Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 39631 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held 37 days after the date of 

publication, or the first business day 

thereafter, unless the Department alters 

the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

no later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs may be filed no later 

than five days after the time limit for 

submitting the case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

argument in these proceedings are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. Further, parties 

submitting case briefs and/or rebuttal 

briefs are requested to provide the 

Department with an additional copy of 

the public version of any such argument 

on diskette. The Department will issue 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of our 

analysis of the issues in any such 

argument or at a hearing, within 120 

days of publication of these preliminary 

results, unless extended. See section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h). 

Duty Assessment 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific ad valorem 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

based on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales made during the POR to 

the total customs value of the sales used 

to calculate those duties. The total 

customs value is based on the entered 

value reported by Mexinox for all U.S. 

entries of subject merchandise initially 

entered for consumption to the United 

States made during the POR. See 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP on or after 41 days 

following the publication of the 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). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the company included in 

these preliminary results for which the 

reviewed company did not know its 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-others rate if there is no 

rate for the intermediate company or 

companies involved in the transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Furthermore, the following cash 

deposit requirements will be effective 

for all shipments of S4 in coils from 

Mexico entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the publication date of the final results 

of this administrative review, as 

provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the 

reviewed company will be the rate 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent (de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), the 

cash deposit will be zero; (2) for 

previously investigated companies not 

listed above, 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, 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 the allothers rate of 30.85 percent, which is 

the all-others rate established in the 

LTFV investigation. See Order. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

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. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: July 31, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–19008 Filed 8–6–09; 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 Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on 

polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, 

sheet and strip from India for the period 

January 1, 2007, through December 31, 

2007. We preliminarily determine that 

subsidies are being 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 will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

countervailing duties. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on the 

preliminary results of this 

administrative review. See the ‘‘Public 

Comment’’ section of this notice, below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2009. 

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 

On July 1, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on PET 

film from India. See Countervailing 

Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet and Strip (PET Film) from 

India, 67 FR 44179 (July 1, 2002) (PET 

Film Order). On July 11, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of this 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
39632 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 

1For our subsidy calculations, we round the 9.5 

years up to 10 years. 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 39948 (July 11, 2008). 

On July 15, 2008, the Department 

received a timely request to conduct an 

administrative review of the PET Film 

Order from Jindal Poly Films Limited of 

India (Jindal), formerly named Jindal 

Polyester Limited, an Indian producer 

and exporter of subject merchandise. On 

August 26, 2008, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of the 

CVD order on PET film from India 

covering Jindal for the period January 1, 

2007, through December 1, 2007. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 50308 (August 26, 2008). 

The Department issued questionnaires 

to the Government of India (GOI) and 

Jindal on September 9, 2008. On 

October 23, 2008, the GOI submitted its 

questionnaire response. Jindal 

submitted its questionnaire response on 

October 30, 2008. The Department 

issued its first supplemental 

questionnaires to the GOI and Jindal on 

February 13, 2009. On March 9, 2009, 

the GOI submitted its first supplemental 

response, and Jindal submitted its first 

supplemental response on March 11, 

2009. 

On April 2, 2009, the Department 

extended the time limit for the 

preliminary results of the countervailing 

duty administrative review until July 

31, 2009. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and 

Strip from India: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 14960 (April 2, 2009). 

The Department issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire to the GOI 

and Jindal on July 6, 2009 and on June 

23, 2009, respectively. Jindal filed its 

second supplemental response on July 

14, 2009. On July 20, 2009, the GOI filed 

its response to the Department’s second 

supplemental questionnaire. 

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 this proceeding is dispositive. 

Subsidies Valuation Information 

Allocation Period 

Under 19 CFR § 351.524(d)(2)(i), we 

will presume the allocation period for 

non–recurring subsidies to be the 

average useful life (AUL) prescribed by 

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for 

renewable physical assets of the 

industry under consideration (as listed 

in the IRS’s 1977 Class Life Asset 

Depreciation Range System, and as 

updated by the Department of the 

Treasury). This presumption will apply 

unless a party claims and establishes 

that these tables do not reasonably 

reflect the AUL of the renewable 

physical assets of the company or 

industry under investigation. 

Specifically, the party must establish 

that the difference between the AUL 

from the tables and the company– 

specific AUL or country–wide AUL for 

the industry under investigation is 

significant, pursuant to 19 CFR 

§ 351.524(d)(2)(i) and (ii). For assets 

used to manufacture plastic film, such 

as PET film, the IRS tables prescribe an 

AUL of 9.5 years.1 In the 2003 

administrative review, the Department 

determined that Jindal had rebutted the 

presumption and applied a company– 

specific AUL of 17 years for Jindal. See 

Final Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from India, 71 FR 7534 (February 13, 

2006) (PET Film Final Results of 2003 

Review). Because there is no new 

evidence on the record that would cause 

the Department to reconsider this 

decision in this review, the Department 

has preliminarily determined to 

continue to use an AUL of 17 years for 

Jindal in allocating non–recurring 

subsidies. 

Benchmark Interest Rates and Discount 

Rates 

For programs requiring the 

application of a benchmark interest rate 

or discount rate, 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(1) 

states a preference for using an interest 

rate that the company could have 

obtained on a comparable loan in the 

commercial market. Also, 19 CFR 

§ 351.505(a)(3)(i) stipulates that when 

selecting a comparable commercial loan 

that the recipient ‘‘could actually obtain 

on the market’’ the Department will 

normally rely on actual short–term and 

long–term loans obtained by the firm. 

However, when there are no comparable 

commercial loans, the Department may 

use a national average interest rate, 

pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(3)(ii). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 

§ 351.505(a)(2)(iv), if a program under 

review is a government provided, short– 

term loan program, the preference 

would be to use a company–specific 

annual average of the interest rates on 

comparable commercial loans during 

the year in which the government– 

provided loan was taken out, weighted 

by the principal amount of each loan. 

For this review, the Department 

required a rupee–denominated short– 

term loan benchmark rate to determine 

benefits received under the Pre– 

Shipment Export Financing and Post– 

Shipment Export Financing programs. 

For further information regarding this 

program, see the ‘‘Pre–Shipment and 

Post–Shipment Export Financing’’ 

section below. 

In a prior review of this case, the 

Department determined that Inland Bill 

Discounting (IBD) loans are more 

comparable to pre–shipment and post– 

shipment export financing loans than 

other types of rupee–denominated 

short–term loans. See Preliminary 

Results and Rescission in Part of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 70 FR 

46483, 46485 (August 10, 2005) (PET 

Film Preliminary Results of 2003 

Review) (unchanged in the final results). 

There is no new information or 

evidence of changed circumstances 

which would warrant reconsidering this 

finding. Therefore, for these preliminary 

results, we continue to use IBD loans as 

the basis for the short–term rupee– 

denominated benchmark for all 

applicable programs for Jindal. 

Jindal did not have any US dollar– 

denominated short–term loans during 

the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 

19 CFR § 351.505(a)(3)(ii), the 

Department used a national average 

dollar–denominated short–term interest 

rate, as reported in the International 

Monetary Fund’s publication 

International Financial Statistics (IMF 

Statistics) for Jindal. 

Further, for those programs requiring 

a rupee–denominated discount rate or 

the application of a rupee–denominated 

long–term benchmark rate, we used, 

where available, company–specific, 

weighted–average interest rates on 

comparable commercial long–term, 

rupee–denominated loans. For this 

review, the Department required 

benchmarks to determine benefits 

received under the Export Promotion 

Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) and 

Export Oriented Units (EOU) programs. 

Jindal did not have comparable 

commercial long–term rupee– 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 39633 

denominated loans for all required 

years; therefore, for those years for 

which we did not have company– 

specific information, we relied on 

comparable long–term rupee– 

denominated benchmark interest rates 

from the immediately preceding year as 

directed by 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(2)(iii). 

When there were no comparable long– 

term, rupee–denominated loans from 

commercial banks during either the year 

under consideration or the preceding 

year, we used national average interest 

rates, pursuant to 19 CFR 

§ 351.505(a)(3)(ii), from the IMF 

Statistics. 

A. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

to be Countervailable 

1. Pre–Shipment and Post–Shipment 

Export Financing 

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), 

through commercial banks, provides 

short–term pre–shipment financing, or 

‘‘packing credits,’’ to exporters. Upon 

presentation of a confirmed export order 

or letter of credit to a bank, companies 

may receive pre–shipment loans for 

working capital purposes (i.e., 

purchasing raw materials, warehousing, 

packing, transportation, etc.) for 

merchandise destined for exportation. 

Companies may also establish pre– 

shipment credit lines upon which they 

draw as needed. Limits on credit lines 

are established by commercial banks 

and are based on a company’s 

creditworthiness and past export 

performance. Credit lines may be 

denominated either in Indian rupees or 

in a foreign currency. Commercial banks 

extending export credit to Indian 

companies must, by law, charge interest 

at rates determined by the RBI. 

Post–shipment export financing 

consists of loans in the form of 

discounted trade bills or advances by 

commercial banks. Exporters qualify for 

this program by presenting their export 

documents to the lending bank. The 

credit covers the period from the date of 

shipment of the goods to the date of 

realization of the proceeds from the sale 

to the overseas customer. Under the 

Foreign Exchange Management Act of 

1999, exporters are required to realize 

proceeds from their export sales within 

180 days of shipment. Post–shipment 

financing is, therefore, a working capital 

program used to finance export 

receivables. In general, post–shipment 

loans are granted for a period of not 

more than 180 days. 

In the original investigation, the 

Department determined that the pre– 

shipment and post–shipment export 

financing programs conferred 

countervailable subsidies on the subject 

merchandise because: (1) the provision 

of the export financing constitutes a 

financial contribution pursuant to 

section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act as a direct 

transfer of funds in the form of loans; 2) 

the provision of the export financing 

confers benefits on the respondents 

under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act to 

the extent that the interest rates 

provided under these programs are 

lower than comparable commercial loan 

interest rates; and (3) these programs are 

specific under section 771(5A)(A) and 

(B) of the Act because they are 

contingent upon export performance. 

See Notice of Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip (PET Film) From India, 67 FR 

34905 (May 16, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (PET Film Final 

Determination), at ‘‘Pre–Shipment and 

Post–Shipment Financing.’’ There is no 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances that would warrant 

reconsidering this finding. Therefore, 

for these preliminary results, we 

continue to find this program 

countervailable. 

Jindal reported that it did not receive 

any post–shipment export financing 

during the POR. However, it did report 

receiving pre–shipment export 

financing during the POR. With regard 

to pre–shipment loans, the benefit 

conferred is the difference between the 

amount of interest the company paid on 

the government loan and the amount of 

interest it would have paid on a 

comparable commercial loan (i.e., the 

short–term benchmark). Because pre– 

shipment loans are tied to a company’s 

exports rather than exports of subject 

merchandise, we calculated the subsidy 

rate for these loans by dividing the total 

benefit by the value of Jindal’s total 

exports during the POR. See 19 CFR 

§ 351.525(b). On this basis, we 

preliminarily determine the net 

countervailable subsidy from pre– 

shipment export financing for Jindal to 

be 0.08 percent ad valorem during the 

POR. 

2. Advance License Program (ALP) 

Under the ALP, exporters may import, 

duty free, specified quantities of 

materials required to manufacture 

products that are subsequently 

exported. The exporting companies, 

however, remain contingently liable for 

the unpaid duties until they have 

fulfilled their export requirement. The 

quantities of imported materials and 

exported finished products are linked 

through standard input–output norms 

(SIONs) established by the GOI. During 

the POR, Jindal used advance licenses to 

import certain materials duty free. 

In the 2005 administrative review of 

this proceeding, the GOI indicated that 

it had revised its Foreign Trade Policy 

and Handbook of Procedures for the 

ALP during that POR. The Department 

analyzed the changes introduced by the 

GOI to the ALP in 2005 and 

acknowledged that certain 

improvements to the ALP system were 

made. However, the Department found 

that systemic issues continued to exist 

in the ALP system during the POR. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from India: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 7708 (February 11, 2008), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at Comment 3 (PET Film 

Final Results of 2005 Review); see also, 

Notice of Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Final Negative Critical Circumstances 

Determination: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India, 71 FR 45034 

(August 8, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, at 

Comment 10 (Lined Paper - Final 

Determination). Based on the 

information submitted by the GOI and 

examined during previous reviews of 

this proceeding, the Department noted 

that the systemic issues previously 

identified by the Department continued 

to exist. See Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 6530 

(February 12, 2007), at Comment 3, (PET 

Film Final Results of 2004 Review). See 

also PET Film Final Results of 2005 

Review, Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at ‘‘Advance License 

Program (ALP),’’ and Comment 3. In the 

2005 review, the Department 

specifically stated that it continues to 

find the ALP countervailable because of 

the systemic deficiencies in the ALP 

identified in that review: 

the GOI’s lack of a system or 

procedure to confirm which inputs 

are consumed in the production of 

the exported products and in what 

amounts that is reasonable and 

effective for the purposes intended, 

as required under19 CFR § 351.519. 

Specifically, we still have concerns 

with regard to several aspects of the 

ALP including (1) the GOI’s 

inability to provide the SION 

calculations that reflect the 

production experience of the PET 

film industry as a whole; (2) the 

lack of evidence regarding the 

implementation of penalties for 

companies not meeting the export 

requirements under the ALP or for 

claiming excessive credits; and, (3) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
39634 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 

2See Memorandum to File from Elfi Blum: 

Placing the GOI Verification Report of the 2005 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review on the 

Record of the 2007 Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review. 

the availability of ALP benefits for 

a broad category of ‘‘deemed’’ 

exports. See PET Film Final Results 

of 2005 Review, at Comment 3.2

Further, in that same review, the 

Department found that PET film 

producers ‘‘do not have to keep track of 

wastage since it is not recoverable for 

the production of PET film.’’ Id. 

Accordingly, no allowance was made by 

the GOI to account for waste to ensure 

that the amount of duty deferred would 

not exceed the amount of import 

charges on imported inputs consumed 

in the production of the exported 

subject merchandise. See id. 

Furthermore, the Department found 

that, in developing the SIONs for Pet 

Film, the GOI did not tie the relevant 

production numbers to a producer’s 

accounting system or financial 

statement. Id. 

In this review, Jindal, reporting the 

revisions addressed in the above 

referenced 2005 administrative review 

of the order, argued that the ALP ‘‘now 

meets the Department’s criteria for being 

non–countervailable.’’ See Jindal’s 

Original Questionnaire Response, at 78 

(October 30, 2008). Specifically, Jindal 

argued that the GOI, in order to 

strengthen the supervision and 

monitoring system of the ALP, 

conducted an on–the-spot verification of 

Jindal’s plant to review the actual 

consumption and utilization of the 

inputs imported duty free under the 

ALP. Jindal also provided supporting 

documentation and copies of GOI 

publications on the administration of 

the ALP, the introduction of Appendix 

23, and the revision of the PET Film 

SION. The Department requested Jindal 

to provide a copy of the GOI’s 

verification of Jindal’s Appendix 23 

consumption register for the actual 

quantity imported during the POR, 

against the quantities included in the 

SION for PET Film, as enumerated in 

paragraph 4.28(v) of the Handbook of 

Procedures 2004–2009. However, Jindal 

was unable to do so because none of its 

advance licenses had been redeemed for 

which it is required to maintain an 

Appendix 23 to this date. Thus, the 

Department was unable to examine 

whether the Appendix 23 is indeed 

effective in tracing the consumption of 

the quantities of inputs imported duty 

free to the quantities of subject 

merchandise exported, in accordance 

with the 2005 SION for PET Film. 

Therefore, there is no record evidence 

demonstrating the functionality and 

accuracy of the GOI’s new monitoring 

procedures to ensure that the inputs 

imported duty free were consumed in 

the production of subject merchandise 

exported, in accordance with the newly 

established PET Film SION. Moreover, 

Jindal did not address any concerns the 

Department had in the 2005 review with 

respect to the formulation and 

verification of the PET Film SION. In 

particular, the GOI did not require 

Jindal to tie the inventory and 

consumption data to Jindal’s accounting 

systems and financial statements in 

order to verify the accuracy of Jindal’s 

data, or to account for waste, normally 

incurred in the production. In addition, 

in the current review the Department 

noted inconsistencies between the 

inputs listed in the revised SIONs for 

PET Film (H209 and H210), as reported 

in Exhibit 31(c) of Jindal’s Original 

Questionnaire Response, and certain 

input items listed as allowed to be 

imported under an advance license by 

Jindal. Specifically, it appears that 

several of the items imported, or 

allowed to be imported, under Jindal’s 

advance licenses were not listed in the 

SIONs. See Jindal’s Second 

Supplemental Questionnaire Response, 

Exhibit S2–39 (July 14, 2009) (Jindal’s 

Second Supplemental Questionnaire 

Response). The Department intends to 

further investigate these inconsistencies. 

Because the systemic deficiencies in 

the ALP system identified above still 

exist, the Department continues to find 

that the ALP confers a countervailable 

subsidy because: (1) a financial 

contribution, as defined under section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, is provided 

under the program, as the GOI exempts 

the respondents from the payment of 

import duties that would otherwise be 

due; (2) the GOI does not have in place 

and does not apply a system that is 

reasonable and effective for the 

purposes intended in accordance with 

19 CFR § 351.519(a)(4), to confirm 

which inputs, and in what amounts, are 

consumed in the production of the 

exported products, making normal 

allowance for waste nor did the GOI 

carry out an examination of actual 

inputs involved to confirm which 

inputs are consumed in the production 

of the exported product, and in what 

amounts; thus, the entire amount of the 

import duty deferral or exemption 

earned by the respondent constitutes a 

benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the 

Act; and, (3) this program is specific 

under section 771(5A)(A) and (B) of the 

Act because it is contingent upon 

exportation. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.524(c)(1), 

the exemption of import duties 

normally provides a recurring benefit. 

Under this program, for 2007, Jindal did 

not have to pay certain import duties for 

inputs that were used in the production 

of subject merchandise. Thus, we are 

treating the benefit provided under the 

ALP as a recurring benefit. 

Jindal received various ALP licenses, 

which it reported separately for the 

production of: (1) subject merchandise; 

(2) non–subject merchandise; and (3) in 

the case of invalidated licenses, both 

subject and non–subject merchandise. 

However, upon close examination of 

those exhibits, the Department was not 

able to determine whether certain 

licenses are in fact tied to the 

production of a particular product 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

§ 351.525(b)(5). The Department, after 

examining all original ALP licenses 

submitted in Exhibit S2–39 of Jindal’s 

Second Supplemental Questionnaire 

Response, and comparing those to the 

data reported in Exhibits 31(a) and (b), 

noted certain inconsistencies. For 

further clarification, see Memorandum 

to File from Elfi Blum: Calculations for 

the Preliminary Results: Jindal Poly 

Films of India Limited (Jindal) (July 31, 

2009). As a result, we cannot determine 

that the ALP licenses are tied to the 

production of a particular product 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

§ 351.525(b)(5), and we find that Jindal’s 

ALP licenses benefit all of the 

company’s exports. Therefore, we have 

divided the resulting net benefit by 

Jindal’s total export sales. On this basis, 

we determine the countervailable 

subsidy provided under the ALP to be 

1.35 percent ad valorem for Jindal. 

3. Export Promotion Capital Goods 

Scheme (EPCGS) 

The EPCGS provides for a reduction 

or exemption of customs duties and 

excise taxes on imports of capital goods 

used in the production of exported 

products. Under this program, 

producers pay reduced duty rates on 

imported capital equipment by 

committing to earn convertible foreign 

currency equal to four to five times the 

value of the capital goods within a 

period of eight years. Once a company 

has met its export obligation, the GOI 

will formally waive the duties on the 

imported goods. If a company fails to 

meet the export obligation, the company 

is subject to payment of all or part of the 

duty reduction, depending on the extent 

of the shortfall in foreign currency 

earnings, plus a penalty interest. 

In the investigation, the Department 

determined that import duty reductions 

provided under the EPCGS are 

countervailable export subsidies 

because the scheme: (1) provides a 

financial contribution pursuant to 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 39635 

section 771(5)(D)(ii) in the form of 

revenue forgone for not collecting 

import duties; (2) respondents receive 

two different benefits under section 

771(5)(E) of the Act; and (3) the program 

is contingent upon export performance, 

and is specific under section 771(5A)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. See, e.g., PET Film 

Final Results of 2004 Review, 72 FR 

6530, Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at ‘‘EPCGS.’’ There is no 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances that would warrant 

reconsidering our determination that 

this program is countervailable. 

Therefore, for these preliminary results, 

we continue to find this program 

countervailable. 

The first benefit is the amount of 

unpaid import duties that would have to 

be paid to the GOI if accompanying 

export obligations are not met. The 

repayment of this liability is contingent 

on subsequent events, and in such 

instances, it is the Department’s practice 

to treat any balance on an unpaid 

liability as a contingent liability 

interest–free loan, pursuant to 19 CFR 

§ 351.505(d)(1). Id. The second benefit is 

the waiver of duty on imports of capital 

equipment covered by those EPCGS 

licenses for which the export 

requirement has already been met. For 

those licenses for which companies 

demonstrate that they have completed 

their export obligation, we treat the 

import duty savings as grants received 

in the year in which the GOI waived the 

contingent liability on the import duty 

exemption, pursuant to 19 CFR 

§ 351.505(d)(2). 

Import duty exemptions under this 

program are provided for the purchase 

of capital equipment. The preamble to 

our regulations states that if a 

government provides an import duty 

exemption tied to major equipment 

purchases, ‘‘it may be reasonable to 

conclude that, because these duty 

exemptions are tied to capital assets, the 

benefits from such duty exemptions 

should be considered non–recurring . . 

.’’ See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 

63 FR 65348, 65393 (November 25, 

1998). In accordance with 19 CFR 

§ 351.524(c)(2)(iii), we are treating these 

exemptions as non–recurring benefits. 

Jindal reported that they imported 

capital goods under the EPCGS in the 

years prior to and during the POR. 

Jindal received various EPCGS licenses, 

which it reported were for the 

production of: (1) subject merchandise, 

and (2) non–subject merchandise. 

However, information provided by 

Jindal indicates that some of the 

licenses were issued for the purchase of 

capital goods and materials used in the 

production of both subject and non– 

subject merchandise, or were reported 

as such in a prior review. See Jindal’s 

Original Questionnaire Response, at 

Exhibits 20(a), 20(c), 22(a), and 22(b), 

and Jindal’s First Supplemental 

Response, at Exhibit S1–1 and S1–20(b). 

Further, license documentation 

included in Jindal’s most recent 

supplemental response indicates an 

endorsement by the GOI for the export 

of both subject and non–subject 

merchandise, and capital equipment 

reported imported for the production of 

non–subject merchandise only, 

endorsed by the GOI for the export of 

subject merchandise. See Jindal’s 

Second Supplemental Questionnaire 

Response, at Exhibit S2–29. Based on 

the information and documentation 

submitted by Jindal, we cannot 

determine that the EPCGS licenses are 

tied to the production of a particular 

product within the meaning of 19 CFR 

§ 351.525(b)(5). As such, we find that all 

of Jindal’s EPCGS licenses benefit all of 

the company’s exports. 

Jindal met the export requirements for 

certain EPCGS licenses prior to 

December 31, 2007, and the GOI has 

formally waived the relevant import 

duties. For most of its licenses, 

however, Jindal has not yet met its 

export obligation as required under the 

program. Therefore, although Jindal has 

received a deferral from paying import 

duties when the capital goods were 

imported, the final waiver on the 

obligation to pay the duties has not yet 

been granted for many of these imports. 

To calculate the benefit received from 

the GOI’s formal waiver of import duties 

on Jindal’s capital equipment imports 

where its export obligation was met 

prior to December 31, 2007, we 

considered the total amount of duties 

waived (net of required application fees) 

to be the benefit. Further, consistent 

with the approach followed in the 

investigation, we determine the year of 

receipt of the benefit to be the year in 

which the GOI formally waived Jindal’s 

outstanding import duties. See PET Film 

Final Determination, and accompanying 

Issues and Memorandum, at Comment 

5. Next, we performed the ‘‘0.5 percent 

test,’’ as prescribed under 19 CFR 

§ 351.524(b)(2), for each year in which 

the GOI granted Jindal an import duty 

waiver. Those waivers with values in 

excess of 0.5 percent of Jindal’s total 

export sales in the year in which the 

waivers were granted were allocated 

using Jindal’s company–specific AUL, 

while waivers with values less than 0.5 

percent of Jindal’s total export sales 

were expensed in the year of receipt. 

See ‘‘Allocation Period’’ section, above. 

As noted above, import duty 

reductions that Jindal received on the 

imports of capital equipment for which 

they have not yet met export obligations 

may have to be repaid to the GOI if the 

obligations under the licenses are not 

met. Consistent with our practice and 

prior determinations, we will treat the 

unpaid import duty liability as an 

interest–free loan. See 19 CFR 

§ 351.505(d)(1); and PET Film Final 

Determination and Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at ‘‘EPCGS’’; see also 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Bottle–Grade 

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin 

From India, 70 FR 13460 (March 21, 

2005) (Indian PET Resin Final 

Determination). 

The amount of the unpaid duty 

liabilities to be treated as an interest– 

free loan is the amount of the import 

duty reduction or exemption for which 

the respondent applied, but, as of the 

end of the POR, had not been finally 

waived by the GOI. Accordingly, we 

find the benefit to be the interest that 

Jindal would have paid during the POR 

had it the full amount of the duty 

reduction or exemption at the time of 

importation. See, e.g., Preliminary 

Results and Rescission in Part of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 70 FR 

46483, 46485 (August 10, 2005) (PET 

Film Preliminary Results of 2003 

Review) (unchanged in the final results, 

71 FR 7534); see also (Indian PET Resin 

Final Determination). 

As stated above, under the EPCGS 

program, the time period for fulfilling 

the export commitment expires eight 

years after importation of the capital 

good. As such, pursuant to 19 CFR 

§ 351.505(d)(1), the benchmark for 

measuring the benefit is a long–term 

interest rate because the event upon 

which repayment of the duties depends 

(i.e., the date of expiration of the time 

period to fulfill the export commitment) 

occurs at a point in time that is more 

than one year after the date of 

importation of the capital goods (i.e., 

under the EPCGS program, the time 

period for fulfilling the export 

commitment is more than one year after 

importation of the capital good). As the 

benchmark interest rate, we used the 

weighted–average interest rate from all 

comparable commercial long–term, 

rupee–denominated loans for the year in 

which the capital good was imported. 

See the ‘‘Benchmarks for Loans and 

Discount Rate’’ section above for a 

discussion of the applicable benchmark. 

We then multiplied the total amount of 

unpaid duties under each license by the 

long–term benchmark interest rate for 

the year in which the license was 

approved and summed these amounts to 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
39636 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 

determine the total benefit for each 

company. 

The benefit received under the EPCGS 

is the total amount of: (1) the benefit 

attributable to the POR from the 

formally waived duties for imports of 

capital equipment for which 

respondents met export requirements by 

December 31, 2007, and/or (2) interest 

due on the contingent liability loans for 

imports of capital equipment that have 

not met export requirements. We then 

divided that total by Jindal’s total 

exports to determine a subsidy of 4.06 

percent ad valorem. 

4. Export Oriented Units (EOU) 

Companies that are designated as an 

EOU are eligible to receive various 

forms of assistance in exchange for 

committing to export all of the products 

they produce, excluding rejects and 

certain domestic sales, for five years. 

Companies designated as EOUs may 

receive the following benefits: (1) duty– 

free importation of capital goods and 

raw materials; (2) reimbursement of 

central sales taxes (CST) paid on capital 

goods and materials procured within 

India; (3) purchase of materials and 

other inputs free of central excise duty; 

and (4) receipt of duty drawback on 

furnace oil procured from domestic oil 

companies. Consistent with its previous 

administrative review, Jindal reported 

that it had been designated as an EOU. 

See PET Film Final Results of 2004 

Review, and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Export 

Oriented Units.’’ Specifically, Jindal 

reported receiving the following 

benefits: (1) the duty–free importation of 

capital goods and materials; (2) the 

reimbursement of CST paid on raw 

materials and capital goods procured 

domestically; and (3) the purchase of 

materials and other inputs free of 

central excise duty. 

The Department previously 

determined that the purchase of 

materials and/or inputs free of central 

excise duty is not countervailable. See 

Indian PET Resin Final Determination, 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, at 

‘‘Export Oriented Units (EOUs) 

Programs: Purchase of Material and 

other Inputs Free of Central Excise 

Duty.’’ With respect to the other 

categories of benefits enumerated above, 

the Department determined that the 

EOU program was specific, within the 

meaning of section 771(5A)(A) and (B) 

of the Act, because the receipt of 

benefits under this program was 

contingent upon export performance. 

See, e.g., Indian PET Resin Final 

Determination, Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at ‘‘Export–Oriented 

Unit (EOU) Program: Duty–Free Import 

of Capital Goods and Raw materials,’’ 

and ‘‘Export–Oriented Unit (EOU) 

Program: Reimbursement of Central 

Sales Tax (CST) Paid on Materials 

Procured Domestically.’’ There is no 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances that would warrant 

reconsidering this finding. 

In this review, Jindal reported also 

receiving benefits from the ‘‘EOU Duty 

Drawback on Furnace Oil Procured 

From Domestic Oil Companies’’ 

program and the ‘‘EOU Income Tax 

Exemption Scheme (Section 10B),’’ both 

programs previously reported as not 

used in prior reviews of this proceeding. 

We determined that the EOU Duty 

Drawback on Furnace Oil Procured 

From Domestic Oil Companies was 

countervailable in Indian PET Resin 

Final Determination, Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Export– 

Oriented Unit (EOU) Program: Duty 

Drawback on Furnace Oil Procured from 

Domestic Oil Companies.’’ There is no 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances that would warrant 

reconsidering this finding. The 

countervailability of the EOU Income 

Tax Exemption Scheme (Section 10B) is 

discussed below under section (d). 

a. Duty–Free Importation of Capital 

Goods and Raw Materials 

Under this program, an EOU is 

entitled to import, duty–free, capital 

goods and raw materials for the 

production of exported goods in 

exchange for committing to export all of 

the products it produces over five years. 

The Department previously determined 

that the duty–free importation of capital 

goods and raw materials provides a 

financial contribution and confers 

benefits equal to the amount of 

exemptions of customs duties. See 

Sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and (E) of the Act. 

See also, Indian PET Resin Final 

Determination, Issues and Decision 

memorandum, at ‘‘Export–Oriented Unit 

(EOU) Program: Duty–Free Import of 

Capital Goods and Raw Materials.’’ With 

respect to raw material imports, the GOI 

was not able to demonstrate that it has 

in place and applies a system that is 

reasonable and effective for the 

purposes intended in accordance with 

19 CFR § 351.519(a)(4), to confirm 

which inputs, and in what amounts, are 

consumed in the production of the 

exported products, making normal 

allowance for waste. 

Based on the information provided by 

Jindal in the form of copies of its 

‘‘Executed Legal agreement for EOU 

Unit’’ with the GOI, at Exhibits 26(b.i.), 

and 26(b.ii.), until an EOU demonstrates 

that it has fully met its export 

requirement, the company remains 

contingently liable for the import duties. 

See Jindal’s Original Questionnaire 

Response, at Exhibits 26(b.i.) and 

26(b.ii.). Jindal has not yet met its 

export requirement under this program 

and will owe the unpaid duties if the 

export requirement is not met. (Upon 

Jindal meeting its export requirement, 

the Department will treat the waived 

duties as a grant.) Therefore, consistent 

with 19 CFR § 351.505(d)(1), until the 

contingent liability for the unpaid 

duties is officially waived by the GOI, 

we consider the unpaid duties to be an 

interest–free loan made to Jindal at the 

time of importation. We determine the 

benefit to be the interest that Jindal 

would have paid during the POR had it 

borrowed the full amount of the duty 

reduction or exemption at the time of 

importation. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(d)(1), 

the benchmark for measuring the benefit 

is a long–term interest rate because the 

event upon which repayment of the 

duties depends (i.e., the date of 

expiration of the time period to fulfill 

the export commitment) occurs at a 

point in time that is more than one year 

after the date of importation of the 

capital goods (i.e., under the EOU 

program, the time period for fulfilling 

the export commitment is more than 

one year after importation of the capital 

good). We used the long–term, rupee– 

denominated benchmark interest rate 

discussed in the ‘‘Benchmarks for Loans 

and Discount Rate’’ section above for 

each year in which capital goods were 

imported as the benchmark. 

Further, for duty exemptions under 

this program that are tied to capital 

equipment purchases, in accordance 

with 19 CFR § 351.524(c)(2)(iii), we are 

treating these exemptions as non– 

recurring benefits and allocating those 

benefits over Jindal’s company specific 

AUL. 

For the duty free importation of 

capital goods, because Jindal did not 

fulfill any export obligation under the 

EOU program, we determined the 

benefit for each year is the total amount 

of interest that would have been paid if 

Jindal had received a loan to pay the 

duties. To calculate the benefit to Jindal 

under this program, we summed the 

amount of interest that would have been 

paid during the POR, and the duty 

exemptions on raw material inputs 

received during the POR. We then 

divided Jindal’s total benefits under this 

program by its total export sales during 

the POR. On this basis, we determine 

the countervailable subsidy from this 

category of the program to be 1.09 

percent ad valorem for Jindal. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 39637 

b. Reimbursement of CST Paid on 

Materials Procured Domestically 

Under this program, Jindal was also 

reimbursed for the CST it paid on raw 

materials and capital goods procured 

domestically. The Department 

previously determined that the 

reimbursement of CST paid on materials 

procured domestically provides a 

financial contribution and confers 

benefits equal to the amount of 

reimbursements of sales taxes pursuant 

to sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and (E) of the 

Act. See, e.g., PET Film Preliminary 

Results of 2003 Review, 70 FR at 46490 

(unchanged in the final results). 

Specifically, the benefit associated with 

domestically purchased materials is the 

amount of reimbursed CST received by 

Jindal during the POR. 

Normally, tax reimbursements, such 

as the CST, are considered to be 

recurring benefits. However, a portion of 

the benefit of this program is tied to the 

purchase of capital assets. As such, 

pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.524(c)(2)(iii), 

we would normally treat such 

reimbursements as non–recurring 

benefits. However, we performed the 

‘‘0.5 percent test,’’ as prescribed under 

19 CFR § 351.524(b)(2) and found that 

the amount of CST reimbursements tied 

to capital goods received during the 

POR was less than 0.5 percent of total 

export sales for 2007. We also 

performed the ‘‘0.5 percent test on 

Jindal’s reimbursements of CST on its 

purchases of capital assets for the 2006 

and 2005 review periods, and found that 

they were less than 0.5 percent of total 

export sales for the respective years. 

Therefore, the benefits under this 

program were expensed entirely in the 

year earned and the only benefit was 

from the CST reimbursements claimed 

under this program during the POR. See 

19 CFR § 351.524(b)(2). To calculate the 

benefit for Jindal, we first summed the 

total amount of CST reimbursements for 

capital goods and raw materials 

received during the POR. We divided 

this amount by the total value of Jindal’s 

export sales during the POR. On this 

basis, we preliminarily determine the 

countervailable subsidy provided to 

Jindal through the reimbursement of 

CST under the EOU program to be 0.03 

percent ad valorem. 

c. EOU Duty Drawback on Furnace Oil 

Procured From Domestic Oil Companies 

During the POR Jindal was 

reimbursed for duties paid on its 

furnace oil purchased from domestic oil 

companies. This duty drawback rate on 

furnace oil purchases is only available 

to EOUs. The ‘‘all–industry’’ rate is 

calculated in part, on the total cost of 

insurance and freight (CIF) value of oil 

imported by the two major Indian oil 

suppliers. This duty drawback on 

furnace oil is not tied to the production 

process of any particular industry or 

product, including the subject 

merchandise, but applies only to the 

overall import charges on furnace oil 

without taking into consideration how 

the furnace oil is used by an EOU, and 

even if it is consumed in the production 

process. An EOU’s reimbursement is 

based on the FOB value of the invoice 

received from the Indian oil supplier, 

inclusive of the import duties paid by 

the Indian oil supplier. See 

Memorandum from Sean Carey to 

Barbara Tillman, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration: Countervailing Duty 

Investigation of Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India: 

Preliminary Analysis of the Export 

Oriented Unit (EOU) Program on Duty 

Drawback on Furnace Oil Procured from 

Domestic Oil Companies Program and 

Purchases of Materials and Other Inputs 

Free of Central Excise Duty, at 1–3 

(February 14, 2005). 

As mentioned above, the Department 

previously determined that this program 

is limited to EOUs and therefore, is 

specific as an export subsidy under 

section 771(5A)(A) and (B) of the Act. In 

addition, the Department found that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in accordance with section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, in the amount 

of the reimbursement claimed. Finally, 

a benefit is conferred in accordance 

with section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 

section 771(5)(E) of the Act and 19 CFR 

§ 351.519(a)(4)(ii) in the entire amount 

of the reimbursement claimed under 

this program, since the GOI does not 

have a system or procedure in place to 

confirm the amount of furnace oil 

consumed in the production of exports 

for purposes of claiming duty drawback. 

See 19 CFR § 351.519(a)(1)(i); see also 

Indian PET Resin Final Determination, 

at ‘‘Export–Oriented Unit (EOU) 

Program: Duty Drawback on Furnace Oil 

Procured from Domestic Oil 

Companies.’’ 

To calculate the countervailable 

export subsidy for Jindal, we summed 

the amount of duty drawback claimed 

under this program during the POR, and 

divided this benefit by Jindal’s total 

export sales during the POR. Thus, the 

countervailable subsidy is 0.07 percent 

ad valorem for Jindal. 

d. EOU Income Tax Exemption Scheme 

(Section 10B) 

In the instant review, Jindal reported 

that, in accordance with Section 10B of 

the Income Tax Act, 1961, it was 

allowed to deduct its profits derived 

from the export sales as an EOU, as 

defined in the FTP, from its taxable 

income during the POR. Specifically, 

Section 10B states that: 

Subject to the provisions of this 

section, a deduction of such profits 

and gains as are derived by a 

hundred per cent export–oriented 

undertaking. . . for a period of ten 

consecutive assessment years 

beginning with the assessment year 

relevant to the previous year in 

which the undertaking begins to 

manufacture or produce . . . shall be 

allowed from the total income of 

the assessee . . . 

See Jindal’s Original Questionnaire 

Response, at Exhibit 35(a). According to 

Jindal, an EOU does not have to file a 

formal application to make this 

deduction under the program. See id., at 

97. According to the GOI, ‘‘no deduction 

under this section shall be allowed to 

any undertaking for the assessment year 

beginning on the 1st day of April, 2010 

and subsequent years.’’ See GOI’s 

Original Questionnaire Response, at 57. 

Based on the information above, we 

preliminarily determine this program to 

be a countervailable export subsidy, 

because it is contingent upon export 

performance and, therefore, specific in 

accordance with section 771(5A)(A) and 

(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, the GOI 

provides a financial contribution in the 

form of revenue forgone. The benefit 

equals the difference between the 

amount of income taxes that would be 

payable absent this program and the 

actual amount of taxes payable by 

Jindal, pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of 

the Act. We also determine that the EOU 

Income Tax Exemption Scheme (Section 

10B) provides a recurring benefit under 

19 CFR § 351.509(c) and 19 CFR 

§ 351.524(c). We then divided this 

benefit by Jindal’s total export sales 

during the POR, to determine a 

countervailable subsidy of 0.15 percent 

ad valorem for Jindal. 

5. State and Union Territory Sales Tax 

Incentive Programs 

According to the GOI, state 

governments in India grant exemptions 

to, or deferrals from, sales taxes in order 

to encourage regional development. See 

GOI’s Original Questionnaire Response, 

at 46 to 50 (October 16, 2008; revised 

October 23, 2008) and the GOI’s First 

Supplemental Response, at 18 to 19 

(March 9, 2009). These incentives allow 

privately–owned (i.e., not 100 percent 

owned by the GOI) manufacturers, that 

are in selected industries and are 

located in the designated regions, to sell 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
39638 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 

goods without charging or collecting 

state sales taxes. 

In the original CVD investigation, we 

determined that the operation of these 

types of state sales tax programs confer 

countervailable subsidies. See PET Film 

Final Determination, Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘State of 

Maharashtra Programs’’ and ‘‘State of 

Uttar Pradesh Programs:’’ Sales Tax 

Incentives;’’ see also, PET Film Final 

Results of 2005 Review, at ‘‘State Sales 

Tax Incentive Programs.’’ Specifically, 

the Department found that these 

programs provide a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

foregone by the respective state 

governments pursuant to section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, and confer a 

benefit equal to the amount of the tax 

exemption, pursuant to section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. Pursuant to section 

771(5A)(A) and (D)(iv) of the Act, these 

programs are specific because they are 

limited to certain geographical regions 

within the respective states 

administering the programs. 

To calculate the benefit, we first 

calculated the total sales tax reduction 

or exemption the respondents received 

during the POR by subtracting taxes 

paid from the amount that would have 

been paid on their purchases during the 

POR absent these programs. We then 

divided this amount by Jindal’s total 

sales during the POR to calculate a net 

countervailable subsidy of 0.35 percent 

ad valorem for Jindal. 

In the current review, Jindal argues 

that the sales tax law in the State of 

Maharashtra (SOM), under which Jindal 

did not pay or collect sales taxes, was 

repealed and a value–added tax (VAT) 

regime replaced it. Furthermore, Jindal 

states that the exemption of sales tax on 

purchases has not been replaced by any 

other scheme of the GOI. Thus, Jindal 

contends that this meets the 

requirements of a program–wide change 

under section 351.526 of the 

Department’s regulations. See Jindal’s 

Original Questionnaire Response, at 85. 

Exhibits S1–18(b) and S1–18 of Jindal’s 

First Supplemental Questionnaire 

Response provide notification of the 

SOM VAT Tax Act, 2002, published in 

the SOM Gazette on March 9, 2005, 

effective date April 1, 2009, and an 

excerpt of section 95 of the SOM VAT 

Act, stating that the SOM Sales Tax Act 

has been repealed, respectively. Further, 

Jindal states that, under the VAT 

regime, the exemption of sales tax on 

sales available under the Package 

Scheme of Incentives of Maharashtra 

continues until May 26, 2011, for Jindal. 

See Jindal’s Original Questionnaire 

Response, at 84. However, they note that 

the exemption from sales tax on 

purchases is no longer available. 

The GOI, in its original response 

confirms that the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 

1959, has been repealed, and that a VAT 

regime (provided for under SOM VAT 

Rules, 2005) has been introduced. 

Further, the GOI argues that no benefits 

are available under the previous 

scheme. See GOI’s Original 

Questionnaire Response, at 50. 

Record evidence shows that the 

existing state sales tax incentive 

program provides residual benefits. 

Jindal does not have to collect sales 

taxes or VAT on its sales until May 26, 

2011. Likewise, suppliers to Jindal are 

still exempted from collecting sales tax 

under the Package Scheme of Incentives 

for its sales to Jindal. Thus, Jindal is still 

benefiting from this scheme in the form 

of uncollected sales taxes from 

suppliers. Therefore, the Department 

preliminarily determines that the 

conditions of 19 CFR § 351.526(d)(1) 

have not been met, and no adjustment 

to the cash deposit rate is warranted. In 

addition, the Department intends to 

issue another questionnaire to Jindal 

and the GOI to further investigate the 

existence of an additional benefit 

through the reimbursement of the VAT, 

following these preliminary results of 

review. 

B. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

to be Not Used 

We preliminarily determine that 

Jindal did not apply for or receive 

benefits during the POR under the 

programs listed below: 

1. Duty Free Replenishment Certificate 

(DFRC) (GOI) 

2. Target Plus Scheme (GOI) 

3. Capital Subsidy (GOI) 

4. Exemption of Export Credit from 

Interest Taxes (GOI) 

5. Loan Guarantees from the GOI 

6. Income Tax Exemption Scheme 

(Sections 10A) (GOI) 

7. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme 

(DEPS/DEPB) 

8. State of Maharashtra (SOM) 

Electricity Duty Exemption 

9. State Sales Tax Incentive Programs 

other than from the SOM, Uttaranchel, 

and State of Gujarat 

10. Octroi Refund Scheme-(SOM) 

11. Waiving of Interest on Loans by 

SICOM Limited (SOM) 

12. State Sales Tax Incentives-section 4– 

A of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act 

13. State of Uttar Pradesh Capital 

Incentive Scheme 

14. SOG Infrastructure Assistance 

Schemes 

15. Capital Incentive Scheme of 

Uttaranchel 

C. Programs for which more 

Information is Required 

1. Invalidated Licenses under the ALP 

In its original questionnaire response 

Jindal points out that an Advance 

License is not transferable, in 

accordance with the Indian EXIM Policy 

2002–2007 and the Foreign Trade Policy 

(FTP) 2004–2009. However, in 

accordance with Para 4.1.1(b) of the 

EXIM Policy, 2002–2007, and Para 4.13 

of the Handbook of Procedures, 2002– 

2007, and Para 4.1.11 of the FTP 2004– 

2009, Jindal noted that an Advance 

License can be invalidated in favor of a 

domestic supplier. See Jindal’s Original 

Questionnaire Response, at 73 to 74 

(October 30, 2008) (Jindal’s Original 

Questionnaire Response). Once the GOI 

has invalidated an Advance License, in 

whole or in part, the import entitlement 

under the advance license is reduced to 

the extent of the invalidation, and the 

GOI will issue an Advance Intermediate 

License to the supplier. Subsequently, 

the domestic supplier has to follow all 

procedures of the Advance License for 

imports and exports. See Jindal’s First 

Supplemental Response, at 21 to 22 

(March 11, 2009) (Jindal’s First 

Supplemental Response). 

According to Jindal, the issuance of 

an Advance Intermediate License to the 

supplier for the quantity and value of 

inputs against which the existing 

Advance License was reduced or 

invalidated, ensures that inputs 

imported duty free and consumed in the 

production of the intermediate product 

are consumed in the production of a 

final product for which the Advance 

License was issued, and that that 

product is ultimately exported. See 

Jindal’s Original Questionnaire 

Response, at 73–74. 

In response to the Department’s 

request to explain under what 

circumstances Jindal will request that 

the GOI invalidate an Advance License, 

Jindal responded that this is based on its 

business decisions, such as availability 

of indigenous inputs, size of 

consignments and inventory. Jindal 

further explained that, based on its 

request to the GOI, the GOI will 

invalidate the requested quantity for 

direct import and will issue a 

corresponding invalidation letter to 

Jindal, specifying the quantity and value 

of the invalidated item, and includes the 

name of the domestic supplier obtaining 

the advance intermediate license, and 

the amount and value assigned to the 

advance intermediate license. In 

addition, Jindal points out that it does 

not have any information concerning 

the import of inputs on part of the 

domestic supplier against its 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 39639 

intermediate advance license. Id., at 34– 

37. 

Further, Jindal reported that it 

purchased materials from such domestic 

suppliers who received Advance 

Intermediates Licenses from the GOI 

based on the quantity and value of 

Jindal’s invalidated licenses during the 

POR. In its second supplemental 

questionnaire response, Jindal provided 

the Department with a detailed listing, 

reporting the date and value of its 

purchases from these domestic 

suppliers by invoice, exclusive of any 

excise tax or value added tax. See 

Jindal’s Second Supplemental 

Questionnaire Response, at 32. 

In its second supplemental response, 

the GOI explained that the decision of 

an Advance License holder to invalidate 

a license or parts thereof, is based on 

business or economic reasons, such as 

price, availability, or technical 

specifications of the input. The export 

obligation (EO) accompanying the 

Advance Intermediate License, 

according to the GOI, is monitored by 

the DGFT, which maintains the records 

in a master register. Like the holder of 

an Advance License, the holder of an 

Advance Intermediate License is 

required to separately fulfill its EO in 

correlation to the inputs this domestic 

supplier imports, and is required to file 

the requisite forms with the DGFT. The 

amount of inputs the holder of the 

Advance Intermediate License can 

import remains the same as was 

authorized in the original advance 

license. See GOI’s Second Supplemental 

Response, at 3 to 4 (July 20, 2009) (GOI’s 

Second Supplemental Response). 

The information provided on the 

record of this review by Jindal and the 

GOI indicates that both the benefit and 

the EO in the amount of the invalidation 

of the original license in quantity and 

value, are transferred to the recipient of 

the Advance Intermediate License (i.e., 

the domestic supplier). Jindal provided 

supporting documentation issued by the 

GOI that discloses the amount and total 

value of the invalidation for the input, 

as well as the name and address of the 

domestic supplier receiving the 

endorsement. See Jindal’s First 

Supplemental Questionnaire Response, 

at Exhibit S1–15. Further, the holder of 

the Advance Intermediate License has to 

file certifications, i.e., an ANF 4F form, 

with the DGFT to demonstrate that it is 

meeting its export commitment in 

accordance with the authorized duty 

free imports, indicating that both the 

benefit and the EO in the amount of 

invalidation are transferred from Jindal 

to the domestic supplier. See GOI’s 

Second Supplemental Response, at 3 

and Annexure 2. 

At this time we do not have sufficient 

information from Jindal or the GOI to 

determine whether the GOI’s 

invalidation of Jindal’s Advanced 

Licenses provided a benefit to Jindal 

under under section 771(5)(E) of the 

Act. Specifically, the record is unclear 

as to what consideration, if any, that 

Jindal received from its suppliers in 

return for the license(s) invalidated by 

the GOI. 

We intend to seek further information 

and issue an interim analysis describing 

our preliminary findings with respect to 

this program before the final 

determination, so that parties will have 

the opportunity to comment on our 

findings before the final results of 

review. 

Preliminary Results of Administrative 

Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

§ 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for Jindal for the 

POR. We preliminarily determine the 

total countervailable subsidy to be 7.18 

percent ad valorem for Jindal. 

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 administrative review, as provided 

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

cash deposit rate for the company listed 

above will be that established in the 

final results of this review, 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, or in 

the original countervailing duty 

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 20.40 

percent ad valorem, the all–others rate 

made effective by the CVD investigation. 

See PET Film Final Determination, 67 

FR at 34906. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon publication of the final results 

of this review, the Department shall 

determine, and Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) shall assess, 

countervailing duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

§ 351.212(b)(2), the Department will 

instruct CBP to assess countervailing 

duties by applying the rates included in 

the final results of the review to the 

entered value of the merchandise. The 

Department intends to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after the date of publication of 

the final results of this 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). This 

clarification applies to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by any company included in the final 

results of review for which the reviewed 

company did not know that the 

merchandise it sold to the intermediary 

(e.g., a reseller, trading company, or 

exporter) was destined for the United 

States. In such instances, the 

Department will instruct CBP to 

liquidate un–reviewed entries at the ‘‘all 

others’’ rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See id. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this segment 

of the proceeding within five days of the 

public announcement of this notice. See 

19 CFR § 351.224(b). 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, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. See 19 CFR § 351.310(c). 

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. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.309, 

interested parties may submit written 

comments in response to these 

preliminary results. Unless the time 

period is extended by the Department, 

case briefs are to be submitted within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. See 19 

CFR § 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, which 

must be limited to arguments raised in 

case briefs, are to be submitted no later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

§ 351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments in this proceeding are 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
39640 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) a statement of the issues; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities cited. Further, we 

request that parties submitting written 

comments provide the Department with 

a diskette containing an electronic copy 

of the public version of such comments. 

Case and rebuttal briefs must be served 

on interested parties, in accordance 

with 19 CFR § 351.303(f). 

Unless extended, the Department will 

issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any written briefs, not later than 120 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

These preliminary results are issued 

and published in accordance with 

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

Act, and 19 CFR § 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: July 31, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–19007 Filed 8–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

Procurement List Additions 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Additions to the Procurement 

List. 

SUMMARY: This action adds to the 

Procurement List products and services 

to be furnished by nonprofit agencies 

employing persons who are blind or 

have other severe disabilities. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 7, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 

1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, 

Arlington, Virginia 22202–3259. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 

603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additions 

On June 15, 2009, the Committee for 

Purchase From People Who Are Blind 

or Severely Disabled published notice 

(74 FR 28221–28222) of proposed 

addition to the Procurement List. 

After consideration of the material 

presented to it concerning capability of 

qualified nonprofit agencies to provide 

the products and services and impact of 

the additions on the current or most 

recent contractors, the Committee has 

determined that the products and 

services listed below are suitable for 

procurement by the Federal Government 

under 41 U.S.C. 46–48c and 41 CFR 51– 

2.4. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

I certify that the following action will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The major factors considered for this 

certification were: 

1. The action will not result in any 

additional reporting, recordkeeping or 

other compliance requirements for small 

entities other than the small 

organizations that will furnish the 

products and services to the 

Government. 

2. The action will result in 

authorizing small entities to furnish the 

products and services to the 

Government. 

3. There are no known regulatory 

alternatives which would accomplish 

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in 

connection with the products and 

services proposed for addition to the 

Procurement List. 

End of Certification 

Accordingly, the following products 

and services are added to the 

Procurement List: 

Products 

NSN: 7530–00–NIB–0878—Folder File. 

NSN: 7530–00–NIB–0879—Folder File. 

NSN: 7530–00–NIB–0889—Folder File. 

NPA: Association for Vision Rehabilitation 

and Employment, Inc., Binghamton, NY. 

Contracting Activity: Federal Acquisition 

Service, GSA/FSS OFC SUP CTR—Paper 

Products, New York, NY. 

Coverage: A-list for the total Government 

requirement as aggregated by the General 

Services Administration. 

NSN: 7510–00–NIB–0862—Tape, Pressure 

Sensitive .75 × 1000 6 rolls per pack. 

NSN: 7510–00–NIB–0863—Tape, Pressure 

Sensitive .75 × 1000 6 rolls per pack. 

NSN: 7510–00–NIB–0864—Tape, Pressure 

Sensitive .75 × 1000 10 rolls per pack. 

NPA: Alphapointe Association for the Blind, 

Kansas City, MO. 

Contracting Activity: Federal Acquisition 

Service, GSA/FSS OFC SUP CTR—Paper 

Products, New York, NY. 

Coverage: A-list for the total Government 

requirement as aggregated by the General 

Services Administration. 

NSN: 7520–00–NIB–2016—Highlighter, 

Biodegradable. 

NPA: West Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, 

San Angelo, TX. 

Contracting Activity: Federal Acquisition 

Service, GSA/FSS OFC SUP CTR—Paper 

Products, New York, NY. 

Coverage: A-list for the total Government 

requirement as aggregated by General 

Services Administration. 

NSN: MR 520—3 Pack Holiday Soy Candle. 

NPA: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West 

Allis, WI. 

Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary 

Agency (DeCA)—Military Resale, Fort 

Lee, VA. 

Coverage: C-list for the total requirement of 

Defense Commissary Agency. 

NSN: 7220–00–NSH–0007—Mat, Floor. 

NSN: 7220–00–NSH–0009—Mat, Floor. 

NSN: 7220–00–NSH–0010—Mat, Floor. 

NPA: Northeastern Michigan Rehabilitation 

and Opportunity Center (NEMROC), 

Alpena, MI. 

Contracting Activity: Federal Acquisition 

Service, GSA/FAS Southwest Supply 

Center (QSDAC), Fort Worth, TX. 

Coverage: B-list for the broad Government 

requirement as aggregated by the General 

Services Administration. 

NSN: MR 300—Camelbak Thermos Shippers. 

NSN: MR 832—Tomato Saver Shippers. 

NPA: Winston-Salem Industries for the 

Blind, Winston-Salem, NC. 

Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary 

Agency (DeCA)—Military Resale, Fort 

Lee, VA. 

Coverage: C-list for the total requirement of 

Defense Commissary Agency. 

Services 

Service Type/Location: Custodial Services; 

U.S. Capitol Building, Capitol Visitor 

Center, 2nd and D Street, SW, 

Washington, DC. 

NPA: FEDCAP Rehabilitation Services, Inc., 

New York, NY. 

Contracting Activity: Architect of the Capitol, 

Washington, DC. 

Service Type/Location: Facility Management; 

Schofield Barracks, Schofield, HI, 

Helemano Military Reservation, Wahiawa, 

HI, 

Tripler Army Medical Center, HI, 

Wheeler Army Air Field, Schofield 

Barracks, HI, Fort Shafter, HI. 

NPA: Goodwill Contract Services of Hawaii, 

Inc., Honolulu, HI. 

Service Type/Location: Grounds Maintenance 

Service; 

Schofield Barracks, Schofield, HI, 

Helemano Military Reservation, Wahiawa, 

HI, 

Tripler Army Medical Center, HI, 

Wheeler Army Air Field, Schofield 

Barracks, HI, Fort Shafter, HI. 

NPA: Lanakila Rehabilitation Center, 

Honolulu, HI. 

Contracting Activity: Department of the 

Army, Fort Shafter, HI. 

Barry S. Lineback, 

Director, Business Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–18925 Filed 8–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES