[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5592-5594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2590]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
Five-year (``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 co-extruded. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5593]]

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 62167 (November 16, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 weighted-average 
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 order-wide 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 5594]]

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