Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Notices 11161 

9See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 

will calculate importer-specific per-unit 

duty assessment rates. We will instruct 

CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review where the actual or estimated ad 

valorem assessment rate calculated in 

the final results of this review is not 

zero or de minimis. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is zero or de minimis.9

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective for all shipments of 

PET Film from 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withdrawn from warehouse, for 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 the company 

under review will be equal to the 

weighted-average dumping margin 

established in the final results of this 

review (except, if the rate is de minimis, 

i.e., less than 0.5 percent, then the cash 

deposit rate will be zero); (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published in the 

completed segment for the most recent 

period for that company; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the less-thanfair-value investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established in the 

completed segment 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 other completed 

segment of this proceeding, then 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. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final 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. 

Notifications to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

The Department is issuing and 

publishing these final results of 

administrative review in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: February 22, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

Scope of the Order 

III. Discussion of the Issues 

Comment 1: Quantity Discount Adjustment 

Comment 2: Consideration of an 

Alternative Comparison Method in 

Administrative Reviews 

Comment 3: Differential Pricing Analysis 

[FR Doc. 2015–04273 Filed 2–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD 

Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 

482–4735. 

Background 

Each year during the anniversary 

month of the publication of an 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

order, finding, or suspended 

investigation, an interested party, as 

defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213, that the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) conduct 

an administrative review of that 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

order, finding, or suspended 

investigation. 

All deadlines for the submission of 

comments or actions by the Department 

discussed below refer to the number of 

calendar days from the applicable 

starting date. 

Respondent Selection 

In the event the Department limits the 

number of respondents for individual 

examination for administrative reviews 

initiated pursuant to requests made for 

the orders identified below, the 

Department intends to select 

respondents based on U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. 

imports during the period of review. We 

intend to release the CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order 

(‘‘APO’’) to all parties having an APO 

within five days of publication of the 

initiation notice and to make our 

decision regarding respondent selection 

within 21 days of publication of the 

initiation Federal Register notice. 

Therefore, we encourage all parties 

interested in commenting on respondent 

selection to submit their APO 

applications on the date of publication 

of the initiation notice, or as soon 

thereafter as possible. The Department 

invites comments regarding the CBP 

data and respondent selection within 

five days of placement of the CBP data 

on the record of the review. 

In the event the Department decides 

it is necessary to limit individual 

examination of respondents and 

conduct respondent selection under 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act: 

In general, the Department finds that 

determinations concerning whether 

particular companies should be 

‘‘collapsed’’ (i.e., treated as a single 

entity for purposes of calculating 

antidumping duty rates) require a 

substantial amount of detailed 

information and analysis, which often 

require follow-up questions and 

analysis. Accordingly, the Department 

will not conduct collapsing analyses at 

the respondent selection phase of this 

review and will not collapse companies 

at the respondent selection phase unless 

there has been a determination to 

collapse certain companies in a 

previous segment of this antidumping 

proceeding (i.e., investigation, 

administrative review, new shipper 

review or changed circumstances 

review). For any company subject to this 

review, if the Department determined, 

or continued to treat, that company as 

collapsed with others, the Department 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11162 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Notices 

1Or the next business day, if the deadline falls 

on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day 

when the Department is closed. 

will assume that such companies 

continue to operate in the same manner 

and will collapse them for respondent 

selection purposes. Otherwise, the 

Department will not collapse companies 

for purposes of respondent selection. 

Parties are requested to (a) identify 

which companies subject to review 

previously were collapsed, and (b) 

provide a citation to the proceeding in 

which they were collapsed. Further, if 

companies are requested to complete 

the Quantity and Value Questionnaire 

for purposes of respondent selection, in 

general each company must report 

volume and value data separately for 

itself. Parties should not include data 

for any other party, even if they believe 

they should be treated as a single entity 

with that other party. If a company was 

collapsed with another company or 

companies in the most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding 

where the Department considered 

collapsing that entity, complete quantity 

and value data for that collapsed entity 

must be submitted. 

Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for 

Administrative Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a 

party that requests a review may 

withdraw that request within 90 days of 

the date of publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested review. The 

regulation provides that the Department 

may extend this time if it is reasonable 

to do so. In order to provide parties 

additional certainty with respect to 

when the Department will exercise its 

discretion to extend this 90-day 

deadline, interested parties are advised 

that, with regard to reviews requested 

on the basis of anniversary months on 

or after March 2015, the Department 

does not intend to extend the 90-day 

deadline unless the requestor 

demonstrates that an extraordinary 

circumstance prevented it from 

submitting a timely withdrawal request. 

Determinations by the Department to 

extend the 90-day deadline will be 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

The Department is providing this 

notice on its Web site, as well as in its 

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review’’ notices, so that interested 

parties will be aware of the manner in 

which the Department intends to 

exercise its discretion in the future. 

Opportunity to Request a Review: Not 

later than the last day of March 2015,1

interested parties may request 

administrative review of the following 

orders, findings, or suspended 

investigations, with anniversary dates in 

March for the following periods: 

Period of review 

Antidumping Duty Proceedings 

Canada: Iron Construction Castings, A–122–503 ......................................................................................................................... 3/1/14–2/28/15 

France: Brass Sheet & Strip, A–427–602 ..................................................................................................................................... 3/1/14–2/28/15 

Germany: Brass Sheet & Strip, A–428–602 ................................................................................................................................. 3/1/14–2/28/15 

India: Sulfanilic Acid, A–533–806 .................................................................................................................................................. 3/1/14–2/28/15 

Italy: Brass Sheet & Strip, A–475–601 .......................................................................................................................................... 3/1/14–2/28/15 

Russia: Silicon Metal, A–821–817 ................................................................................................................................................. 3/1/14–2/28/15 

Spain: Stainless Steel Bar, A–469–805 ........................................................................................................................................ 3/1/14–2/28/15 

Taiwan: Light-Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube, A–583–803 ............................................................... 3/1/14–2/28/15 

Thailand: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, A–549–502 ...................................................................................... 3/1/14–2/28/15 

The People’s Republic of China: 

Chloropicrin, A–570–002 ........................................................................................................................................................ 3/1/14–2/28/15 

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe, A–570–930 ......................................................................................... 3/1/14–2/28/15 

Glycine, A–570–836 ............................................................................................................................................................... 3/1/14–2/28/15 

Sodium Hexametaphosphate, A–570–908 ............................................................................................................................. 3/1/14–2/28/15 

Tissue Paper Products, A–570–894 ...................................................................................................................................... 3/1/14–2/28/15 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings 

India: Sulfanilic Acid, C–533–807 .................................................................................................................................................. 1/1/14–12/31/14 

Iran: In-Shell Pistachio Nuts, C–507–501 ..................................................................................................................................... 1/1/14–12/31/14 

The People’s Republic of China: Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe, C–570–931 .......................................... 1/1/14–12/31/14 

Turkey: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, C–489–502 ........................................................................................ 1/1/14–12/31/14 

Suspension Agreements 

Mexico: Fresh Tomatoes, A–201–820 .......................................................................................................................................... 3/1/14–2/28/15 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), an interested party as 

defined by section 771(9) of the Act may 

request in writing that the Secretary 

conduct an administrative review. For 

both antidumping and countervailing 

duty reviews, the interested party must 

specify the individual producers or 

exporters covered by an antidumping 

finding or an antidumping or 

countervailing duty order or suspension 

agreement for which it is requesting a 

review. In addition, a domestic 

interested party or an interested party 

described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act 

must state why it desires the Secretary 

to review those particular producers or 

exporters. If the interested party intends 

for the Secretary to review sales of 

merchandise by an exporter (or a 

producer if that producer also exports 

merchandise from other suppliers) 

which was produced in more than one 

country of origin and each country of 

origin is subject to a separate order, then 

the interested party must state 

specifically, on an order-by-order basis, 

which exporter(s) the request is 

intended to cover. 

Note that, for any party the 

Department was unable to locate in 

prior segments, the Department will not 

accept a request for an administrative 

review of that party absent new 

information as to the party’s location. 

Moreover, if the interested party who 

files a request for review is unable to 

locate the producer or exporter for 

which it requested the review, the 

interested party must provide an 

explanation of the attempts it made to 

locate the producer or exporter at the 

same time it files its request for review, 

in order for the Secretary to determine 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Notices 11163 

2See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web 

site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/. 

3 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties 

should specify that they are requesting a review of 

entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to 

the extent possible, include the names of such 

exporters in their request. 

4See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 

Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 

39263 (July 6, 2011). 

1See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and 

Strip From India: Preliminary Results And Partial 

Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review; 2012, 79 FR 50616 (August 25, 2014) 

(Preliminary Results 2012). 

2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Continued 

if the interested party’s attempts were 

reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.303(f)(3)(ii). 

As explained in Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and NonMarket Economy Antidumping 

Proceedings: Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 

(October 24, 2011) the Department 

clarified its practice with respect to the 

collection of final antidumping duties 

on imports of merchandise where 

intermediate firms are involved. The 

public should be aware of this 

clarification in determining whether to 

request an administrative review of 

merchandise subject to antidumping 

findings and orders.2

Further, as explained in Antidumping 

Proceedings: Announcement of Change 

in Department Practice for Respondent 

Selection in Antidumping Duty 

Proceedings and Conditional Review of 

the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME 

Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 

65963 (November 4, 2013), the 

Department clarified its practice with 

regard to the conditional review of the 

non-market economy (NME) entity in 

administrative reviews of antidumping 

duty orders. The Department will no 

longer consider the NME entity as an 

exporter conditionally subject to 

administrative reviews. Accordingly, 

the NME entity will not be under review 

unless the Department specifically 

receives a request for, or self-initiates, a 

review of the NME entity.3 In 

administrative reviews of antidumping 

duty orders on merchandise from NME 

countries where a review of the NME 

entity has not been initiated, but where 

an individual exporter for which a 

review was initiated does not qualify for 

a separate rate, the Department will 

issue a final decision indicating that the 

company in question is part of the NME 

entity. However, in that situation, 

because no review of the NME entity 

was conducted, the NME entity’s entries 

were not subject to the review and the 

rate for the NME entity is not subject to 

change as a result of that review 

(although the rate for the individual 

exporter may change as a function of the 

finding that the exporter is part of the 

NME entity). 

Following initiation of an 

antidumping administrative review 

when there is no review requested of the 

NME entity, the Department will 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all 

exporters not named in the initiation 

notice, including those that were 

suspended at the NME entity rate. 

All requests must be filed 

electronically in Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’) 

on Enforcement and Compliance’s 

ACCESS Web site at http:// 

access.trade.gov.4 Further, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), 

a copy of each request must be served 

on the petitioner and each exporter or 

producer specified in the request. 

The Department will publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation 

of Administrative Review of 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation’’ for requests received by 

the last day of March 2015. If the 

Department does not receive, by the last 

day of March 2015, a request for review 

of entries covered by an order, finding, 

or suspended investigation listed in this 

notice and for the period identified 

above, the Department will instruct CBP 

to assess antidumping or countervailing 

duties on those entries at a rate equal to 

the cash deposit of (or bond for) 

estimated antidumping or 

countervailing duties required on those 

entries at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption and to continue to collect 

the cash deposit previously ordered. 

For the first administrative review of 

any order, there will be no assessment 

of antidumping or countervailing duties 

on entries of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption during the relevant 

provisional-measures ‘‘gap’’ period of 

the order, if such a gap period is 

applicable to the period of review. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: February 23, 2015. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04275 Filed 2–27–15; 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: Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review; 2012 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 25, 2014, the 

Department published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the countervailing duty order on 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, 

and strip (PET film) from India.1 The 

period of review (POR) is January 1, 

2012, through December 31, 2012. Based 

on an analysis of the comments 

received, the Department has made 

changes to the subsidy rate determined 

for Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal) 

and SRF Limited (SRF). The final 

subsidy rates are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Administrative Review’’ 

section below. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 2, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi 

Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, 

Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0197. 

Scope 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 the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The issues raised by Jindal and SRF 

in their case briefs are addressed in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES