Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices 6631 

such instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the 

30.69 percent all-others rate if there is 

no company-specific rate for an 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of these final results of 

administrative review, consistent with 

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rate for the reviewed company 

will be the rate listed above; (2) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, but was covered in a previous 

review or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review, a prior 

review, or the original LTFV 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be 30.69 

percent, the all-others rate established 

in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 

Mexico, 64 FR 40560 (July 27, 1999). 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notifications to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APOs) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return or destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 3, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Issues in Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Clerical Errors. 

Comment 2: Offsetting for U.S. Sales that 

Exceed Normal Value. 

Sales Issues 

Comment 3: Date of Sale. 

Comment 4: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses. 

Adjustments to Normal Value 

Comment 5: Calculation of Credit 

Expenses. 

Cost of Production 

Comment 6: Whether to Apply an 

Alternative Cost Averaging Methodology. 

Comment 7: General and Administrative 

Expense Ratio (Employee Profit Sharing). 

Comment 8: General and Administrative 

Expense Ratio (Gains on Sale of Warehouse). 

Comment 9: Financial Expenses. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2987 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–845] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Japan: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 7, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) 

from Japan. This review covers two 

producers/exporters of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. The 

period of review (POR) is July 1, 2007, 

through June 30, 2008. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

certain changes to the margin 

calculations for Hitachi Cable Ltd. 

(Hitachi Cable) and Nippon Kinzoku 

Co., Ltd. (NKKN), producers/exporters 

selected for individual review. 

Therefore, the final results for Hitachi 

Cable and NKKN differ from the 

preliminary results. The final weighted– 

average dumping margins for the 

reviewed firms are listed below in the 

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of 

Review.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4929 or (202) 482– 

4007, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This review covers two producers/ 

exporters: Hitachi Cable and NKKN. 

On August 7, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the 2007–2008 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on SSSSC from 

Japan. See Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils from Japan: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 39615 

(August 7, 2009) (Preliminary Results). 

We invited parties to comment on those 

preliminary results. 

Since the Preliminary Results, we 

conducted the cost verification of 

Hitachi Cable from September 28 

through October 2, 2009. 

On October 28, 2009, we extended the 

deadline for the final results until no 

later than February 3, 2010. See 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Japan: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for the Final Results of the 2007– 

2008 Administrative Review, 74 FR 

55539 (October 28, 2009). 

On November 18, 2009, we received 

case briefs from the domestic producers 

of the subject merchandise (i.e., AK 

Steel Corporation and Allegheny 

Technologies, Inc.) and NKKN. A 

rebuttal brief was received from Hitachi 

on November 25, 2009. 

The Department has conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of this order, the 

products covered are certain SSSSC. 

Stainless steel is an alloy steel 

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
6632 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices 

1 ‘‘Arnokrome III’’ is a trademark of the Arnold 

Engineering Company. 

2‘‘Gilphy 36’’ is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. 

3 ‘‘Durphynox 17’’ is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. 

of chromium, with or without other 

elements. The subject sheet and strip is 

a flat–rolled product in coils that is 

greater than 9.5 mm in width and less 

than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is 

annealed or otherwise heat treated and 

pickled or otherwise descaled. The 

subject sheet and strip may also be 

further processed (e.g., cold–rolled, 

polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) 

provided that it maintains the specific 

dimensions of sheet and strip following 

such processing. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTS) at subheadings: 

7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 

7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 

7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 

7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 

7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 

7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 

7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 

7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 

7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 

7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 

7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 

7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 

7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 

7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 

7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 

7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 

7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 

7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 

7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 

7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 

7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 

7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 

7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 

7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 

7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 

7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 

7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 

7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 

7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 

7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. 

Although the HTS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the Department’s written 

description of the merchandise under 

review is dispositive. 

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are the following: (1) sheet and strip that 

is not annealed or otherwise heat treated 

and pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) 

sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) 

plate (i.e., flat–rolled stainless steel 

products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or 

more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold–rolled 

sections, with a prepared edge, 

rectangular in shape, of a width of not 

more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor blade 

steel. Razor blade steel is a flat–rolled 

product of stainless steel, not further 

worked than cold–rolled (cold– 

reduced), in coils, of a width of not 

more than 23 mm and a thickness of 

0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 

12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and 

certified at the time of entry to be used 

in the manufacture of razor blades. See 

Chapter 72 of the HTS, ‘‘Additional U.S. 

Note’’’ 1(d). 

Flapper valve steel is also excluded 

from the scope of the order. This 

product is defined as stainless steel strip 

in coils containing, by weight, between 

0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 

1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and 

between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 

manganese. This steel also contains, by 

weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or 

less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 

percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or 

less. The product is manufactured by 

means of vacuum arc remelting, with 

inclusion controls for sulphide of no 

more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of 

no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 

valve steel has a tensile strength of 

between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength 

of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or 

minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of 

between 460 and 590. Flapper valve 

steel is most commonly used to produce 

specialty flapper valves in compressors. 

Also excluded is a product referred to 

as suspension foil, a specialty steel 

product used in the manufacture of 

suspension assemblies for computer 

disk drives. Suspension foil is described 

as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless 

steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 

microns, with a thickness tolerance of 

plus–or-minus 2.01 microns, and 

surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent 

Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in 

coil widths of not more than 407 mm, 

and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll 

marks may only be visible on one side, 

with no scratches of measurable depth. 

The material must exhibit residual 

stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, 

and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm 

length. 

Certain stainless steel foil for 

automotive catalytic converters is also 

excluded from the scope of this order. 

This stainless steel strip in coils is a 

specialty foil with a thickness of 

between 20 and 110 microns used to 

produce a metallic substrate with a 

honeycomb structure for use in 

automotive catalytic converters. The 

steel contains, by weight, carbon of no 

more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no 

more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no 

more than 1.0 percent, chromium of 

between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum 

of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus 

of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of 

no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum 

of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 

percent, and total rare earth elements of 

more than 0.06 percent, with the 

balance iron. 

Permanent magnet iron–chromiumcobalt alloy stainless strip is also 

excluded from the scope of this order. 

This ductile stainless steel strip 

contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent 

chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, 

with the remainder of iron, in widths 

228.6 mm or less, and a thickness 

between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits 

magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 

12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of 

between 50 and 300 oersteds. This 

product is most commonly used in 

electronic sensors and is currently 

available under proprietary trade names 

such as ‘‘Arnokrome III.’’1

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel 

is also excluded from the scope of this 

order. This product is defined as a non– 

magnetic stainless steel manufactured to 

American Society of Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) specification B344 

and containing, by weight, 36 percent 

nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 

percent iron, and is most notable for its 

resistance to high temperature 

corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 

degrees Celsius and displays a creep 

rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square 

millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This 

steel is most commonly used in the 

production of heating ribbons for circuit 

breakers and industrial furnaces, and in 

rheostats for railway locomotives. The 

product is currently available under 

proprietary trade names such as ‘‘Gilphy 

36.’’2

Certain martensitic precipitation– 

hardenable stainless steel is also 

excluded from the scope of this order. 

This high–strength, ductile stainless 

steel product is designated under the 

Unified Numbering System (UNS) as 

S45500–grade steel, and contains, by 

weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 

7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, 

manganese, silicon and molybdenum 

each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent 

or less, with phosphorus and sulfur 

each comprising, by weight, 0.03 

percent or less. This steel has copper, 

niobium, and titanium added to achieve 

aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as 

high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile 

strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after 

aging, with elongation percentages of 3 

percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 

provided in thicknesses between 0.635 

and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 

mm. This product is most commonly 

used in the manufacture of television 

tubes and is currently available under 

proprietary trade names such as 

‘‘Durphynox 17.’’3


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices 6633 

4This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 

descriptive purposes only. 

5 ‘‘GIN4 Mo,’’ ‘‘GIN5’’ and ‘‘GIN6’’ are the 

proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. 

Finally, three specialty stainless steels 

typically used in certain industrial 

blades and surgical and medical 

instruments are also excluded from the 

scope of this order. These include 

stainless steel strip in coils used in the 

production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 

carpet knives).4 This steel is similar to 

AISI grade 420 but containing, by 

weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of 

molybdenum. The steel also contains, 

by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 

1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or 

less, and includes between 0.20 and 

0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 

and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is 

sold under proprietary names such as 

‘‘GIN4 Mo.’’ The second excluded 

stainless steel strip in coils is similar to 

AISI 420–J2 and contains, by weight, 

carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 

percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 

0.50 percent, manganese of between 

0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no 

more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of 

no more than 0.020 percent. This steel 

has a carbide density on average of 100 

carbide particles per 100 square 

microns. An example of this product is 

‘‘GIN5’’ steel. The third specialty steel 

has a chemical composition similar to 

AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 

and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of 

between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but 

lower manganese of between 0.20 and 

0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more 

than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 

0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 

more than 0.020 percent. This product 

is supplied with a hardness of more 

than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer 

processing, and is supplied as, for 

example, ‘‘GIN6.’’5

Period of Review 

The POR is July 1, 2007, through June 

30, 2008. 

Cost of Production 

As discussed in the Preliminary 

Results, we conducted sales–below-cost 

investigations to determine whether 

Hitachi and NKKN made home market 

sales of the foreign like product during 

the POR at prices below their costs of 

production (COP) within the meaning of 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See 

Preliminary Results, 74 FR at 39620. For 

both respondents, we performed the 

cost test for these final results following 

the same methodology as in the 

Preliminary Results. 

We found 20 percent or more of each 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the reporting period were at 

prices less than the weighted–average 

COP for this period. Thus, we 

determined that these below–cost sales 

were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ 

within an extended period of time and 

at prices which did not permit the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time in the normal course of 

trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of 

the Act. 

Therefore, for purposes of these final 

results, we find that Hitachi and NKKN 

made below–cost sales which were not 

in the ordinary course of trade. 

Consequently, we disregarded these 

sales for each respondent and used the 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining normal value pursuant to 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs by 

parties to this administrative review, 

and to which we have responded, are 

listed in the Appendix to this notice and 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (the Decision Memo), 

which is adopted by this notice. Parties 

can find a complete discussion of all 

issues raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit, HCHB Room 

1117, of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ 

. The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

certain changes in the margin 

calculations for Hitachi and NKKN. 

These changes are discussed in the 

relevant sections of the Decision Memo. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that weighted–average 

dumping margins exist for the 

respondents for the period July 1, 2007, 

through June 30, 2008, as follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Hitachi Cable Ltd. ......... 0.00 

Nippon Kinzoku Company, Ltd. .................. 0.54 

Assessment 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. 

In those instances where Hitachi and 

NKKN reported the entered value of 

their U.S. sales, we have calculated 

importer–specific ad valorem duty 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of the examined 

sales for that importer. In those 

instances where NKKN did not report 

the entered value of its U.S. sales, we 

have calculated importer–specific per– 

unit duty assessment rates by 

aggregating the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales and dividing this 

amount by the total quantity of those 

sales. To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have 

calculated importer–specific ad valorem 

ratios based on the estimated entered 

value. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer–specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis (i.e., at or 

above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of these final results of 

review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all– 

others rate established in the less–thanfair–value (LTFV) investigation if there 

is no rate for the intermediary involved 

in the transaction. See Assessment 

Policy Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
6634 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices 

this administrative review, as provided 

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

cash deposit rates for each specific 

company listed above will be the rates 

shown above, except if the rate is less 

than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de 

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; 2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent 

period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review, a prior review, 

or the original LTFV investigation, but 

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established for the 

most recent period for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and 4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will be 40.18 percent, the 

all–others rate established in the LTFV 

investigation. These requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility, 

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

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results of review in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: February 3, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix Issues in Decision Memo 

Hitachi 

Comment 1: Bona Fides of Hitachi 

Cable’s U.S. Sale 

NKKN 

Comment 2: Sample Sales in the U.S. 

Database 

Comment 3: SAS Programming Errors 

[FR Doc. 2010–2985 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–825] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from India: Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 31, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

issued the preliminary results of 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, 

and strip (PET film) from India for the 

period January 1, 2007 through 

December 31, 2007. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from India: Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 39631 (August 7, 2009) 

(Preliminary Results). Based on the 

results of our analysis of the comments 

received, the Department has made 

certain revisions to the subsidy rates for 

the respondent, Jindal Poly Films 

Limited of India (Jindal), formerly 

named Jindal Polyester Limited (Jindal). 

The final subsidy rate for the reviewed 

company is listed below in the section 

entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 10, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi 

Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0197. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Since the issuance of the Preliminary 

Results, the following events have 

occurred. The Department issued its 

third supplemental questionnaire to the 

Government of India (GOI) and to Jindal 

on August 6, 2009. The GOI and Jindal 

filed their responses on September 3, 

2009, and on September 2, 2009, 

respectively. The Department set an 

initial briefing schedule on September 

3, 2003, and revised it on September 8, 

2009. Jindal filed a case brief on 

December 22, 2009, and the petitioners, 

Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi 

Polyester Film of America, and Toray 

Plastics (America), Inc., filed a rebuttal 

brief on January 4, 2010. 

The Department issued its Post– 

Preliminary Determination on 

Invalidated Licenses under the Advance 

License Program (ALP) on December 23, 

2009. See Memorandum To Ronald K. 

Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, from Barbara 

E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip 

(PET film) from India: 2007 

Administrative Review of the 

Countervailing duty Order; Post– 

Preliminary Determination (December 

23, 2009) (Post–Preliminary 

Determination Memorandum). Although 

the Department invited interested 

parties to comment, no comments were 

filed on the Post–Preliminary 

Determination Memorandum. 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of the order, the 

products covered are all gauges of raw, 

pretreated, or primed Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip, 

whether extruded or coextruded. 

Excluded are metallized films and other 

finished films that have had at least one 

of their surfaces modified by the 

application of a performance–enhancing 

resinous or inorganic layer of more than 

0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET 

film are classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item number 

3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case brief and 

rebuttal brief by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum 

in the Final Results of the 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from 

India, from John M. Anderson, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary to Ronald K. 

Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration (February 3, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES