[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62856-62861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24096]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 62857]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 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.
    \2\ See Facts Available section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 62858]]

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 Dataweb\3\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Customs Values, USITC available at http://www.theDataweb.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).

[[Page 62859]]

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-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''),\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 prices\6\) 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

[[Page 62860]]

States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
    \5\ Selling 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.
    \6\ Where 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                   Producer/Exporter                      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

[[Page 62861]]

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