5592 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

1See 1.a. Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,

and Strip From the Republic of Korea; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR

42835 (August 17, 1995), as amended Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the

Republic of Korea; Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

53997 (February 12, 1996).

2.b. Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and

Strip From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and

Notice of Revocation in Part, 61 FR 35177 (July 5,

1996).

3.c. Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and

Strip From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and

Notice of Revocation in Part, 61 FR 58374

(November 14, 1996), as amended 62 FR 1735

(January 13, 1997).

4.d. Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and

Strip From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

38064 (July 16, 1997), as amended 62 FR 45222

(August 26, 1997).

5.e. Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and

Strip From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR

37334 (July 10, 1998), and Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the

Republic of Korea; Notice of Final Court Decision

and Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 63 FR 52241 (September 30,

1998).

6.f. Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and

Strip From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part;

64 FR 62648 (November 17, 1999).

2See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and

Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and

Notice of Revocation in Part, 61 FR 35177 (July 5,

1996), and Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,

and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and

Notice of Revocation in Part, 61 FR 58374

(November 14, 1996).

Unit, B–099 of the main Commerce

Building. We intend to issue the final

results no later than 120 days after the

publication of the notice of preliminary

results of these reviews.

This extension is in accordance with

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

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2586 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–807]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate

Film From Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Result of

Expedited Sunset Review: Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film from Korea.

SUMMARY: On July 1, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated a sunset review

of the antidumping duty order on

polethylene terephthalate (‘‘PET’’) film

from Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the

Act’’). On the basis of a notice of intent

to participate and adequate substantive

response filed on behalf of a domestic

interested party, and inadequate

response from respondent interested

parties, the Department determined to

conduct an expedited sunset review. As

a result of this review, the Department

finds that revocation of the antidumping

duty order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

at the levels indicated in the Final

Results of Review section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G.

Skinner, Office of Policy for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th St. & Constitution Ave.,

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202) 482–5050 or (202) 482–1560,

respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

This review was conducted pursuant

to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act.

The Department’s procedures for the

conduct of sunset reviews are set forth

in Procedures for Conducting Five-year

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR

13516 (March 20, 1998) (‘‘Sunset

Regulations’’) and 19 CFR part 351

(1999) in general. Guidance on

methodological or analytical issues

relevant to the Department’s conduct of

sunset reviews is set forth in the

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98:3—

Policies Regarding the Conduct of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871

(April 16, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Policy

Bulletin’’).

Scope

The merchandise covered by this

antidumping duty order includes all

gauges of raw pre-treated, or primed

polythylene terephthalate film, sheet,

and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. The films excluded from this

antidumping duty order 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 (0.254 micrometers) thick. Roller

transport cleaning film which has at

least one of its surfaces modified by the

application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR

latex has also been ruled as not within

the scope of the order. PET film is

currently classifiable under Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) item number

3920.62.00.00. The HTS item number is

provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

On June 5, 1991, the Department

published the antidumping duty order

and amended final determination of

sales at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) on

PET film from Korea. See Antidumping

Duty Order and Amendment to Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate

Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic

of Korea as amended (56 FR 25669, June

5, 1991). On September 26, 1997 (62 FR

50557) the Department published

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,

and Strip from the Republic of Korea;

Notice of Final Court Decision and

Amended Final Determination of

Antidumping Duty Investigation. In the

notice of final court decision and

amended final determination of the

antidumping duty LTFV investigation,

based on our determination on remand,

SKC Limited and SKC America, Inc.

(collectively ‘‘SKC’’) was assigned a

margin of 13.92 percent ad valorem,

Cheil Synthetics Incorporated (‘‘Cheil’’),

a margin of 36.33 percent ad valorem,

and the ‘‘all others’’ margin was 21.5

percent.

The Department has completed six

administrative reviews of PET film since

the issuance of the antidumping duty

order.1 On September 26, 1997, the

Department issued the Final Results of

Changed Circumstances Antidumping

Duty Administration Review, 63 FR

3703 (January 26, 1998), in which the

Department determined that Saehan

Industries, Inc. (‘‘Saehan’’) was the

successor firm to Cheil. The Department

has not found duty absorption with

respect to this order.

The order remains in effect for all

producers and exporters of PET film

from Korea, except for Cheil and Kolon,

for which the Department revoked the

antidumping duty order.2

Background

On July 1, 1999, the Department

initiated a sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on PET film

from Korea (64 FR 35588) pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Act. On July 15,

1999, the Department received a Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5593

3See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of

Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 62167 (November 16,

1999).

of Intent to Participate on behalf of E.I.

Dupont de Nemours & Company

(‘‘DuPont’’), and Mitsubishi Polyester

Film, LLC (‘‘MFA’’), (collectively ‘‘the

domestic interested parties’’), within the

deadline specified in § 351.218(d)(1)(i)

of the Sunset Regulations. On August 2,

1999, we received a complete

substantive response to the notice of

initiation from the domestic interested

parties within the deadline specified in

§ 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset

Regulations. The domestic interested

parties claimed interested party status

under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as

U.S. producers of a domestic like

product. Dupont states that it was the

petitioner in the original investigation

and has been a participant in all

completed administrative reviews of

this antidumping duty order. MFA

states that it purchased U.S. PET film

operations from the Hoechst Celanese

Corporation. Hoechst Celanese

Corporation was also a petitioner in the

original investigation and an active

participant in prior administrative

reviews.

Although we did not receive a

substantive response from any

respondent interested party, on August

2, 1999, we received a waiver of

participation from SKC. Co., Ltd. and

SKC America, Inc. (collectively ‘‘SKC’’).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C),

we determined to conduct an expedited

sunset review of this order.

In accordance with section

751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the

Department may treat a review as

extraordinarily complicated if it is a

review of a transition order (i.e., an

order in effect on January 1, 1995).

Therefore, on November 16, 1999, the

Department determined that the sunset

review of the antidumping duty order

on PET film from Korea is

extraordinarily complicated and

extended the time limit for completion

of the final results of this review until

not later than January 27, 2000, in

accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of

the Act.3 Although the deadline for this

determination was originally January

27, 2000, due to the Federal

Government shutdown on January 25

and 26, 2000, resulting from inclement

weather, the time-frame for issuing this

determination has been extended by two

days.

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1)

of the Act, the Department conducted

this review to determine whether

revocation of the antidumping order

would be likely to lead to continuation

or recurrence of dumping. Section

752(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in

making this determination, the

Department shall consider the weightedaverage dumping margins determined in

the investigation and subsequent

reviews and the volume of imports of

the subject merchandise for the period

before and the period after the issuance

of the antidumping order. Pursuant to

section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the

Department shall provide to the

International Trade Commission (‘‘the

Commission’’) the magnitude of the

margin of dumping likely to prevail if

the order is revoked.

The Department’s determinations

concerning continuation or recurrence

of dumping and the magnitude of the

margin are discussed below. In addition,

the petitioners’ comments with respect

to the continuation or recurrence of

dumping and the magnitude of the

margin are addressed within the

respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of

Dumping

Drawing on the guidance provided in

the legislative history accompanying the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(‘‘URAA’’), specifically the Statement of

Administrative Action (‘‘the SAA’’),

H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, vol. 1 (1994), the

House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103–826,

pt. 1 (1994), and the Senate Report, S.

Rep. No. 103–412 (1994), the

Department issued its Sunset Policy

Bulletin providing guidance on

methodological and analytical issues,

including the basis for likelihood

determinations. The Department

clarified that determinations of

likelihood will be made on an orderwide basis (see section II.A.2 of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally,

the Department normally will determine

that revocation of an antidumping order

is likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping where (a)

dumping continued at any level above

de minimis after the issuance of the

order, (b) imports of the subject

merchandise ceased after the issuance of

the order, or (c) dumping was

eliminated after the issuance of the

order and import volumes for the

subject merchandise declined

significantly (see section II.A.3 of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin).

In addition to consideration of the

guidance on likelihood cited above,

section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides

that the Department shall determine that

revocation of an order is likely to lead

to continuation or recurrence of

dumping where a respondent interested

party waives its participation in the

sunset review. The Department received

a waiver of participation from SKC. In

addition, the Department did not

receive a substantive response from any

respondent interested party. Pursuant to

§ 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset

Regulations, lack of substantive

response from respondent interested

parties also constitutes a waiver of

participation.

The petitioners argue that revocation

of the antidumping duty order would

likely lead to continuation of dumping

by producers and exporters of PET film

from Korea based on the continuation of

dumping since the original

investigation. The petitioners assert that

from 1990 to 1995 dumping margins

remained above de minimis (see the

petitioners August 2, 1999, Substantive

Response at 6). Additionally, although

in some instances (between 1996 and

1998) dumping margins fell below de

minimis, these de minimis dumping

margins do not establish that producers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise have ceased dumping.

Instead, petitioners argue that the most

recent preliminary results of

administrative review provide a strong

indication that one producer, has

resumed dumping (FR 41380 (July 30,

1999)). Further petitioners assert that

the other producer that was assessed de

minimis dumping margins in the past,

STC, did not make any sales or

shipments during the subsequent two

reviews. Petitioners argue that this

suggests that STC is unable to remain

competitive in the U.S. market with the

discipline of the order in place.

With respect to import volume, the

domestic interested parties assert that,

based on the Department’s Sunset Policy

Bulletin, an examination of import

volumes by the Department is not

necessary to make a likelihood

determination given that dumping

continues. However, the petitioners

state that should the Department

examine import statistics, the

Department will find that import

volumes are highly inconclusive. Using

official import statistics for HTS

subheading 3920.62.00.00, the

petitioners argue that prior to the

issuance of the antidumping duty order

(between 1989 and 1990) the quantity of

imports of the subject merchandise to

the United States grew by 1,265.15

percent (see the petitioners August 2,

1999, Substantive Response at 7, and

Exhibit 2). The petitioners note that

after the imposition of the antidumping

duty order, the level of import growth

dropped. The petitioners maintain that,

although between 1991 and 1992 import

volume increased, the increase was only

5594 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

by 62.93 percent, compared to the

1,265.15 percent increase between 1989

and 1990. In addition, by 1998, imports

declined by 5.57 percent. Further, the

petitioners assert that over the history of

the order, absolute import volumes have

fluctuated significantly. See the

petitioners August 2, 1999 Substantive

Response at 7 & 8, and Exhibit 1.

The petitioners, also argue that the

exchange rate movements (won/$) can

be relevant to a determination of

likelihood of future dumping because

the movement in the exchange rate can

mask the extent of dumping and affect

the Department’s dumping margin

calculations. See the domestic

interested parties Substantive Response

at 8. Moreover, petitioners argue that the

Department should consider the change

in producer and importers behavior

when making its likelihood

determination. Petitioners assert that a

major portion of the margins calculated

in the original investigation was

attributable to certain types of PET film

products, such as off-grade film.

Petitioners contend that producers and

importers decreased their shipments of

off-grade material in order to obtain

lower dumping margins. Once the order

is removed petitioners argue that

producers and importers can resume

easily their shipment of off-grade

material which would result in

dumping at a significant level.

As discussed above in section II.A.3

of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA

at 890, and the House Report at 63–64,

if companies continue dumping with

the discipline of an order in place, the

Department may reasonably infer that

dumping would continue if the

discipline were removed.

After examining the history of this

antidumping duty order, we find that

dumping margins above de minimis

levels continue to exist for at least some

producers. Given that dumping margins

continue to exist, respondent interested

parties waived their right to participate

in the instant review, and absent

argument and evidence to the contrary,

the Department determines that

dumping would likely continue or recur

if the order on PET film from Korea

were revoked. Because we based our

determination on continuation of

dumping margins above de minimis, we

did not consider import volumes and

the other factors cited by the petitioners.

Magnitude of the Margin

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department stated that, consistent with

the SAA and House Report, the

Department will provide to the

Commission the company-specific

margins from the investigation because

that is the only calculated rate that

reflects the behavior of exporters

without the discipline of an order.

Further, for companies not specifically

investigated, or for companies that did

not begin shipping until after the order

was issued, the Department normally

will provide a margin based on the all

others rate from the investigation. (See

section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy

Bulletin.) Exceptions to this policy

include the use of a more recently

calculated margin, where appropriate,

and consideration of duty absorption

determinations. (See sections II.B.2 and

3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.)

The petitioners argue that, consistent

with the SAA, the Department should

report to the Commission the rates from

the original investigation as the

magnitude of the margin likely to

prevail if the antidumping duty order is

revoked, because they are the only

calculated rates that reflect the behavior

of exporters without the discipline of

the order in place. In addition, for

companies that did not participate in

the investigation, or for companies that

did not begin shipping until after the

order was issued, the petitioners argue

that the Department should use the ‘‘all

others’’ rate from the investigation.

We agree with the petitioners that the

dumping margins from the original

investigation are representative of

Korean producers and exporters

behavior should the order be revoked

because they reflect the behavior of

producers and exporters without the

discipline of the order. Therefore,

absent argument or evidence to the

contrary, we will report to the

Commission margins contained in the

Final Results of Review of this notice.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, the

Department finds that revocation of the

antidumping duty order would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at the levels indicated below.

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

SKC Limited and SKC

America, Inc.(SKC).

13.92.

Saehan (formerly Cheil

Synthetics, Inc.).

Revoked.

Kohn Industries. (Kohn) ... Revoked.

All others .......................... 21.50.

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)

of their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305 of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and

notice are in accordance with sections

751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2590 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–485–805]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe From Romania

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd Zalok or Charles Riggle, Group II,

Office 5, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4162, (202) 482–0650, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce (the

Department) regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1,

1999).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain small diameter carbon and alloy

seamless standard, line and pressure

pipe (seamless pipe) from Romania is

being, or is likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value

(LTFV), as provided in section 733 of

the Act. The estimated margins of sales

at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of

Liquidation section of this notice.