47546 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Notices 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: August 1, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19946 Filed 8–4–11; 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 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 

antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, 

and strip (PET Film) from India. This 

review covers one respondent, Ester 

Industries Ltd. (Ester), a producer and 

exporter of PET Film from India. The 

Department preliminarily determines 

that Ester did not make sales of PET 

Film from India at below normal value 

(NV) during the July 1, 2009, through 

June 30, 2010, period of review. The 

preliminary results are listed below in 

the section titled ‘‘Preliminary Results 

of Review.’’ Interested parties are 

invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 5, 2011. 

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 

antidumping duty order on PET Film 

from India. 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) 

(PET Film India Order). On July 1, 2010, 

the Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of this order. See Antidumping 

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 

or Suspended Investigation; 

Opportunity To Request Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 38074 (July 1, 2010). In 

response, on July 27, 2010, and August 

2, 2010, Ester and SRF Limited (SRF), 

respectively, requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of their sales of PET Film in the 

U.S. market. On July 29, 2010, Dupont 

Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, 

Inc., SKC, Inc. and Toray Plastics 

(America) Inc. (collectively, the 

petitioners) requested an administrative 

review of Ester. 

On August 31, 2010, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on PET Film 

from India covering the period July 1, 

2009, through June 30, 2010. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Deferral of Initiation of 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 53274, 

53276 (August 31, 2010). The 

Department initiated the review with 

respect to Ester and SRF. 

On September 15, 2010, the 

Department issued an antidumping duty 

questionnaire to the respondents. On 

October 1, 2010, SRF withdrew its 

request for an administrative review, 

and the Department rescinded the 

administrative review of SRF on July 7, 

2011. See Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet and Strip From India: 

Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 

39855 (July 7, 2011). 

Ester timely submitted section A of 

the questionnaire on October 5, 2010, 

and sections B through D on November 

3, 2010. On February 3, 2011, and on 

February 11, 2011, the Department 

issued its first supplemental 

questionnaires to sections D, and A 

through C, respectively. Ester timely 

filed its response to section D on March 

1, 2011, and to sections A through C on 

April 15, 2011. The Department issued 

its second supplemental questionnaire 

to section D on March 18, 2011, and 

Ester filed its timely response on April 

15, 2011. 

On April 1, 2011, the Department 

extended the time period for issuing the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review. See Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet and Strip From India: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 18155 

(April 1, 2011). 

The Department issued its second 

supplemental questionnaire to sections 

A through C on June 17, 2011, and Ester 

filed its response to this questionnaire 

on July 5, 2011. 

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. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is July 1, 

2009, through June 30, 2010. 

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 

Ester’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)(i) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act). Based on this comparison, we 

determined that Ester’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 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Notices 47547 

1Ester’s First Supplemental Questionnaire 

Response of March 29, 2011 (First Supplemental 

Response), at 18 and 28. 

2See Ester’s Original Response, Section A, of 

October 5, 2010, at Exhibit 3(b). 

3Ester’s Second Supplemental Questionnaire 

Response of July 5, 2011 (Second Supplemental 

Response), at 3–4. 

4Ester’s First Supplemental Response, at 28 and 

Exhibit SQA–9. 

5Second Supplemental Response, at 4. 

(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, dimensions, 

thickness, and surface treatment. Where 

there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the home market to 

compare to U.S. sales, we compared 

U.S. sales to the most similar foreign 

like product on the basis of the 

characteristics listed above. 

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States were 

made at less than fair value, we 

compared the export price (EP) to NV, 

as described in the United States Price 

and Normal Value sections of this 

notice. In accordance with section 

777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated 

monthly weighted-average prices for NV 

and compared these to individual U.S. 

transaction prices. 

Date of Sale 

The Department will normally use 

invoice date, as recorded in the 

exporter’s or producer’s records kept in 

the ordinary course of business, as the 

date of sale, but may use a date other 

than the invoice date if it better reflects 

the date on which the material terms of 

sale are established. See 19 CFR 

351.401(i). For Ester, we preliminarily 

determine that no departure from our 

standard practice is warranted. Ester 

reported invoice date as date of sale for 

both the home market and the U.S. 

market, and the record does not indicate 

that material terms of sale are 

established at a later date or earlier in 

the sales process. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, the Department determines 

NV based on sales in the comparison 

market at the same level of trade as the 

EP or constructed export price (CEP) 

sales in the U.S. market. To determine 

whether NV sales are at a different level 

of trade (LOT) than U.S. sales, we 

examine selling functions along the 

chain of distribution between the 

respondent and the unaffiliated 

customer for EP sales. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). If the comparison market 

sales are at a different LOT, and the 

difference affects price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and comparison 

market sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction, then we make an LOT 

adjustment pursuant to section 

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

In implementing these principles, we 

examined all the information provided 

by Ester regarding the selling functions 

involved in its home market and U.S. 

sales. In the original questionnaire, the 

Department asked Ester to provide its 

selling functions for each of its levels of 

trade, and to state the degree that 

function was performed (i.e., rarely, 

sometimes, frequently, always). 

Additionally, the Department provided 

a sample chart at the end of the Section 

A questionnaire to use as a guideline. 

In its questionnaire responses, Ester 

reported three LOTs in the home 

market: (1) End Users; (2) Distributors/ 

Traders;, and (3) Agents; and two LOTs 

in the U.S. market: (1) End Users; and 

(2) Distributors/Traders.1 In addition, 

Ester provided a chart of its selling 

functions.2 However, it did not provide 

a breakout of sales activities between 

the claimed LOT(s) in the home market 

and in the U.S. market it claimed in its 

responses. Instead, Ester reported home 

market sales in two categories: made 

against stock or produced after receipt 

of the order. Ester later clarified in its 

second supplemental response that it 

occasionally made sales from stock in 

the home market only.3

In its first supplemental response, 

Ester revised its chart to include the 

level of degree of the selling activities, 

but did not break out the selling 

functions between the various LOTs in 

the home market and U.S. market.4 In 

the second supplemental questionnaire, 

the Department requested that Ester 

indicate the level of selling function 

which Ester provides for each type of 

customer; however, Ester responded 

that it ‘‘provides the individual selling 

functions to all customers.’’ 5

Because Ester did not provide 

complete information, we are unable to 

perform an LOT analysis. Despite 

explicit instructions as to how to report 

its selling functions, Ester has not 

provided the data needed to properly 

analyze the levels of trade the company 

has reported, to determine whether an 

offset is warranted. We have no basis to 

perform such an analysis between the 

various types of sales in the home and 

U.S. markets. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine that Ester made 

all home market sales at one LOT. 

Moreover, we preliminarily determine 

that all home market sales by Ester were 

made at the same LOT as their U.S. 

sales. Accordingly, an LOT adjustment 

is not warranted. For a detailed analysis, 

see the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section in 

Memorandum to Thomas Gilgunn, 

Program Manager, from Elfi Blum, 

International Trade Analyst, Analysis 

Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from India: Ester Industries Ltd. 

(Preliminary Analysis Memorandum), 

dated concurrently with this notice. 

United States Price 

We used EP methodology for Ester’s 

U.S. sales, 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 CEP 

methodology was not otherwise 

warranted based on the evidence on the 

record. In accordance with sections 

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

EP using the Cost Insurance Freight 

price (up to named point of destination) 

Ester charged its unaffiliated customer. 

We made deductions from the starting 

price, where applicable, for movement 

expenses, including domestic inland 

freight and insurance, domestic 

brokerage and handling, and 

international freight and marine 

insurance, and U.S. inland freight. 

Information about the specific 

adjustments and our analysis of the 

adjustments is business proprietary, and 

is detailed in the ‘‘Adjustments’’ section 

in the Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

Further, section 772(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act states that EP should be increased 

by the amount of any import duties 

‘‘imposed by the country of exportation 

which have been rebated, or which have 

not been collected, by reason of the 

exportation of the subject merchandise 

to the United States. * * *’’ Ester 

claimed a duty drawback adjustment 

under this provision for its export 

credits earned on the Government of 

India (GOI) Duty Entitlement Passbook 

Scheme (DEPS). In its responses to the 

Department, Ester stated that it reported 

all of Ester’s DEPS credits earned on 

exports to all markets during the POR, 

and that the credits it reported also 

include metallized PET film, which is 

not subject to the PET Film India 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
47548 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Notices 

6See Ester’s Original Response of November 3, 

2010, at 86 and Exhibit Z–6, and First 

Supplemental Response, at 32–33. 

7See Second Supplemental Response, at Exhibits 

SQ2–ABC–8 and ABC–9. 

8See Second Supplemental Response, at 35–38 

and Exhibit SQ2–ABC–8. 

Order.6 In addition, Ester reported the 

DEPS credits earned on the free-onboard (FOB) value of its total exports 

during the POR, and the DEPS credits 

utilized on its imports during the POR.7

India’s DEPS scheme enables 

exporting companies to earn import 

duty exemptions in the form of 

passbook credits rather than cash. All 

exporters are eligible to earn DEPS 

credits on a post-export basis, provided 

that the GOI has established a standard 

input-output norm (SION) for the 

exported product. DEPS credits can be 

used for any subsequent imports, 

regardless of whether they are 

consumed in the production of an 

exported product. DEPS credits are 

valid for twelve months and are 

transferable after the foreign exchange is 

realized from the export sales on which 

the DEPS credits are earned. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from India: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 75672 (December 12, 

2008), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Duty 

Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS/ 

DEPB).’’ The Department has 

determined that the DEPS scheme for 

which Ester is claiming duty drawback 

to be countervailable because: (1) The 

GOI provides credits for the future 

payment of import duties; and (2) the 

GOI does not have in place and does not 

apply a system that is reasonable and 

effective for the purposes intended to 

confirm which inputs, and in what 

amounts, are consumed in the 

production of the exported product. See 

id. and 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, at Comment 1. 

In determining whether an adjustment 

should be made to EP for this duty 

credit, we look for a reasonable link 

between the duties imposed and those 

rebated or exempted. We do not require 

that the imported input be traced 

directly from importation through 

exportation. We do require, however, 

that the company meet our ‘‘twopronged’’ test in order for this increase 

to be made to EP. The first element is 

that the import duty and its rebate or 

exemption be directly linked to, and 

dependent upon, one another; the 

second element is that the company 

must demonstrate that there were 

sufficient imports of the imported 

material to account for the duty 

drawback or exemption granted for the 

export of the manufactured product. 

See, e.g., Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 

v. United States, 635 F.3d 1335, 1340 

(Fed. Cir. 2011); and Mittal Steel USA, 

Inc. v. United States, 31 CIT 1395, 

1412–1413 (2007). 

Ester failed to establish that it met the 

first prong of the two-pronged test: That 

there is a necessary link between the 

import duties paid on any inputs 

imported and the duty credit given by 

the GOI. First, Ester did not demonstrate 

how it arrived at the appropriate 

amounts of duty credits it allocated and 

claimed from its duty credits earned on 

all exports of subject and non-subject 

merchandise during the POR. Second, 

the Department has determined that the 

GOI does not have a system in place that 

is reasonable and effective for the 

purposes intended to confirm which 

inputs, and in what amounts, are 

consumed in the production of the 

exported product. While there is a SION 

in place for the production of subject 

merchandise, the duty credit given is 

based on an assumed amount of import 

content, and fails to link the amount of 

duty credits to the amount of import 

duties actually paid on imported inputs. 

As shown in the response, Ester’s DEPS 

credits for which it claims duty 

drawback were earned on a predetermined percent of the FOB value of 

its exports during the POR. 

Furthermore, as stated in Ester’s 

response, ‘‘Ester is not required to 

import to avail the benefit of DEPS 

benefits. The DEPS credit is based on 

prefixed rates and the Company is 

entitled to the DEPS credit regardless of 

imports of inputs.’’ 8 For the second 

prong, Ester did not demonstrate that it 

imported any inputs for the production 

of subject merchandise prior to, during, 

or after the POR. Thus, for these 

preliminary results, we determine that 

Ester has not demonstrated that it meets 

both prongs of the duty drawback test 

pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act. Accordingly, we have not made an 

adjustment to EP for duty drawback. 

In accordance with section 

772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we will adjust 

Ester’s U.S. price to account for 

countervailing duties attributable to 

subject merchandise in order to offset 

export subsidies in the concurrent 

countervailing duty administrative 

review of Ester. 

Cost of Production Analysis 

The Department disregarded Ester’s 

sales below cost of production (COP) in 

the investigation. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

From India, 66 FR 65893 (December 21, 

2001), at ‘‘C. COP Analysis,’’ unchanged 

in the PET Film India Order. We 

therefore have reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect, pursuant to section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that sales of 

the foreign like product under 

consideration for the determination of 

NV in this review may have been made 

at prices below COP. Thus, pursuant to 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 

examined whether Ester’s sales in the 

home market were made at prices below 

the COP during the POR. 

The Department’s normal practice is 

to calculate an annual weighted-average 

cost for the entire period of 

investigation or POR. See, e.g., Certain 

Pasta From Italy: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 

2000) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 18. 

However, the Department recognizes 

that possible distortions may result if 

our normal annual-average cost 

methodology is used during a period of 

significant cost changes. The 

Department determines whether to 

deviate from our normal methodology of 

calculating an annual weighted-average 

cost by evaluating two primary factors: 

(1) Whether the change in the cost of 

manufacturing recognized by the 

respondent during the POR is deemed 

significant (i.e., greater than 25 percent); 

and (2) whether the record evidence 

indicates that sales during the shorter 

averaging periods could be reasonably 

linked with the COP during the same 

shorter averaging periods. See Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398, 

75399 (December 11, 2008) and Certain 

Welded Stainless Steel Pipes From the 

Republic of Korea: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 31242 (June 30, 2009). 

Based on the review of record evidence, 

Ester did not appear to experience 

significant changes in cost of 

manufacturing during the POR. 

Therefore, we followed our normal 

methodology of calculating an annual 

weighted-average cost for these 

preliminary results of review. 

Based on our analysis of Ester’s 

questionnaire responses, we made 

adjustments to Ester’s reported COP for 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Notices 47549 

9Stainless Steel Bar from France: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

46482 (August 10, 2005) and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8. 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses (SG&A) and for interest. For 

more detailed information, see 

Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting from 

Sheikh M. Hannan, Senior Accountant, 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strips from India, Cost 

of Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Ester Industries 

Limited, dated August 1, 2011. 

We compared sales of the foreign like 

product in the home market with 

model-specific COP figures for the POR. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of 

the Act, we calculated COP based on the 

sum of the costs of materials and 

fabrication employed in producing the 

foreign like product, plus SG&A and all 

costs and expenses incidental to placing 

the foreign like product in packed 

condition and ready for shipment. In 

our sales-below-cost analysis, we relied 

on home market sales and COP 

information provided by Ester in its 

questionnaire responses. 

We compared the weighted-average 

COPs to home market sales of the 

foreign like product, as required under 

section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 

determine whether these sales had been 

made at prices below the COP. In 

determining whether to disregard home 

market sales made at prices below the 

COP, we examined whether such sales 

were made (1) within an extended 

period of time in substantial quantities, 

and (2) at prices which did not permit 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time in the normal course of 

trade, in accordance with section 

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a 

product-specific basis, we compared the 

COP to home market prices, less any 

movement charges, discounts, and 

direct and indirect selling expenses. 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than COP, we did not 

disregard any below-cost sales of that 

product because the below-cost sales 

were not made in substantial quantities 

within an extended period of time. 

Where 20 percent or more of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than COP, we 

disregarded the below-cost sales 

because they were made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time, in accordance with sections 

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Based 

upon our comparison of prices to PORaverage costs, we determined that the 

below-cost prices did not permit the 

recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time, in accordance with 

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

Therefore, for purposes of this review, 

we disregarded the below-cost sales and 

used the remaining sales, as the basis for 

NV, in accordance with section 

773(b)(1) of the Act. 

Normal Value 

Price-to-Price Comparison 

We based NV on the starting prices of 

Ester’s sales to unaffiliated home market 

customers, pursuant to sections 

773(a)(1)(A) and 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 

Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) 

of the Act, we made deductions from 

NV for movement expenses (i.e., inland 

freight and inland insurance) where 

appropriate. In accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410(c), we made, where indicated, 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for 

home market direct selling expenses, 

including imputed credit expenses. 

Ester did not report certain payment 

dates. In instances of missing pay dates 

or pay dates preceding the invoice date, 

we used the signature date of the 

preliminary results (August 1, 2011) as 

the payment date to calculate imputed 

credit expenses in the home market, in 

accordance with practice.9 We also 

made adjustments in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling 

expenses incurred on comparisonmarket 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. We also 

made adjustments for differences in 

costs attributable to differences in 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. See 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. 

Constructed Value-to-Price 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we used constructed value 

(CV) as the basis for NV when there 

were no above-cost contemporaneous 

sales of identical or similar merchandise 

in the comparison market. We 

calculated CV in accordance with 

section 773(e) of the Act. We included 

the cost of materials and fabrication, 

SG&A, and profit. In accordance with 

section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based 

SG&A and profit on the amounts 

incurred and realized by the respondent 

in connection with the production and 

sale of the foreign like product in the 

ordinary course of trade for 

consumption in the foreign country. For 

selling expenses, we used the weightedaverage home market selling expenses. 

Currency Conversions 

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.415, we made currency 

conversions for Ester’s sales based on 

the daily exchange rates in effect on the 

dates of the relevant U.S. sales as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of 

New York. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine the following 

weighted-average dumping margin 

exists for the period July 1, 2009, 

through June 30, 2010. 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-average 

margin 

Ester Industries Ltd ...... 0.00% 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. We will 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries of 

merchandise produced and/or exported 

by Ester. The Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 

days after the date of publication of the 

final results of review. For assessment 

purposes, where the respondent 

reported the entered value for its sales, 

we calculated importer-specific (or 

customer-specific) ad valorem 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of the dumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those same sales. 

See 19 CFR 351.212(b). However, where 

the respondent did not report the 

entered value for its sales, we will 

calculate importer-specific (or customerspecific) per unit duty assessment rates. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any per 

unit duty 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 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
47550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Notices 

1The petitioner is Seaman Paper Company of 

Massachusetts, Inc. 

2See the Department’s memoranda to the file 

entitled, ‘‘Ex Parte Meeting with Counsel for Max 

Fortune (Vietnam) Paper Products Company, 

Limited,’’ dated July 11, 2011, and ‘‘Ex Parte 

Meeting with the Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated July 

14, 2011. 

3See Letter from MFVN, dated August 17, 2010. 

minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). 

See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective for all shipments of 

PET Film from the India entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided for 

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

The cash deposit rate for company 

under review will be the rate 

established in the final results of this 

review (except, if the rate is zero or de 

minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no 

cash deposit will be required); (2) for 

previously reviewed or 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, a prior 

review, or the less-than-fair-value 

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) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous review, 

the cash deposit rate will be the all 

others rate for this proceeding, 5.71 

percent. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties in this review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested 

party may request a hearing within 30 

days of the publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 

351.310. If a hearing is requested, the 

Department will notify interested 

parties of the hearing schedule. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results of 

this review. Unless extended by the 

Department, interested parties must 

submit case briefs within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, must 

be filed not later than five days after the 

time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c) and (d) (for a further 

discussion of case briefs and rebuttal 

briefs, respectively). Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

review 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. 

Executive summaries should be limited 

to five pages total, including footnotes. 

We intend to issue the final results of 

this administrative review, including 

the results of our analysis of issues 

raised in the written comments, within 

120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results in the Federal 

Register, unless otherwise extended. 

See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: August 1, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19952 Filed 8–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–894] 

Certain Tissue Paper Products From 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Rescission of the 2009–2010 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is rescinding the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

tissue paper products from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) for the period 

of review (POR) of March 1, 2009, to 

February 28, 2010, with respect to Max 

Fortune (Vietnam) Paper Products 

Company Limited (MFVN) because 

MFVN had no sales of subject 

merchandise which entered the United 

States during the POR. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 5, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482– 

3773, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 6, 2011, the Department 

published the preliminary results of this 

administrative review. See Certain 

Tissue Paper Products From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 

19049 (April 6, 2011) (Preliminary 

Results). 

On May 20, 2011, MFVN and the 

petitioner 1 submitted case briefs. On 

May 27, 2011, the petitioner submitted 

its rebuttal brief. MFVN did not submit 

a rebuttal brief. 

On May 31, 2011, MFVN withdrew its 

May 6, 2011, request for a hearing. No 

other party in this review requested a 

hearing. 

On July 8 and 13, 2011, the 

Department held meetings with MFVN’s 

and the petitioner’s counsels, 

respectively, to discuss issues raised in 

their case briefs.2

Rescission of Administrative Review 

In this administrative review, MFVN 

requested rescission of this review on 

the basis that it made no sales/ 

shipments during the POR of tissue 

paper products produced from Chineseorigin jumbo rolls/sheets.3 We 

determined in the Preliminary Results, 

as adverse facts available (AFA), that 

during the POR MFVN made shipments 

to the United States of tissue paper 

products produced using Chinese-origin 

jumbo rolls/sheets. Further, based on 

AFA, we preliminarily found that no 

substantial transformation is occurring 

as a result of further processing by 

MFVN in Vietnam and, thus, the 

country of origin for antidumping duty 

(AD) purposes of the tissue paper 

products produced by MFVN from 

Chinese-origin jumbo rolls/sheets is 

China. Consequently, we assigned 

MFVN a cash deposit rate of 112.64 

percent. 

Our Preliminary Results assumed that 

MFVN was the entity making the first 

sale for export to the United States of 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES