18376 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 

1See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping 

Duties on Imports of Certain Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Resin from Canada, the People’s 

Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate of 

Oman, dated March 10, 2015 (the Petitions). 

2See Petitions for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the People’s 

Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate of 

Oman, dated March 10, 2015 

3See Volume I of the Petitions, at 1, 4, and 

Exhibit GEN–1. 

4See Letter from the Department to Petitioners 

entitled ‘‘Re: Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada, the 

People’s Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate 

of Oman, and Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the 

People’s Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate 

of Oman: Supplemental Questions’’ dated March 

13, 2015 (General Issues Supplemental 

Questionnaire), and Letters from the Department to 

Petitioners entitled ‘‘Re: Petition for the Imposition 

of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from {country}: 

Supplemental Questions’’ on each of the countryspecific records, dated March 13, 2015. 

5See Supplement to the Canada Petition, dated 

March 18, 2015 (Canada Supplement); Supplement 

to the PRC AD Petition, dated March 18, 2015 (PRC 

AD Supplement); Supplement to the India AD 

Petition, dated March 18, 2015 (India AD 

Supplement); Supplement to the Oman AD Petition, 

dated March 18, 2015 (Oman AD Supplement). 

6See General Issues Supplement to the Petitions, 

dated March 19, 2015 (General Issues Supplement). 

7See Second Supplement to the Canada Petition, 

dated March 20, 2015 (Second Canada 

Supplement); Second Supplement to the PRC AD 

Petition, dated March 20, 2015 (Second PRC AD 

Supplement). 

8See Second Supplement to the India AD 

Petition, dated March 24, 2015 (Second India AD 

Supplement); Second Supplement to the Oman AD 

Petition, dated March 24, 2015 (Second Oman AD 

Supplement). 

9See Scope Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

March 24, 2015 (Scope Supplement); and Second 

Scope Supplement to the Petitions, dated March 27, 

2015 (Second Scope Supplement). 

10See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions’’ section below. 

11See General Issues Supplemental 

Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement 

and Scope Supplement. 

subject merchandise, the sale of which 

is the basis for the request for a new 

shipper review, we will apply the 

bonding privilege to Hyundai only for 

subject merchandise which was 

produced and exported by Hyundai. 

Interested parties requiring access to 

proprietary information in the new 

shipper review should submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective order in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 

351.306. 

This initiation and notice are 

published in accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: March 31, 2015. 

Gary Taverman, 

Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07827 Filed 4–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–861, A–570–024, A–122–855, A–523– 

810] 

Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Resin From Canada, the People’s 

Republic of China, India, and the 

Sultanate of Oman: Initiation of LessThan-Fair-Value Investigations 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective April 6, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karine Gziryan or James Martinelli at 

(202) 482–4081 and (202) 482–2923, 

respectively (Canada), Tyler Weinhold 

at (202) 482–1121 (the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC)); Fred Baker at 

(202) 482–2924 (India); or Magd Zalok 

at (202) 482–4162 (the Sultanate of 

Oman (Oman)), AD/CVD Operations, 

Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On March 10, 2015, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received 

antidumping duty (AD) petitions 

concerning imports of certain 

polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin 

from Canada, India, the PRC, and Oman 

filed in proper form on behalf of DAK 

Americas, LLC, M&G Chemicals, and 

Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America 

(Petitioners).1 The AD petitions were 

accompanied by three countervailing 

duty (CVD) petitions.2 Petitioners are 

domestic producers of PET resin.3

On March 13, 2015, and March 19, 

2015, the Department requested 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petitions.4

Petitioners filed responses to these 

requests on March 18, 2015,5 March 19, 

2015,6 March 20, 2015,7 and March 24, 

2015.8 Petitioners filed a revised scope 

on March 24, 2015, and March 27, 

2015.9

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), Petitioners allege that imports of 

PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, 

and Oman are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less-thanfair value within the meaning of section 

731 of the Act, and that such imports 

are materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. Also, consistent with 

section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the 

Petitions are accompanied by 

information reasonably available to 

Petitioners supporting their allegations. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed these Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties as defined in 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The 

Department also finds that Petitioners 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the initiation of 

the AD investigations that Petitioners 

are requesting.10

Periods of Investigation 

Because the Petitions were filed on 

March 10, 2015, the periods of 

investigation (POI) are, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.204(b)(1), as follows: January 1, 

2014, through December 31, 2014, for 

Canada, India, and Oman, and July 1, 

2014, through December 31, 2014, for 

the PRC. 

Scope of the Investigations 

The product covered by these 

investigations is PET resin from Canada, 

the PRC, India, and Oman. For a full 

description of the scope of these 

investigations, see the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigations,’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of the 

Investigations 

During our review of the Petitions, the 

Department issued questions to, and 

received responses from, Petitioners 

pertaining to the proposed scope to 

ensure that the scope language in the 

Petitions would be an accurate 

reflection of the products for which the 

domestic industry is seeking relief.11

As discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations, we are setting 

aside a period for interested parties to 

raise issues regarding product coverage 

(scope). The period for scope comments 

is intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and to consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination. If scope comments 

include factual information (see 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(21)), all such factual 

information should be limited to public 

information. All such comments must 

be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight 

Time (EDT) on Monday, April 20, 2015, 

which is 21 calendar days from the 

signature date of this notice. Any 

rebuttal comments, which may include 

factual information, must be filed by 

5:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday, April 30, 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 18377 

12See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 

Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 

39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the Department’s 

electronic filing requirements, which went into 

effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using 

ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/

help.aspx and a handbook can be found at 

https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20

Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf. 

13See section 771(10) of the Act. 

14See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 

2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. 

v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), 

aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). 

15For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada 

(Canada AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, 

Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada, the 

People’s Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate 

of Oman (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at 

Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation 

Initiation Checklist: Certain Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Resin from India (India AD Initiation 

Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the 

Sultanate of Oman (Oman AD Initiation Checklist), 

at Attachment II. These checklists are dated 

concurrently with this notice and on file 

Continued 

2015, which is 10 calendar days after 

the initial comments. 

The Department requests that any 

factual information the parties consider 

relevant to the scope of the 

investigations be submitted during this 

time period. However, if a party 

subsequently finds that additional 

factual information pertaining to the 

scope of the investigations may be 

relevant, the party may contact the 

Department and request permission to 

submit the additional information. All 

such comments must be filed on the 

records of each of the concurrent AD 

and CVD investigations. 

Filing Requirements 

All submissions to the Department 

must be filed electronically using 

Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System 

(ACCESS).12 An electronically filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the time and date when 

it is due. Documents excepted from the 

electronic submission requirements 

must be filed manually (i.e., in paper 

form) with Enforcement and 

Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room 

1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20230, and 

stamped with the date and time of 

receipt by the applicable deadlines. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for AD Questionnaires 

The Department requests comments 

from interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

PET resin to be reported in response to 

the Department’s AD questionnaires. 

This information will be used to 

identify the key physical characteristics 

of the subject merchandise in order to 

report the relevant factors and costs of 

production accurately as well as to 

develop appropriate productcomparison criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they feel 

are relevant to the development of an 

accurate list of physical characteristics. 

Specifically, they may provide 

comments as to which characteristics 

are appropriate to use as: (1) General 

product characteristics and (2) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is 

not always appropriate to use all 

product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful 

commercial differences among products. 

In other words, although there may be 

some physical product characteristics 

utilized by manufacturers to describe 

PET resin, it may be that only a select 

few product characteristics take into 

account commercially meaningful 

physical characteristics. In addition, 

interested parties may comment on the 

order in which the physical 

characteristics should be used in 

matching products. Generally, the 

Department attempts to list the most 

important physical characteristics first 

and the least important characteristics 

last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the AD questionnaires, all 

comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. 

EDT on Monday, April 20, 2015, which 

is 21 calendar days from the signature 

date of this notice. Any rebuttal 

comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. 

EDT on Monday, April 27, 2015. All 

comments and submissions to the 

Department must be filed electronically 

using ACCESS, as explained above, on 

the records of the Canada, the PRC, 

India, and Oman less-than-fair-value 

investigations. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

‘‘industry.’’ 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (ITC), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product,13 they do so 

for different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law.14

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the Petitions). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of the domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that PET 

resin constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product.15


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18378 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 

electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents 

filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central 

Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department 

of Commerce building. 16See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit 

GEN–1. 17 Id. 18 Id. For further discussion, see Canada AD 

Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, 

India AD Initiation Checklist, and Oman AD 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 19See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD 

Initiation Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, 

and Oman AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 

II. 20See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

Canada AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation 

Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, and Oman 

AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

21See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD 

Initiation Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, 

and Oman AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 

II. 

22 Id. 

23 Id. 

24See Volume I of the Petitions, at 12–13 and 

Exhibit GEN–7; see also General Issues Supplement, 

Attachment 1, at 7. 

25See Volume I of the Petitions, at 10, 12–21 and 

Exhibits GEN–4 and GEN–7 through GEN–11; see 

also General Issues Supplement, cover letter, at 2, 

Attachment 1, at 7, and Attachment 2, at Exhibit 

GEN–S9. 

26See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD 

Initiation Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, 

and Oman AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 

III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada, the 

People’s Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate 

of Oman. 

27See India AD Initiation Checklist. 

28 Id. 

29See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 

30See Canada AD Initiation Checklist and Oman 

AD Initiation Checklist. 

31See Canada AD Initiation Checklist. 

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing under section 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petitions with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. Petitioners 

provided their own production of the 

domestic like product in 2014.16 In 

addition, Petitioners estimated the total 

2014 production of the domestic like 

product for the entire domestic 

industry.17 To establish industry 

support, Petitioners compared their own 

production to total production of the 

domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry.18

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petitions, supplemental submission, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support.19 First, the Petitions 

established support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product 

and, as such, the Department is not 

required to take further action in order 

to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling).20 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petitions 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.21 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petitions 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petitions.22 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the 

Petitions were filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and they have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the AD 

investigations that they are requesting 

the Department initiate.23

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (NV). In addition, Petitioners 

allege that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.24

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share; underselling and 

price suppression or depression; lost 

sales and revenues; declining U.S. 

shipment and production trends and 

low capacity utilization rates; decline in 

production-related workers; and decline 

in financial performance.25 We have 

assessed the allegations and supporting 

evidence regarding material injury, 

threat of material injury, and causation, 

and we have determined that these 

allegations are properly supported by 

adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation.26

Allegations of Sales at Less-Than-Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less-than-fair 

value upon which the Department based 

its decision to initiate investigations of 

imports of PET resin from Canada, the 

PRC, India, and Oman. The sources of 

data for the deductions and adjustments 

relating to U.S. price and NV are 

discussed in greater detail in the 

country-specific initiation checklists. 

Export Price 

For India, Petitioners based EP on the 

average unit value (AUV) of imports 

from India under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheading 3907.60.0030 (which covers 

the subject merchandise), using import 

statistics obtained from the ITC’s 

Dataweb for the period of January– 

December 2014 (i.e., the prospective 

POI).27 Because the AUV represents 

free-on-board (FOB) India port terms, 

Petitioners made deductions from U.S. 

price for foreign movement expenses.28

For the PRC, Petitioners based EP on 

sales/offers for sale to U.S. customers 

from producers/exporters in the PRC. 

Petitioners made deductions from U.S. 

price for movement expenses and unrebated Value Added Tax, consistent 

with the delivery terms. Petitioners also 

deducted from U.S. price trading 

company/reseller selling expenses 

estimated using the financial statements 

of a U.S. distributor of chemical and 

plastic products.29

Constructed Export Price 

For Canada and Oman, Petitioners 

calculated constructed export price 

(CEP) based on offers for sales of PET 

resin from producers of subject 

merchandise produced in, and exported 

from, the subject country. Petitioners 

contend that these price quotes should 

be considered CEP sales based on 

information that indicates the producers 

in these subject countries likely 

conducted the sales through their 

respective sales offices located in the 

United States. Petitioners made 

deductions for movement and other 

expenses consistent with the sales and 

delivery terms of the applicable price. 

Petitioners also deducted U.S. selling 

expenses estimated using the financial 

statements of a U.S. distributor of 

chemical and plastic products.30

Normal Value 

For Canada, Petitioners alleged that 

sales of PET resin in Canada were made 

at prices substantially below the cost of 

production (COP).31 For India and 

Oman, Petitioners attempted to obtain 

home market prices, but were unable to 

demonstrate the home market pricing 

information they obtained was for PET 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 18379 

32See India AD Initiation Checklist and Oman AD 

Initiation Checklist. 

33See Second India AD Supplement, at AD 

Exhibit I–SS4b; Second Oman AD Supplement, at 

AD Exhibit O–SS12b. 

34See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; India AD 

Initiation Checklist; and Oman AD Initiation 

Checklist. 

35See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, at 833 (1994). 

36 Id. 

37 Id. 

38 Id. 

39See Canada AD Initiation Checklist. 

40 Id. 

41See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; India AD 

Initiation Checklist; Oman AD Initiation Checklist. 

42See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; Oman AD 

Initiation Checklist. 

43See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; India AD 

Initiation Checklist; Oman AD Initiation Checklist. 

44See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; Oman AD 

Initiation Checklist. 

45See Canada AD Initiation Checklist. 

46See India AD Initiation Checklist; Oman AD 

Initiation Checklist. 

47See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, India AD 

Initiation Checklist; Oman AD Initiation Checklist. 

resin offered for sale in and produced in 

India and Oman, respectively. 

Petitioners also provided PET resin 

prices for the two countries’ largest 

third-country export markets and 

alleged that those third country prices 

are below the COP.32 The largest thirdcountry markets for India and Oman 

were Bangladesh and Belgium, 

respectively. The prices Petitioners 

submitted for these countries were 

derived from the Global Trade Atlas 

(GTA), and were for an Indian and 

Omani HTS subheading under which 

PET resin was exported.33

Sales-Below-Cost Allegation 

Petitioners provided information 

demonstrating reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that sales of PET resin 

in the Canadian market and certain 

third-country sales made by Indian and 

Omani producers were made at prices 

below the COP within the meaning of 

section 773(b) of the Act, and requested 

that the Department conduct a countrywide sales-below-cost investigation of 

PET resin imports from Canada, India, 

and Oman.34

With respect to sales-below-cost 

allegations in the context of 

investigations, the Statement of 

Administrative Action (SAA) 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act states that an allegation 

of sales below COP need not be specific 

to individual exporters or producers.35

The SAA states further that ‘‘Commerce 

will consider allegations of below-cost 

sales in the aggregate for a foreign 

country . . . on a country-wide basis for 

purposes of initiating an antidumping 

investigation.’’ 36 Consequently, the 

Department intends to consider 

Petitioners’ allegations on a countrywide basis for each respective country 

for purposes of this initiation. 

Finally, the SAA provides that section 

773(b)(2)(A) of the Act retains the 

requirement that the Department have 

‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect that below-cost sales have 

occurred before initiating such an 

investigation.’’ 37 ‘‘Reasonable grounds’’ 

will exist when an interested party 

provides specific factual information on 

costs and prices, observed or 

constructed, indicating that sales in the 

foreign market in question are at belowcost prices.38 As explained in the ‘‘Cost 

of Production’’ section below, we find 

reasonable grounds exist that indicate 

home market sales in Canada and thirdcountry sales made by producers in 

India and Oman were made at belowcost prices. 

Cost of Production 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the 

Act, COP consists of the cost of 

manufacturing (COM); selling, general, 

and administrative (SG&A) expenses; 

and packing expenses. 

For Canada, Petitioners calculated 

COM (except for depreciation) based on 

the weighted-average of the U.S. 

producers’ experience adjusted for 

known differences between the United 

States and Canada, during the proposed 

POI. Petitioners multiplied the 

weighted-average of their respective 

usage by publicly-available data to value 

all of the significant inputs used to 

manufacture PET resin in Canada.39 For 

other inputs in Canada, Petitioners 

multiplied the weighted-average of their 

respective usage rates by their own cost 

experience to value the input’s cost. To 

determine depreciation, SG&A, and 

financial expense rates, Petitioners 

relied on financial statements of a 

producer of comparable merchandise 

(plastics, such as specialized 

polyethylene resin) in Canada.40

For India, Petitioners calculated COM 

(except for manufacturing overhead) 

based on the weighted-average of the 

U.S. producers’ experience adjusted for 

known differences between the United 

States and India, during the proposed 

POI. Petitioners multiplied the 

weighted-average of their respective 

usage by publicly-available data to value 

all of the significant inputs used to 

manufacture PET resin in India.41 To 

determine manufacturing overhead, 

SG&A, and financial expense rates, 

Petitioners relied on financial 

statements of producers of PET resin in 

India.42

For Oman, Petitioners calculated 

COM (except for manufacturing 

overhead) based on the weightedaverage of the U.S. producers’ 

experience adjusted for known 

differences between the United States 

and Oman, during the proposed POI. 

Petitioners multiplied the weightedaverage of their respective usage by 

publicly-available data to value all of 

the significant inputs used to 

manufacture PET resin in Oman.43 For 

other inputs in Oman, Petitioners 

multiplied the weighted-average of their 

respective usage rates by their own cost 

experience to value the inputs’ cost. To 

determine depreciation, SG&A, and 

financial expense rates, Petitioners 

relied on financial statements of a 

producer of comparable merchandise 

(plastic) in Oman.44

Petitioners obtained a price for a 

home market sale/offer for sale of PET 

resin by the only known producer of 

PET resin in Canada.45 For India and 

Oman, Petitioners attempted to obtain 

home market prices. Because Petitioners 

were unable to demonstrate that the 

home market pricing information was 

for PET resin offered for sale in and 

produced in India and Oman, 

respectively, we are relying on the 

prices provided by Petitioners for the 

two countries’ respective largest thirdcountry export markets.46

For Canada and India, Petitioners 

made deductions for domestic inland 

freight and packing for purposes of 

comparing the respective prices to COP. 

For Oman, Petitioners made 

adjustments for Oman inland freight, 

ocean freight, insurance, and packing to 

calculate net third-country price for 

purposes of comparing the price to 

COP.47

Based upon a comparison of the exfactory price of the foreign like product 

in the respective comparison markets to 

the COP of the product for Canada, 

India and Oman, we find reasonable 

grounds to believe or suspect that sales 

of the foreign like product in the 

respective comparison markets were 

made below the COP, within the 

meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(I) of the 

Act. Accordingly, the Department is 

initiating country-wide cost 

investigations relating to sales of PET 

resin in Canada and in Oman’s and 

India’s third-country markets (i.e., 

Belgium and Bangladesh, respectively). 

Normal Value Based on Constructed 

Value 

For Canada, because they alleged 

sales below cost, pursuant to sections 

773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, 

Petitioners calculated NV based on 

constructed value (CV). Petitioners 

calculated CV using the same average 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18380 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 

48 Id. 

49 Id. 

50 Id. 

51See Volume II–B of the Petition, at 9. 

52 Id. at 9–11. 

53See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i). 

54See Volume II–B of the Petition, at 11 and AD 

Exhibit B; see also PRC AD Supplement, at 5–6. 

55See Volume II–B of the Petition, at 11 and AD 

Exhibit PRC–15; see also PRC AD Supplement at 

AD Exhibit PRC–S15. 

56See Volume II–B of the Petition, at 12. 

57See Volume II–B of the Petition, at 12 and AD 

Exhibit PRC–11. 

58See Volume II–B of the Petition, at 12 and AD 

PRC-Exhibit 11; see also PRC AD Supplement, at 8 

and AD Exhibit PRC–S11. 

59See Volume II–B of the Petition, at 12 and AD 

Exhibit PRC–11. 

60See PRC AD Supplement, at 9 and AD Exhibit 

PRC–S15. 

61See Volume II–B of the Petitions, at 12 and AD 

Exhibit PRC–11. 

62See Volume II–B of the Petitions, at 13 and AD 

Exhibit PRC–12A. 

63See Volume II–B of the Petitions, at 13 and AD 

Exhibit PRC–12B. 

64See Volume II–B of the Petitions, at 13 and 

footnote 14. 

65See Volume II–B of the Petitions, at 13 and AD 

Exhibit PRC–12C. 

66See Volume II–B of the Petitions, at 14 and AD 

Exhibit PRC–12D. 

67See PRC AD Supplement, at 9 and AD Exhibit 

PRC–S15. 

COM, SG&A, financial, and packing 

expenses used to calculate COP. 

Petitioners relied on the same financial 

statements used as a basis for 

manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and 

financial expenses to calculate the profit 

rate.48

For India, because they alleged sales 

below cost, pursuant to sections 

773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, 

Petitioners calculated NV based on CV. 

Petitioners calculated CV using the 

same average COM, SG&A, financial, 

and packing expenses used to calculate 

COP. Petitioners relied on the same 

financial statements used as a basis for 

manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and 

financial expenses to calculate the profit 

rate.49

For Oman, because they alleged sales 

below cost, pursuant to sections 

773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, 

Petitioners calculated NV based on CV. 

Petitioners calculated CV using the 

same average COM, SG&A, financial, 

and packing expenses used to calculate 

COP. Petitioners relied on the same 

financial statements used as a basis for 

manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and 

financial expenses to calculate the profit 

rate.50

Normal Value Based on Factors of 

Production 

With respect to the PRC, Petitioners 

assert that the Department has long 

treated the PRC as a non-marketeconomy (NME) country.51 In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, the presumption of NME status 

remains in effect until revoked by the 

Department. As the presumption of 

NME status for the PRC has not been 

revoked by the Department, it remains 

in effect for purposes of the initiation of 

the investigation of PET resin from the 

PRC. Accordingly, the NV of the 

product is appropriately based on 

factors of production (FOPs), valued in 

a surrogate market-economy country in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act. In the course of this investigation, 

all parties, including the public, will 

have the opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issues of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

Petitioners state that South Africa is 

an appropriate surrogate country 

because it is a market economy that is 

at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC, it is a 

significant producer of identical 

merchandise, and the data for valuing 

FOPs are both available and reliable.52

Based on the information provided by 

Petitioners, we believe it is appropriate 

to use South Africa as a surrogate 

country for initiation purposes. 

Interested parties will have the 

opportunity to submit comments 

regarding surrogate-country selection 

and will be provided an opportunity to 

submit publicly available information to 

value FOPs within 30 days before the 

scheduled date of the preliminary 

determination.53

Factors of Production 

Petitioners based the FOPs for 

materials, labor, and energy on the 

petitioning U.S. producers’ 

consumption rates for producing certain 

PET resin as they did not have access 

to the consumption rates of PRC 

producers of PET resin.54 Petitioners 

valued the estimated factors of 

production using surrogate values from 

South Africa.55 Where it was necessary 

to rely on surrogate value data from a 

period preceding the POI, Petitioners 

inflated such values to reflect current 

prices using the consumer price 

inflation index (CPI) data for South 

Africa published by the IMF.56

Valuation of Raw Materials 

For the PRC producer’s costs of direct 

materials Purified Terephthalic Acid 

(PTA) and Mono-Ethyline Glycol (MEG), 

the major input raw materials used to 

produce the subject merchandise, 

Petitioners relied upon South African 

import statistics for Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTS) 2917.36 and HTS 

2905.31, respectively, for the period July 

through December 2014, published by 

GTA. These values were reported on a 

FOB basis at the port of exit of South 

Africa’s trading partners.57 Petitioners 

therefore added the average South 

African inland freight charges reported 

for importing goods into South Africa 

reported in Doing Business 2015: South 

Africa, published by the World Bank, 

and average ocean freight based on 

public quotes for the POI from Maersk.58

In its calculations of surrogate values 

based on these data, Petitioners 

excluded all import data from countries 

previously determined by the 

Department to maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies and from countries previously 

determined by the Department to be 

NME countries. In addition, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, the average import value 

excludes imports that were labeled as 

originating from an unidentified 

country.59 For certain other minor 

inputs (i.e., additives, which Petitioners 

claim are proprietary from producer to 

producer) Petitioners did not value such 

inputs, as a conservative measure.60

Petitioners valued recoverable PET resin 

scrap using South African imports of 

plastic waste and scrap under HTS 

3915.90.61

Valuation of Energy and Water 

Petitioners used public information, 

as compiled by Eskom (a South African 

electricity public utiliy), to value 

electricity.62 The cost of natural gas in 

South Africa was calculated from the 

average unit value of imports of liquid 

natural gas for the period.63 Using 

universal conversion factors, Petitioners 

converted that cost to an equivalent U.S. 

$2.59 per mmbtu of natural gas.64 For 

purchased steam, Petitioners calculated 

a price of $19.74/short ton by 

multiplying the natural gas cost of 

$135.95/per short ton by 0.1452, a 

conversion factor previously used by the 

Department when benchmarking steam 

to the price of natural gas.65 For water, 

Petitioners used data compiled by 

Statistics South Africa.66 For certain 

other minor energy inputs consumed by 

the petitioning U.S. producers, 

Petitioners did not provide a surrogate 

value, as a conservative measure.67

Valuation of Labor 

Petitioners calculated labor for PET 

resin using industry-specific wage rates 

for South Africa from LABORSTA, a 

labor database compiled by the 

International Labor Organization. 

Petitioners adjusted this value for 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 18381 

68See Volume II–B of the Petitions, at 14 and AD 

Exhibit PRC–13. 

69See Volume II–B of the Petitions, at 10, 15 to 

16 and AD Exhibit PRC–14. 

70See Volume II–B of the Petitions, at 15 and AD 

Exhibit PRC–11. 

71See Canada AD Initiation Checklist. 

72See India AD Initiation Checklist. 

73See Oman AD Initiation Checklist. 

74See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 

75See the Volume I of the Petitions, at 10 and 

Exhibit GEN–3. 

76See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf 

(Policy Bulletin 05.1). 

77Although in past investigations this deadline 

was 60 days, consistent with section 351.301 (a) of 

the Department’s regulations, which states that ‘‘the 

Secretary may request any person to submit factual 

information at any time during a proceeding,’’ this 

deadline is now 30 days. 

inflation to 71.26 Rand per hour in the 

POI.68

Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, 

General and Administrative Expenses, 

and Profit 

Petitioners calculated surrogate 

financial ratios (i.e., manufacturing 

overhead, selling, general and 

administrative (SG&A) expenses, and 

profit) using the 2012–2013 audited, 

consolidated financial statement of KAP 

Industrial Holdings, Ltd. (KAP), a South 

African producer of identifical 

merchandise (PET resin).69

Valuation of Packing Expenses 

Petitioners used the average 

petitioning U.S. producers’ unit 

consumption of export packing 

materials reported and valued those 

materials using surrogate values for 

packing.70

Fair Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of PET resin from Canada, 

the PRC, India, and Oman are being, or 

are likely to be, sold in the United States 

at less-than-fair value. Based on 

comparisons of EP or CEP to NV in 

accordance with section 773(a) of the 

Act, the estimated dumping margin(s) 

for PET resin from: (1) Canada range 

from 96.30 to 102.99 percent; 71 (2) India 

is 19.41 percent; 72 (3) Oman range from 

116.91 to 120.05 percent.73

Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, the estimated dumping margins for 

PET resin from the PRC range from 

193.48 to 206.42 percent.74

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigations 

Based upon the examination of the 

AD Petitions on PET resin from Canada, 

the PRC, India, and Oman, we find that 

the Petitions meet the requirements of 

section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 

initiating AD investigations to 

determine whether imports of PET resin 

from Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less-than-fair value. In 

accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), 

unless postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determinations no later 

than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Respondent Selection 

Petitioners named one company from 

Canada, 35 companies from the PRC, 13 

companies from India, and one 

company from Oman, as producers/

exporters of PET resin.75 Although the 

Department normally relies on import 

data from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to select a limited 

number of producers/exporters for 

individual examination in AD 

investigations, the Petitions for Canada 

and Oman name only one company as 

a producer/exporter. Furthermore, we 

currently know of no additional 

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise from Canada or Oman. 

Accordingly, the Department intends to 

examine all known producers/exporters 

in the investigations for Canada and 

Oman (i.e., the company identified in 

the respective Petitions). 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on this issue. Parties wishing 

to comment must do so within five days 

of the publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. Comments must be 

filed electronically using ACCESS. An 

electronically-filed document must be 

received successfully in its entirety by 

the Department’s electronic records 

system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EDT by the 

date noted above. 

However, for India, because 

Petitioners identified 13 companies as 

potential respondents, we intend to 

follow our standard practice in AD 

investigations involving marketeconomy countries, and select 

respondents based on CBP data for U.S. 

imports of PET resin under HTSUS 

subheading 3907.60.0030. We also 

intend to release CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

to all parties with access to information 

protected by APO within five-business 

days of publication of this Federal 

Register notice, and to invite comments 

regarding respondent selection within 

seven days of publication of this 

Federal Register notice. 

With respect to the PRC, in 

accordance with our standard practice 

for respondent selection in cases 

involving NME countries, we intend to 

issue quantity-and-value (Q&V) 

questionnaires to each potential 

respondent and base respondent 

selection on the responses received. In 

addition, the Department will post the 

Q&V questionnaire along with filing 

instructions on the Enforcement and 

Compliance Web site at http://

www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. 

Exporters/producers of PET resin 

from the PRC that do not receive Q&V 

questionnaires by mail may still submit 

a response to the Q&V questionnaire 

and can obtain a copy from the 

Enforcement and Compliance Web site. 

The Q&V response must be submitted 

by all PRC exporters/producers no later 

than April 13, 2015, which is two weeks 

from the signature date of this notice. 

All Q&V responses must be filed 

electronically via ACCESS. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in an NME investigation, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

application.76 The specific requirements 

for submitting a separate-rate 

application in the PRC investigation are 

outlined in detail in the application 

itself, which is available on the 

Department’s Web site at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-seprate.html. The separate-rate application 

will be due 30 days after publication of 

this initiation notice.77 Exporters and 

producers who submit a separate-rate 

application and have been selected as 

mandatory respondents will be eligible 

for consideration for separate-rate status 

only if they respond to all parts of the 

Department’s AD questionnaire as 

mandatory respondents. The 

Department requires that respondents 

from the PRC submit a response to both 

the Q&V questionnaire and the separaterate application by their respective 

deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

Use of Combination Rates 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in an NME investigation. 

The Separate Rates and Combination 

Rates Bulletin states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its NME Investigation will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. 

Note, however, that one rate is calculated for 

the exporter and all of the producers which 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18382 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 

78See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added). 

79See section 733(a) of the Act. 

80 Id. 81See section 782(b) of the Act. 

82See Certification of Factual Information to 

Import Administration during Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 

17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked 

questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_

info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 

supplied subject merchandise to it during the 

period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination 

rates’’ because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation.78

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), copies of the public version 

of the Petitions have been provided to 

the governments of Canada, the PRC, 

India, and Oman via ACCESS. To the 

extent practicable, we will attempt to 

provide a copy of the public version of 

the Petitions to each exporter named in 

the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 45 days after the date on which 

the Petitions were filed, whether there 

is a reasonable indication that imports 

of PET resin from Canada, the PRC, 

India, and/or Oman are materially 

injuring or threatening material injury to 

a U.S. industry.79 A negative ITC 

determination for any country will 

result in the investigation being 

terminated with respect to that 

country; 80 otherwise, these 

investigations will proceed according to 

statutory and regulatory time limits. 

Submission of Factual Information 

Factual information is defined in 19 

CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence 

submitted in response to questionnaires; 

(ii) evidence submitted in support of 

allegations; (iii) publicly available 

information to value factors under 19 

CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 

adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 

351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on 

the record by the Department; and (v) 

evidence other than factual information 

described in (i)–(iv). The regulation 

requires any party, when submitting 

factual information, to specify under 

which subsection of 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(21) the information is being 

submitted and, if the information is 

submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 

factual information already on the 

record, to provide an explanation 

identifying the information already on 

the record that the factual information 

seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time 

limits for the submission of factual 

information are addressed in 19 CFR 

351.301, which provides specific time 

limits based on the type of factual 

information being submitted. Please 

review the regulations prior to 

submitting factual information in these 

investigations. 

New Section Extensions of Time Limits 

Parties may request an extension of 

time limits before the expiration of a 

time limit established under Part 351, or 

as otherwise specified by the Secretary. 

In general, an extension request will be 

considered untimely if it is filed after 

the expiration of the time limit 

established under Part 351 expires. For 

submissions that are due from multiple 

parties simultaneously, an extension 

request will be considered untimely if it 

is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. 

Under certain circumstances, we may 

elect to specify a different time limit by 

which extension requests will be 

considered untimely for submissions 

which are due from multiple parties 

simultaneously. In such a case, we will 

inform parties in the letter or 

memorandum setting forth the deadline 

(including a specified time) by which 

extension requests must be filed to be 

considered timely. An extension request 

must be made in a separate, stand-alone 

submission; under limited 

circumstances we will grant untimelyfiled requests for the extension of time 

limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; 

Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 

2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/

fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013- 

22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 

information in this segment. 

Certification Requirements 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD or CVD 

proceeding must certify to the accuracy 

and completeness of that information.81

Parties are hereby reminded that revised 

certification requirements are in effect 

for company/government officials, as 

well as their representatives. 

Investigations initiated on the basis of 

petitions filed on or after August 16, 

2013, and other segments of any AD or 

CVD proceedings initiated on or after 

August 16, 2013, should use the formats 

for the revised certifications provided at 

the end of the Final Rule.82 The 

Department intends to reject factual 

submissions if the submitting party does 

not comply with applicable revised 

certification requirements. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 

January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 

22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate 

in these investigations should ensure 

that they meet the requirements of these 

procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 

appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 30, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigations 

The merchandise covered by these 

investigations is polyethylene terephthalate 

(PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at 

least 0.70, but not more than 0.88, deciliters 

per gram. The scope includes blends of virgin 

PET resin and recycled PET resin containing 

50 percent or more virgin PET resin content 

by weight, provided such blends meet the 

intrinsic viscosity requirements above. The 

scope includes all PET resin meeting the 

above specifications regardless of additives 

introduced in the manufacturing process. 

The merchandise subject to these 

investigations is properly classified under 

subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading 

is provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under investigation is 

dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07830 Filed 4–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES