81570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Notices 

Period to be 

reviewed 

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Polyethylene Terephthalate (Pet) Film A–520–803 JBF RAK LLC .............................................. 11/1/09–10/31/10 

3 If the above-named company does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC 

entity of which the named exporters are a part. 4 If one of the above-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 

from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the 

named exporters are a part. 5 If one of the above-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of diamond sawblades and parts thereof from 

the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named 

exporters are a part. 6 If one of the above-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of fresh garlic from the PRC who have not 

qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are a part. 7 If one of the above-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 

strip from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which 

the named exporters are a part. 8 If the above-named company does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of pure magnesium in granular form from the PRC who 

have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are 

a part. 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings 

None. 

Suspension Agreements 

None. 

During any administrative review 

covering all or part of a period falling 

between the first and second or third 

and fourth anniversary of the 

publication of an antidumping duty 

order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a 

determination under 19 CFR 

351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or 

suspended investigation (after sunset 

review), the Secretary, if requested by a 

domestic interested party within 30 

days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the review, will 

determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. 

United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 

2002), as appropriate, whether 

antidumping duties have been absorbed 

by an exporter or producer subject to the 

review if the subject merchandise is 

sold in the United States through an 

importer that is affiliated with such 

exporter or producer. The request must 

include the name(s) of the exporter or 

producer for which the inquiry is 

requested. 

For the first administrative review of 

any order, there will be no assessment 

of antidumping or countervailing duties 

on entries of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption during the relevant 

provisional-measures ‘‘gap’’ period, of 

the order, if such a gap period is 

applicable to the POR. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 

January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 

22, 2008). Those procedures apply to 

administrative reviews included in this 

notice of initiation. Parties wishing to 

participate in any of these 

administrative reviews should ensure 

that they meet the requirements of these 

procedures (e.g., the filing of separate 

letters of appearance as discussed in 19 

CFR 351.101(d)). 

These initiations and this notice are 

in accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: December 21, 2010. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32683 Filed 12–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–824] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From India: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting a 

semiannual new shipper review (NSR) 

under the antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, 

and strip (PET film) from India in 

response to a request from SRF Limited 

(SRF). The domestic interested parties 

for this proceeding are DuPont Teijin 

Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., 

SKC, Inc. and Toray Plastics (America), 

Inc. (petitioners). 

We preliminarily determine that the 

U.S. sale of subject merchandise 

produced and exported by SRF was 

bona fide and not sold below normal 

value (NV). If these preliminary results 

are adopted in our final results, the 

Department intends to instruct United 

States Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to liquidate entries subject to this 

review without regard to antidumping 

duties. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See the ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ 

section of this notice. The final results 

will be issued 90 days after the date of 

signature of these preliminary results, 

unless extended. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 28, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi 

Blum or Toni Page, 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 or (202) 482– 

1398, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published the 

antidumping duty order on PET film 

from India on July 1, 2002. See Notice 

of Amended Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from India, 67 FR 

44175 (July 1, 2002). On December 24, 

2009, the Department received a timely 

request from SRF, in accordance with 

section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 

351.214(c)(2), to conduct a semiannual 

new shipper review under the 

antidumping duty order on PET film 

from India. The Department found the 

request for review met all of the 

requirements for initiation set forth in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Notices 81571 

1As stated in the initiation notice, due to the 

closure of the Federal Government in Washington 

D.C. between February 5 and February 12, 2010, the 

Department tolled its deadlines during that period, 

thereby extending all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding by seven days. Therefore, the 

deadline for the initiation of this new shipper 

review was extended by one week, to March 8, 

2010. See NSR Initiation, 75 FR at 10758. 

19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated the 

review on March 2, 2010. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip from India: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty and Countervailing 

Duty New Shipper Reviews, 75 FR 10758 

(March 9, 2010) (NSR Initiation).1

On April 6, 2010, the Department 

issued the initial questionnaire to SRF. 

On May 11, 2010, SRF submitted its 

section A response. On May 13, 2010, 

SRF submitted its responses to sections 

B and C of the questionnaire. On June 

16, August 17, and September 15, 2010, 

the Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to SRF and to its U.S. 

customer. SRF and its U.S. customer 

(through SRF) submitted responses to 

the questionnaires on July 14, August 

30, and November 19, 2010, 

respectively. 

On August 18, 2010, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results to October 22, 2010. 

See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet and Strip from India: Extension of 

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

75 FR 52717 (August 27, 2010). On 

October 18, 2010, the Department 

decided to further extend the deadline 

for the preliminary results to December 

16, 2010, and then on December 16, 

2010, the Department again extended 

the deadline to December 21, 2010. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip from India: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

75 FR 65450 (October 25, 2010); 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip from India: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

(signed on Thursday, December 16, 

2010, and not yet published prior to the 

signing of the instant notice). 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the 

antidumping duty order are all gauges of 

raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, 

whether extruded or coextruded. 

Excluded are metallized films and other 

finished films that have had at least one 

of their surfaces modified by the 

application of a performance-enhancing 

resinous or inorganic layer of more than 

0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET 

film are currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) under item 

number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description of the scope of the 

antidumping duty order is dispositive. 

Bona Fides Analysis 

Consistent with Department practice, 

we examined the bona fides of the new 

shipper sale at issue. In evaluating 

whether a sale in a NSR is commercially 

reasonable, and therefore bona fide, the 

Department considers, inter alia, such 

factors as: (1) The timing of the sale; (2) 

the price and quantity; (3) the expenses 

arising from the transaction; (4) whether 

the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) 

whether the transaction was made on an 

arm’s-length basis. See Tianjin 

Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 

1250 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (TTPC). 

Accordingly, the Department considers 

a number of factors in its bona fides 

analysis, ‘‘all of which may speak to the 

commercial realities surrounding an 

alleged sale of subject merchandise.’’ 

See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid 

Co., Ltd. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 

2d 1333, 1342 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) 

(New Donghua) (citing Fresh Garlic 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review and Rescission 

of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283 

(March 13, 2002), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum (New 

Shipper Review of Clipper 

Manufacturing Ltd.)). In TTPC, the court 

also affirmed the Department’s decision 

that ‘‘any factor which indicates that the 

sale under consideration is not likely to 

be typical of those which the producer 

will make in the future is relevant,’’ 

(TTPC, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1250), and 

found that ‘‘the weight given to each 

factor investigated will depend on the 

circumstances surrounding the sale.’’ 

TTPC, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1263. Finally, 

in New Donghua, the Court of 

International Trade affirmed the 

Department’s practice of evaluating the 

circumstances surrounding a NSR sale, 

so that a respondent does not unfairly 

benefit from an atypical sale and obtain 

a lower dumping margin than the 

producer’s usual commercial practice 

would dictate. 

Based on the totality of 

circumstances, we preliminarily find 

that the sale made by SRF during the 

POR was a bona fide commercial 

transaction. The facts that led us to this 

preliminary conclusion include the 

following: (1) Neither the price nor 

quantity of the sale were outside normal 

bounds; (2) neither SRF nor its customer 

incurred any extraordinary expenses 

arising from this transaction; (3) the sale 

was made between unaffiliated parties 

at arm’s length; and (4) the timing of the 

sale does not indicate that the sale was 

not bona fide. Since much of the factual 

information used in our analysis of the 

bona fides of the transaction involves 

business proprietary information, a full 

discussion of the bases for our decision 

is set forth in the Memorandum to 

Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, 

from Toni Page, International Trade 

Analyst, regarding Bona Fide Nature of 

the Sale in the Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review of Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from India: SRF Limited (Bona Fides 

Memorandum), dated concurrently with 

this notice and on file in the Central 

Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the 

main Department of Commerce 

building. We will continue to examine 

the bona fides of SRF’s sale after the 

preliminary results. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) for this 

NSR is July 1, 2009, through December 

31, 2009. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether SRF’s sale of 

subject merchandise from India was 

made in the United States at less than 

NV, we compared the export price (EP) 

to the NV, as described in the ‘‘U.S. 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ section of 

this notice in accordance with section 

777A(d)(2) of the Act. 

Home Market Viability 

In order to determine whether there is 

a sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product is five percent or 

more of the aggregate volume of U.S. 

sales), we compared the volume of 

SRF’s home market sales of the foreign 

like product to the volume of its U.S. 

sales of subject merchandise, in 

accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Based on 

this comparison, we determined that 

SRF’s home market was viable during 

the POR. 

Product Comparisons 

Pursuant to section 771(16)(A) of the 

Act, for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to the 

U.S. sales, the Department considers all 

products, as described in the ‘‘Scope of 

the Order’’ section of this notice above, 

that were sold in the comparison market 

in the ordinary course of trade. In 

accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
81572 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Notices 

(C) of the Act, where there are no sales 

of identical merchandise in the 

comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade, we compare 

U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 

foreign like product based on the 

characteristics listed in sections B and 

C of our antidumping questionnaire: 

Grade, specifications, thickness, 

dimensions, and surface treatment. We 

found that SRF had sales of foreign like 

product that were identical in these 

respects to the merchandise sold in the 

United States, and therefore compared 

the U.S. product with the identical 

merchandise sold in the comparison 

market based on the characteristics 

listed above, in that order of priority. 

Date of Sale 

Regarding date of sale, 19 CFR 

351.401(i) states that the Department 

will normally use the date of invoice as 

the date of sale, unless a different date 

better reflects the date on which the 

material terms of sale are established. In 

its initial response, SRF reported 

invoice date as the date of sale for its 

home market sales and for its U.S. sale. 

Moreover, SRF reported that for both 

markets, it issues the invoice on the 

same date as it ships the merchandise. 

In its second supplemental 

questionnaire response, SRF stated that 

sometimes negotiations can continue 

after the invoice has been issued (and 

the goods have been shipped) for certain 

home market sales. See SRF’s November 

19, 2010, second supplemental 

questionnaire response at 9. In these 

circumstances, SRF does not issue a 

new invoice, rather it adjusts the 

invoice price by issuing a credit note. 

See Id. We have analyzed the data on 

the record and preliminarily determine 

that the reported invoice dates are the 

appropriate dates of sale for the U.S. 

and home market sales under review. 

U.S. Price 

We used EP methodology for SRF’s 

U.S. sale, in accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act, because the subject 

merchandise was sold directly to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation, and 

constructed export price methodology 

was not otherwise warranted based on 

the facts of record. In accordance with 

sections 772(a) and (c) of the Act, we 

calculated EP using the delivered duty 

paid price SRF charged its unaffiliated 

customer. We made deductions, where 

applicable, for movement expenses, 

including, domestic inland freight, U.S. 

inland freight, domestic brokerage and 

handling, U.S. brokerage and handling, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

and U.S. Customs duties. 

Information about the specific 

adjustments and our analysis of the 

adjustments is business proprietary, and 

is detailed in the ‘‘Adjustments’’ section 

in the Memorandum to Thomas 

Gilgunn, Program Manager, from Toni 

Page, International Trade Analyst, 

Analysis Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review of 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from India: SRF Limited, 

dated concurrently with this notice 

(Preliminary Analysis Memorandum). 

Normal Value 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based 

NV on the price at which the foreign 

like product was first sold for 

consumption in the comparison market, 

in the usual commercial quantities, in 

the ordinary course of trade, and, to the 

extent practicable, at the same level of 

trade (LOT) as the EP sale. See ‘‘Level 

of Trade’’ section below. 

Level of Trade 

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

the Act, to the extent practicable, NV is 

normally the price in the home market 

that is at the same level of trade (LOT) 

as the EP. The NV LOT is that of the 

starting-price sale in the comparison 

market, or when NV is based on CV, that 

of the sales from which we derive 

selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP, the 

U.S. LOT is the level of the startingprice sale, which is usually from 

exporter to unaffiliated customer. To 

determine whether NV sales are at a 

different LOT than EP sales, we examine 

stages in the selling functions along the 

chain of distribution between the 

producer and unaffiliated customer. If 

the comparison market sales are at a 

different LOT, and the difference affects 

the price comparability, as manifested 

in a pattern of consistent price 

differences between sales at different 

levels of trade in the country in which 

NV is determined, we make an LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act and under section 351.410(c) of 

the Department’s regulations. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from South 

Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 

1997). 

For the U.S. market, SRF reported 

only one channel of distribution (from 

SRF to unaffiliated U.S. trader) for its EP 

sale while, in the home market, SRF 

reported four channels (the four 

channels are: SRF to end user, SRF to 

dealer, SRF to dealer attached customer, 

and SRF to warehouse to dealer/dealerattached customer). See section A 

questionnaire response at Exhibit A–5. 

SRF provided information about selling 

functions it performed in its home 

market for all three of its customer 

categories (end users, dealers, and 

dealer-attached customers) across the 

four channels of distribution. SRF 

reported that certain selling functions 

were not performed for all three home 

market customer categories. For its 

home market sales, SRF reported that its 

channel of distribution to dealers and 

dealer-attached customers were most 

similar to the channel of distribution to 

its U.S. sale. See section C questionnaire 

response at C–11 and SRF’s Second 

Supplemental Questionnaire Response 

at 9. 

After analyzing the information on the 

record with respect to these selling 

functions, we preliminarily find that 

there were sufficient differences in the 

selling functions performed for the 

different channels of trade to conclude 

that there is more than one level of trade 

in the home market. We examined the 

information reported by SRF with 

respect to its selling functions, freight 

functions, technical services/warranty 

functions, and inventory management 

functions. We examined the selling 

functions and the level of intensity at 

which SRF performs those selling 

functions in the home market channels 

of distribution, as described in the 

company’s questionnaire responses. See 

section A questionnaire response at A– 

20 and Exhibit A–5; see also SRF’s 

November 19, 2010, second 

supplemental questionnaire response at 

8–9. Information about the specific 

selling functions we examined, the 

intensity at which SRF performed them, 

and our analysis is business proprietary 

and is detailed in the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ 

section in the Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. Based on the facts and 

our analysis of SRF’s selling functions 

performed in the channels of 

distribution, we preliminarily conclude 

that SRF’s home market sales were 

made at two distinct levels of trade: 

Sales directly from SRF to its end user 

and sales from SRF to its dealers and 

dealer-attached customers. See ‘‘Level of 

Trade’’ section in the Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum. 

As noted previously, SRF reported 

that its U.S. sale was made through one 

distribution channel, to an unaffiliated 

trader in the United States. For the U.S. 

market, we also examined the 

information reported by SRF with 

respect to the selling functions, the 

freight functions, and U.S. Customs 

functions performed by SRF for its sale 

to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. We 

examined the selling functions and the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Notices 81573 

level of intensity at which SRF performs 

these selling functions as described in 

its questionnaire responses. See section 

A questionnaire response at 

A–19 through A–20 and at Exhibit A– 

5, section C questionnaire response at 

Exhibit C–1, and SRF’s November 19, 

2010, second supplemental 

questionnaire response at 8–9. 

Information about the specific selling 

functions we examined, the intensity at 

which SRF performed those selling 

functions for its U.S. sale (to the 

unaffiliated trader) and our analyses is 

business proprietary. As such, it is 

detailed in the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section 

in the Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

Based on our analysis, we 

preliminarily find that the U.S. sale is 

at the same LOT as SRF’s home market 

sales to dealers and dealer-attached 

customers (LOTH 2). Since we are able 

to match the U.S. sale to home market 

sales at a comparable LOT, the 

Department finds that it is not necessary 

to make an LOT adjustment. For our 

complete analysis, see ‘‘Level of Trade’’ 

section in the Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

Calculation of Normal Value 

We based NV on the starting prices of 

SRF’s sales to unaffiliated home market 

customers accounting for billing 

adjustments where applicable, pursuant 

to section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of 

the Act, we made deductions from 

normal value for movement expenses 

(i.e., inland freight, warehousing, and 

inland insurance) where appropriate. In 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(e), we 

made, where appropriate, circumstanceof-sale adjustments for home market and 

U.S. direct selling expenses including 

imputed credit expenses. We also made 

adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses 

incurred on comparison-market or U.S. 

sales where commissions were granted 

on sales in one market but not the other. 

Specifically, because commissions were 

paid only in the home market, we made 

an upward adjustment to NV for the 

lesser of: (1) the amount of commission 

paid in the home market; or (2) the 

amount of the indirect selling expenses 

incurred in the home market on U.S. 

sales. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). In 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act, we also deducted 

home market packing costs and added 

U.S. packing costs. See Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

In accordance with section 773A(a) of 

the Act, we made currency conversions 

based on the official exchange rates in 

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of 

New York. See also 19 CFR 351.415. 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) that the 

following percentage margin exists for 

SRF for the period July 1, 2009, through 

December 31, 2009: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin 

SRF Limited .................................. 0% 

Assessment Rate 

Upon completion of the new shipper 

review, the Department shall determine, 

and CBP shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions for SRF directly to CBP 15 

days after the date of publication of the 

final results of this new shipper review. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 

will calculate an importer-specific 

assessment rate on the basis of the ratio 

of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

and the total entered value of the 

examined sales. We will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if the 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 

intend to instruct CBP to liquidate 

without regard to antidumping duties 

any entries for which the assessment 

rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 

0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 

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 

this new shipper review, as provided by 

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

cash deposit rate for subject 

merchandise that is both produced and 

exported by SRF will be the rate 

established in the final results of this 

new shipper review, except no cash 

deposit will be required if its weightedaverage margin is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.5 percent); (2) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review, but 

was covered in a previous review or the 

original less-than-fair-value (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 previous 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 

and/or exporters of this merchandise, 

shall be 5.71 percent, the all-others rate 

established in the LTFV investigation. 

These requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Further, effective upon publication of 

the final results, we intend to instruct 

CBP that importers may no longer post 

a bond or other security in lieu of a cash 

deposit on imports of PET film from 

India, manufactured and exported by 

SRF. These cash deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Verification 

In accordance with section 782(i)(3) of 

the Act, the Department intends to 

conduct a sales verification of SRF’s 

responses following the preliminary 

results of this review. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within ten days of the date of 

public announcement. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Unless notified by the 

Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c), interested parties may 

submit cases briefs not later than 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be filed 

not later than five days after the 

deadline for filing the case briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

Additionally, parties are requested to 

provide their case briefs and rebuttal 

briefs in electronic format (e.g., 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Adobe 

Acrobat, etc.). 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate if one is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Room B–099, within 30 

days of the date of publication of this 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
81574 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Notices 

1As stated in the initiation notice, due to the 

closure of the Federal Government in Washington 

D.C. between February 5 and February 12, 2010, the 

Department tolled its deadlines during that period, 

thereby extending the deadline for the initiation of 

this new shipper review by one week, to March 8, 

2010. See NSR Initiation, 75 FR at 10758. 

2 In contrast to the previous importer 

questionnaire, the second supplemental importer 

questionnaire was issued separately from the other 

questionnaires to SRF. 

notice. Requests should contain: (1) The 

party’s name, address and telephone 

number; (2) the number of participants; 

and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in 

the hearing will be limited to those 

raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any written briefs, within 90 days of 

signature of these preliminary results, 

unless the final results are extended. 

See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

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. 

This new shipper review is issued 

and published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act, as well as 19 CFR 351.214(i). 

Dated: December 21, 2010. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32680 Filed 12–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–825] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From India: 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting a new 

shipper review under the countervailing 

duty (CVD) order on polyethylene 

terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET 

film) from India in response to a request 

from SRF Limited (SRF). The period of 

review (POR) is January 1, 2009, 

through December 31, 2009. The 

domestic interested parties for this 

proceeding are DuPont Teijin Films, 

Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., SKC, 

Inc. and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. 

(petitioners). 

We preliminarily determine that the 

U.S. sale of subject merchandise 

produced and exported by SRF was 

bona fide. See Bona Fides Analysis 

section below. We also preliminarily 

determine that SRF has benefitted from 

countervailable subsidies provided on 

the production and export of PET film 

from India. See the ‘‘Preliminary Results 

of Administrative Review’’ section, 

below. If the final results remain the 

same as the preliminary results of this 

review, we intend to instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess countervailing duties. Interested 

parties are invited to comment on the 

preliminary results of this new shipper 

review. See the ‘‘Public Comment’’ 

section of this notice, below. The final 

results will be issued 90 days after the 

date of signature of these preliminary 

results, unless extended. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 28, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi 

Blum or Toni Page, 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 or (202) 482– 

1398, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

CVD order on PET film from India. See 

Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip (PET Film) from India, 67 FR 

44179 (July 1, 2002) (PET Film Order). 

On December 24, 2009, the Department 

received a timely request from SRF, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act) and 19 CFR 351.214(c), to conduct 

a semiannual new shipper review of the 

CVD duty order on PET film from India. 

The Department found the request for 

review met all of the requirements for 

initiation set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) 

and initiated the new shipper review on 

March 2, 2010, covering the period 

January 1, 2009, through December 31, 

2009. See Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet and Strip from India: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty and 

Countervailing Duty New Shipper 

Reviews, 75 FR 10758 (March 9, 2010) 

(NSR Initiation).1

The Department issued the initial 

questionnaires to the Government of 

India (GOI) and to SRF and to its U.S. 

customer through SRF on April 6, 2010. 

On May 27, 2010, the GOI submitted its 

questionnaire response. SRF and its U.S. 

customer (through SRF) submitted their 

questionnaire responses on June 10, 

2010. The Department issued its first 

supplemental questionnaires to the GOI 

on July 8, 2010, and to SRF and to its 

U.S. customer (through SRF) on August 

10, 2010. On August 10, 2010, the GOI 

submitted its first supplemental 

response, and SRF and its U.S. customer 

submitted submitted their first 

supplemental responses on September 

8, 2010. The Department issued a 

second supplemental questionnaire to 

the GOI on August 25, 2010, and the 

GOI filed its second supplemental 

response on September 22, 2010. 

On August 18, 2010, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of the countervailing 

duty administrative review from August 

29, 2010, to November 22, 2010. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from India: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty New Shipper 

Review, 75 FR 52717 (August 27, 2010). 

On November 5, 2010, the Department 

further extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results to December 14, 

2010, and then on December 14, 2010, 

the Department again extended the 

deadline to December 21, 2010. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from India: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty New Shipper 

Review, 75 FR 69400 (November 12, 

2010); Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet and Strip from India: Extension of 

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty New Shipper 

Review, 75 FR 79336 (December 20, 

2010). 

The Department issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire to SRF on 

November 22, 2010 and a second 

supplemental importer questionnaire on 

December 1, 2010.2 SRF’s U.S. customer 

(through SRF) filed its response to the 

second importer questionnaire on 

December 6, 2010. SRF’s second 

supplemental response is due after the 

preliminary results, on December 27, 

2010. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES