for 

South Asia Petrochem Ltd (September 1, 

2004). On August 19, 2004, the 

petitioner alleged that sales made by 

Reliance in India were below the COP. 

On September 3, 2004, pursuant to 

section 773(b) of the Act, the 

Department initiated a cost investigation 

for Reliance’s Indian sales of PET Resin. 

See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, 

Senior Office Director, Re: Investigation 

of Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin 

from India: Petitioner’s Allegation of 

Sales Below the Cost of Production for 

Reliance Industries Ltd (September 3, 

2004). On September 24, 2004, Reliance 

withdrew from this proceeding and did 

not submit a response to Section D of 

the questionnaire.

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 four–

month period until not more than six 

months.

On October 8, 2004, we received a 

request to postpone the final 

determination from SAPL. In its request, 

SAPL 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.

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. Where it is not practicable 

to examine all known producer/

exporters of subject merchandise, 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the 

Department to investigate either: 1) a 

sample of exporters, producers, or types 

of products that is statistically valid, 

based on the information available at 

the time of selection; or 2) exporters and 

producers accounting for the largest 

volume of the subject merchandise that 

can reasonably be examined.

In its petition, the petitioner 

identified five producers of PET resin in 

India. See Petition from the petitioner 

for the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of PET 

resin from India (March 24, 2004) (the 

petition). Additionally, on May 28, 

2004, the Embassy of India in 

Washington, D.C., provided the 

Department with a list of eight Indian 

producers and four Indian exporters of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States. Based on the imported quantities 

reported by U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), we are satisfied that 

the record supports the conclusion that 

SAPL and Reliance are the largest 

Indian producers that exported the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the period of investigation 

(POI). See Memorandum from Shane 

Subler, Trade Analyst to the File, Re: 

Customs and Border Protection 

Statistics Considered for Purpose of 

Respondent Selection (May 25, 2004); 

See, also, Memorandum from Constance 

Handley, Program Manager to Susan 

Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, Re: 

Selection of Respondents (May 12, 

2004).

Period of Investigation

The 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, 

and is in accordance with our 

regulations. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

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 post–

industrial 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 investigations. 

Fiber–grade 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 these 

investigations. 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, 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 Initiation Notice; 

See, also, Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). We did 

not receive any scope comments from 

interested parties within the comment 

period.

62858 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 

3Customs Values, USITC available at http://

www.theDataweb.org.

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 inferences 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). 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, 

‘‘affirmative 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).

Reliance withdrew from this 

proceeding on September 24, 2004. See 

Letter from Reliance to the Department, 

Re: Reliance Industries Limited’s Notice 

of Withdrawal from the Investigation 

and Request for Destruction of Business 

Proprietary Information (September 22, 

2004) and requested the destruction of 

its business proprietary information. 

Consequently, Reliance failed to submit 

a response to the Section D 

questionnaire. We find that the 

application of adverse facts available is 

appropriate because Reliance withdrew 

from this investigation and failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability.

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

19 CFR 351.308(c); SAA at 829–831.

Here, the Department is relying on 

information provided in the petition 

and revised customs value data 

submitted by the petitioner on July 29, 

2004, for purposes of applying adverse 

facts available. At the time of the 

initiation, the Department reviewed all 

the data used by the petitioner to 

calculate the estimated dumping 

margin. We found that the margin in the 

petition was appropriately calculated 

and supported by adequate evidence in 

accordance with the statutory 

requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Notice.

However, on July 29, 2004, the 

petitioner submitted revised statistics 

and requested that the Department 

amend the estimated antidumping duty 

margin for India in this proceeding from 

35.51 to 52.54 percent. See Letter from 

the petitioner to the Department, Re: 

Request to Revise and Correct the 

Estimated Dumping Margin for India by 

Amendment (July 29, 2004) (July 29, 

2004, submission). In that submission, 

the petitioner demonstrated that the 

2003 USITC Dataweb3 information, 

which was used to calculate the average 

unit values (AUVs) contained in the 

petition, contained erroneous customs 

value for imports of the subject 

merchandise into the United States from 

India. In a letter dated June 16, 2004, 

which the petitioner appended to its 

July 29, 2004, submission, the Foreign 

Trade Division Economics and Statistics 

Administration of the Department’s U.S. 

Census provided corrected statistics for 

the month of October 2003. The revised 

statistics show that the CBP value for 

Indian PET resin under the HTSUS 

3907.60.0010 for the month of October 

2003 was overstated by $3,600,000.

The petitioner revised the AUV 

worksheet from the petition to 

incorporate the revised statistics, 

demonstrating that a correction of the 

customs value data reduces the average 

U.S. customs value for 2003 from $0.41 

to $0.3646 per pound. This revision 

raises the estimated dumping margin 

from 35.51 to 52.54 percent. Based on 

our review of the revised statistics, we 

preliminary determine that it is more 

appropriate to use the updated statistics 

in determining the adverse facts 

available rate. See Corroboration 

Memorandum.

When using facts otherwise available, 

section 776(c) of the Act provides that, 

when the Department relies on 

secondary information (such as the 

petition), the Department 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 Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach, 

Senior Office Director to Jeffrey May, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Re: 

Corroboration of Data Contained in the 

Petition for Assigning Facts Available 

Rate (October 20, 2004) (Corroboration 

Memorandum), we found that the 

margin of 52.54 percent has probative 

value. Accordingly, we find that the 

highest margin, based on the petition 

information and adjusted as described 

in the Corroboration Memorandum, of 

52.24 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 

respondent covered by the description 

in the Scope of Investigation section, 

above, and sold in India 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. 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.

Date of Sale

In its questionnaire responses, SAPL 

reported home market and U.S. sales 

using invoice date as the date of sale. 

SAPL reported that the date of invoice 

is the date of the sale as that is the point 

in time when all material terms are 

final. Based on the description of the 

sales process provided by SAPL, we 

have used invoice date as the date of 

sale for all sales. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 62859

4The 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 respondent’s sales occur 

somewhere along this chain. In performing this 

evaluation, we considered the respondent’s 

narrative response to properly determine where in 

the chain of distribution the sale occurs.

5Selling 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 determination, 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.

6Where 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.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of PET 

resin from India were made in the 

United States at 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 India.

Export Price

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 found that SAPL made EP sales 

during the POI. 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, and use of 

constructed export price is not 

otherwise indicated. We calculated 

SAPL’s EP, based on the packed prices 

charged to the first unaffiliated 

customer in the United States. See SAPL 

response to section B of the 

questionnaire (July 30, 2004).

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, insurance 

expenses, international freight, and 

brokerage and handling fees.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

Section 772(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 

EP. 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 SAPL had a viable 

home market for PET resin. As such, 

SAPL submitted home market sales data 

for purposes of 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 sales–below-cost allegation 

on behalf of SAPL, 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 by SAPL 

were made in India at prices below the 

cost of production (COP). See Letter 

from the petitioner, Re: South Asia 

Petrochem Limited Sales Below Cost 

Allegation (August 11, 2004); See, also, 

Memorandum from Daniel O’Brien, 

Trade Analyst to Susan Kubach, Senior 

Office Director, Re: Petitioner’s 

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for SAPL (September 1, 

2004). As a result, the Department has 

conducted an investigation to determine 

whether SAPL 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 weighted–

average 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 

SAPL in its cost questionnaire response. 

See SAPL response to section D of the 

questionnaire (September 28, 2004).

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

We compared the weighted–average 

COP for SAPL 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 COP to the home market 

prices, less any applicable movement 

charges, discounts, rebates, 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 home–market sales for 

SAPL.

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–toLength 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’’),4 including selling 

functions,5 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 prices6) 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 

62860 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 

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 an LOT trade 

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 

SAPL, we examined the specific types 

of customers, the channels of 

distribution, and the selling practices of 

the respondent. 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.

Here, SAPL reported that it sells to 

distributors and end users in the home 

market, and to trading companies in the 

United States. SAPL reported a single 

LOT in the home market and has not 

requested an LOT adjustment. We 

examined the information reported by 

SAPL and found that home market sales 

to both customer categories were similar 

with respect to sales process, freight 

services, warehouse/inventory 

maintenance, advertising activities, 

technical service, and warranty service. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily find that 

SAPL had only one LOT for its home 

market sales.

SAPL made only EP sales to the 

United States during the POI. All of 

SAPL’s EP sales were made through the 

same channel of distribution (i.e., sales 

from the manufacturer to trading 

companies). 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 an LOT 

adjustment is not necessary. See section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Home Market Prices

In determining NV for SAPL, 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. 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 SAPL’s 

EP transactions by deducting direct 

selling expenses incurred for home 

market sales (credit expenses, warranty 

expenses, and commissions) and adding 

U.S. direct selling expenses (credit 

expenses, interest expenses, bank fees, 

and commissions).

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 SAPL.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we are directing CBP to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of PET 

resin from India, 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 the CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond. Consistent with the Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 35293 

(June 24, 2004), we are instructing the 

CBP to require a cash deposit or posting 

of a bond equal to the amount by which 

the normal value exceeds the EP, as 

indicated below, less the amount of the 

countervailing duty determined to 

constitute an export subsidy in the 

companion countervailing duty 

investigation, (i.e., 19.11 percent for 

SAPL and 29.00 percent for Reliance). 

Because the ‘‘All Others’’ rate is based 

on SAPL’s rate, we have reduced it by 

the amount of SAPL’s export subsidies. 

After this adjustment, the resulting 

deposit rates will be 2.12 percent for 

SAPL, 23.24 percent for Reliance, and 

2.12 percent for ‘‘All Others.’’ These 

instructions suspending liquidation will 

remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted–average dumping 

margins are provided below:

Producer/Exporter 

Weighted–

Average Margin (Percentage) 

SAPL ....................................... 21.23

Reliance .................................. 52.54

All Others ................................ 21.23

Disclosure

The Department will disclose its 

calculations 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 

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 India 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 on 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.

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 62861

1Section 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.

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). 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.

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. 04–24096 Filed 10–27–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–560–817] 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: BottleGrade Polyethylene Terephthalate 

(PET) Resin From Indonesia

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that bottle-grade polyethylene 

terephthalate (‘‘PET’’) resin from 

Indonesia is being, or is likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value, as provided in section 733(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. If this investigation 

proceeds normally, we will make our 

final determination within 75 days of 

this preliminary determination.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 28, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew McAllister or Scott Holland, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1174 or 

(202) 482–1279, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Since the initiation of this 

investigation (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’’)), the following events have 

occurred: 

On May 10, 2004, we solicited 

comments from interested parties 

regarding the criteria to be used for 

model-matching purposes. We received 

comments on our proposed matching 

criteria from the United States PET 

Resin Producers Coalition (‘‘the 

petitioner’’) and P.T. Indorama 

Synthetics Tbk (‘‘Indorama’’) on May 

17, and May 20, 2004, respectively. 

On May 24, 2004, we asked the 

petitioner for clarification of its modelmatching comments and its response 

was provided to the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) on May 

26, 2004. On June 9, 2004, the 

Department adopted the model match 

criteria and hierarchy for this 

proceeding. See Memorandum to Susan 

Kuhbach, ‘‘Selection of Model Matching 

Criteria for Purposes of the 

Antidumping Duty Questionnaire,’’

dated June 9, 2004, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in 

room B–099 of the main Department 

building. On May 19, 2004, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’) preliminarily determined that 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of PET resin from Indonesia are 

materially injuring the United States 

PET resin industry (see ITC 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–439–440 and 

731–TA–1077–1080 (Preliminary) 69 FR 

28948 (May 19, 2004)). 

On June 4, 2004, we selected the three 

largest producers/exporters of PET resin 

from Indonesia (Indorama, P.T. Polypet 

Karyapersada (‘‘Polypet’’), and P.T. SK 

Keris (‘‘SK Keris’’)) as the mandatory 

respondents in this proceeding. For 

further discussion, see Memorandum to 

Susan Kuhbach, ‘‘Issuance of 

Questionnaire to Respondents,’’ dated 

June 4, 2004 (‘‘Respondent Selection 

Memorandum’’), which is on file in the 

Department’s CRU. We subsequently 

issued the antidumping questionnaire to 

Indorama, Polypet, and SK Keris on 

June 9, 2004.1

On June 25, 2004, the Department 

received a response from Polypet to 

section A of the Department’s original 

questionnaire. On July 14, 2004, the 

Department rejected Polypet’s section A 

response because it was improperly 

filed. See letter from Judith Wey 

Rudman to Polypet, dated July 14, 2004. 

Specifically, its submission lacked 

certain markings and specifications 

required by the Department to ensure 

proper filing. Furthermore, the 

submission was neither properly 

bracketed nor marked as either a public 

or proprietary version. The Department 

also noted that Polypet did not include 

the correct number of copies of the 

public and proprietary versions of the 

submission, and that the required 

certificates of service and accuracy were 

not correctly filed with its submission. 

Additionally, the submission was not 

served on the other interested parties in 

this proceeding. 

The Department received the revised 

section A and original sections B and C 

of the response on July 21, 2004, but 

again rejected the submission due to 

deficiencies in the treatment of business 

proprietary information. See letter from 

Judith Wey Rudman to Polypet, dated 

July 29, 2004. First, we noted that the 

responses continued to be improperly 

bracketed under 19 CFR 351.304(b)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations. Second, a 

‘‘clear and compelling’’ explanation for 

Polypet’s request to exempt certain 

information from disclosure under an 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

was not provided in its cover letter, as 

required by 19 CFR 351.304(b)(2)(i). 

Third, the responses did not contain a 

summary of bracketed information in 

the public version of Polypet’s response, 

as required by 19 CFR 351.304(c)(1). 

Finally, Polypet did not provide the 

Department with a copy of the business 

proprietary version served on parties 

with APO access. 

The Department received the revised 

sections A–C response from Polypet on 

August 5, 2004. On August 11, 2004, we 

called Polypet to explain that the 

August 5, 2004, submission failed to 

incorporate the instructions set forth in 

the Department’s July 29, 2004, letter. 

See Memo to the File, ‘‘Telephone 

Conversation with Polypet,’’ dated 

August 11, 2004. On August 12, 2004, 

the Department rejected as improperly 

filed Polypet’s August 5, 2004, sections 

A–C submission. See letter from Julie H. 

Santoboni to Polypet, dated August 12,