Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Notices 10527

than the level of trade of the CEP sale,

a CEP offset is appropriate. Akzo has

claimed a CEP offset. We applied the

CEP offset to NV or CV, as appropriate.

We based the CEP offset amount on

the amount of the home market indirect

selling expenses. We limited the home

market indirect selling expense

deduction by the amount of the indirect

selling expenses incurred on sales to the

United States, in accordance with

section 772(d)(1)(D).

Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of Akzo’s cost of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

subject merchandise, SG&A and profit

incurred and realized in connection

with production and sale of the foreign

like product, and U.S. packing costs. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A),

we based SG&A and profit on the

amounts incurred and realized by Akzo

in connection with the production and

sale of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the foreign country. We

used the costs of materials, fabrication,

and SG&A as reported in the CV portion

of Akzo’s questionnaire response. We

used the U.S. packing costs as reported

in the U.S. sales portion of Akzo’s

questionnaire response. We based

selling expenses and profit on the

information reported in the home

market sales portion of Akzo’s

questionnaire response. See Certain

Pasta from Italy; Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Postponement of Final

Determination, 61 FR 1344, 1349

(January 19, 1996). For selling expenses,

we used the average of the home market

selling expenses weighted by the total

quantity sold. For actual profit, we first

calculated the difference between the

home market sales value and home

market COP for all home market sales in

the ordinary course of trade, and

divided the sum of these differences by

the total home market COP for these

sales. We then multiplied this

percentage by the COP for each U.S.

model to derive an actual profit.

We derived the CEP offset amount

from the amount of the indirect selling

expenses on sales in the home market.

We limited the home market indirect

selling expense deduction by the

amount of the indirect selling expenses

incurred on sales to the United States.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of CEP

and NV, we preliminarily determine

that the following weighted-average

dumping margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter

Period

Margin

(percent)

Akzo .......... 06/01/95–05/31/96 28.40

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. The

Department will publish a notice of

final results of this administrative

review, including its analysis of issues

raised in any written comments or at a

hearing, not later than 120 days after the

date of publication of this notice.

Upon issuance of the final results of

review, the Department shall determine,

and the U.S. Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. Because the

inability to link sales with specific

entries prevents calculations of duties

on an entry-by-entry basis, we will

calculate an importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate for each

class or kind of merchandise based on

the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales made during the POR to

the total customs value of the sales used

to calculate those duties. This rate will

be assessed uniformly on all entries of

that particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total amount of the antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between statutory NV and

statutory CEP, by the total statutory CEP

value of the sales compared, and

adjusting the result by the average

difference between CEP and customs

value for all merchandise examined

during the POR).

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of PPD–T aramid from the

Netherlands entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be the rate established in

the final results of this review; (2) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (3) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 66.92 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation

(59 FR 32678, June 24, 1994), as

explained before. These deposit rates,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26 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.

This administrative review and notice

are published pursuant to section

751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22(c)(5).

Dated: February 27, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–5700 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–580–807]

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,

Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of

Korea: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Termination in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce and

Termination in Part.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review, and termination in part.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

two respondents and three U.S.

producers, the Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,

and strip (PET film) from the Republic

of Korea. The review covers two

manufacturers/exporters of the subject

merchandise to the United States and

the period June 1, 1995 through May 31,

1996. The review indicates the existence
10528 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Notices

of sales below normal value during the

period of review.

If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of review,

we will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties

equal to the difference between the

United States Price and NV.

On November 14, 1996, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.25, we issued a

revocation of the order with respect to

Kolon Industries (Kolon). Accordingly,

we are terminating this review of Kolon.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the argument

(no longer than five pages, including

footnotes).

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael J. Heaney or Linda Ludwig,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4475/

3833.

APPLICABLE STATUTE: Unless otherwise

indicted, all citations to the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Act) are

references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Act by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on PET film

from the Republic of Korea on June 5,

1991 (56 FR 25660). The Department

published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity To

Request Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order for the 1995/

1996 review period on June 6, 1996 (61

FR 28840). On June 29, 1996, the

petitioners, E.I. DuPont Nemours & Co.,

Inc., Hoescht Celanese Corporation, and

ICI Americas, Inc. requested reviews of

Kolon, SKC Limited (SKC), and STC

Corporation (STC). SKC and Kolon filed

requests for review on June 27, 1996 and

June 28, 1996, respectively. We initiated

the review on August 8, 1996 (61 FR

41373).

On November 14, 1996, the

Department revoked the order in part

with respect to Kolon. Accordingly, we

are terminating this review with respect

to Kolon.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of all gauges of raw,

pretreated, or primed polyethylene

terephthalate film, sheet, and strip,

whether extruded or coextruded. The

films excluded from this review 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) subheading 3920.62.00.00. The

HTS subheading is provided for

convenience and for U.S. Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive as to the scope of

the product coverage.

The review covers the period June 1,

1995 through May 31, 1996. The

Department is conducting this review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act,

as amended.

United States Price (USP)

In calculating USP, the Department

treated respondents’ sales as export

price (EP) sales, as defined in section

772(a) of the Act, when the merchandise

was sold to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers

prior to the date of importation. The

Department treated respondents’ sales

as constructed export price (CEP) sales,

as defined in section 772(b) of the Act,

when the merchandise was sold to

unrelated U.S. purchasers after

importation.

EP was based on the f.o.b. or

delivered, packed prices to unrelated

purchasers in the United States. We

made adjustments, where applicable, for

Korean and U.S. brokerage charges,

terminal handling charges, truck loading

charges, containerization charges,

Korean and U.S. inland freight, ocean

freight, wharfage expenses, U.S. duties,

and rebates in accordance with section

772(c) of the Act.

CEP was based on f.o.b. customer’s

specific delivery point, or delivered,

packed prices to unrelated purchasers in

the United States. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for

Korean and U.S. brokerage charges,

terminal handling charges, Korean and

U.S. inland freight, ocean freight,

rebates, wharfage expenses, and U.S.

duties, in accordance with section

772(c) of the Act. In accordance with

section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made

deductions for selling expenses

associated with economic activities in

the United States, including warranties,

credit, commissions, postage expenses,

bank charges and indirect selling

expenses. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3)

of the Act, the price was further reduced

by an amount for profit to arrive at the

CEP.

For SKC, we made an offset to interest

of interest revenue, and for post-sale

cost and quantity adjustments that were

not reflected in the gross price. With

respect to subject merchandise to which

value was added in the United States by

SKC prior to sale to unrelated

customers, we deducted any increased

value in accordance with section

772(d)(2) of the Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

were sufficient sales of PET film in the

home market (HM) to serve as a viable

basis for calculating NV, we compared

the volume of home market sales of PET

film to the volume of PET film sold in

the United States, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Each

respondent’s aggregate volume of HM

sales of the foreign like product was

greater than five percent of its respective

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the

subject merchandise. Therefore, we

have based NV on HM sales.

Based on the fact that the Department

had disregarded sales in the third

administrative review because they

were made below the cost of production

(COP), the Department initiated a salesbelow-cost of production (COP)

investigation for each of the respondents

in accordance with section 773(b) of the

Act. (The third administrative review

was the most recently completed review

at the time that we issued our

antidumping questionnaire.)

We performed a model-specific COP

test in which we examined whether

each HM sale was priced below the

merchandise’s COP. We calculated the

COP of the merchandise using SKC’s,

and STC’s cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for home market selling,

general and administrative (SG&A)

expenses and packing costs in

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

Act.

In accordance with section 773(b)(1)

of the Act, in determining whether to

disregard home market sales made at

prices below COP, we examined

whether such sales were made within

an extended period of time in

substantial quantities, and whether such

sales were made at prices which would
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Notices 10529

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time. We compared

model-specific prices less any

applicable movement charges.

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s sales of a given model

where at prices less than COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that model because these below-cost

sales were not made in substantial

quantities, within an extended period of

time. Where 20 percent or more of a

respondent’s home market sales of a

given model were at prices less than the

COP, we disregarded the below-cost

sales because such sales were found to

be made (1) in substantial quantities

within the POR (i.e., within an extended

period of time) and (2) at prices which

would not permit recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of

the Act (i.e., the sales were made at

prices below the weighted-average per

unit COP for the POR). We found that,

for certain models of PET film, 20

percent or more of the home market

sales were sold at below-cost prices. We

therefore excluded these sales from our

analysis and used the remaining abovecost sales as the basis of determining NV

if such sales existed, in accordance with

section 773(b)(1). For those models of

the subject merchandise for which there

were no above-cost sales available for

matching purposes, we compared U.S.

price to constructed value (CV).

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Act, we calculated CV based on

the sum of the respondent’s cost of

materials, fabrication, and SG&A

expenses. In accordance with section

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

expenses and profit on the amounts

incurred and realized by the

respondents in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade

for consumption in the foreign country.

For selling expenses we used the

weighted-average HM selling expenses.

Pursuant to section 773(e)(3) of the Act,

we included U.S. packing.

In accordance with section 773(a)(6),

we adjusted NV, where appropriate, by

deducting home market packing

expenses and adding U.S. packing

expenses. We also adjusted NV to reflect

deductions for HM inland freight,

loading charges, and credit expenses.

For comparisons to EP, we made an

addition to NV for differences in

warranty and credit expenses as

circumstance-of-sale adjustments

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the

Act.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act and in the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the URAA, reprinted in

H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d

Session 829–831 (1994), to the extent

practicable, the Department will

calculate NV based on sales at the same

level of trade as the U.S. sale. When the

Department is unable to find sale(s) in

the comparison market at the same level

of trade as the U.S. sale(s), the

Department may compare sales in the

U.S. and foreign markets at a different

level of trade.

In accordance with section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if we compare a

U.S. sale at one level of trade to NV

sales at a different level of trade, the

Department will adjust the NV to

account for differences in level of trade

if two conditions are met. First there

must be differences between the actual

selling functions performed by the seller

at the level of trade of the U.S. sale and

at the level of trade of comparison

market sale used to determine NV.

Second, the differences must affect price

comparability as evidenced by a pattern

of consistent price differences between

sales at the different levels of trade in

the market in which NV is determined.

When CEP is applicable, section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes the

procedures or making a CEP ‘‘offset’’

when two conditions exist: (1) NV is

established at a level of trade which

constitutes a more advanced stage of

distribution than the level of trade of the

CEP; and (2) the data available do not

provide an appropriate basis for a levelof-trade adjustment.

In order to determine whether sales in

the comparison market are at a different

level of trade than the CEP, we

examined whether the comparison sales

were at different stages in the marketing

process than the CEP. We made this

determination on the basis of a review

of the distribution system in the

comparison market, including selling

functions, class of customer, and the

level of selling expenses for each type

of sale. Different stages of marketing

necessarily involve differences in

selling functions, but differences in

selling functions, even substantial ones,

are not alone sufficient to establish a

difference in level of trade. Similarly,

while customer categories such as

‘‘distributor’’ and ‘‘wholesaler’’ may be

useful in identifying different levels of

trade, they are insufficient in

themselves to establish that there is a

difference in level of trade. See Certain

Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products and Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Canada:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

51896 (October 4, 1996).

In order to implement these

principles, each of the respondents

provided information with respect to its

selling activities associated with each

stage of marketing. Both of the

respondents identified two stages of

marketing in the home market: (1)

wholesalers/distributors and (2) endusers. For both stages, SKC and STC

perform similar selling functions such

as market research and after sales

warranty services. Because customer

description do not necessarily qualify as

separate levels of trade when the selling

functions performed for each customer

class are sufficiently similar, we

determined that there exists one level of

trade for each of the respondent’s home

market sales. Because STC and SKC

performed similar marketing functions

on EP and home market sales, we

determined that EP and HM sales were

at the same the level of trade for both

respondents.

SKC made CEP and EP sales to the

United States market and claimed either

a level of trade adjustment for its CEP

sales, or a CEP offset. For both EP and

CEP the relevant transaction for

determining the level of trade is the sale

from the exporter to the importer,

whether unaffiliated or affiliated. Based

on SKC’s questionnaire responses and

response to our request for

supplemental information, we

determined a difference between the

actual selling functions performed by

SKC for the CEP sales and those

performed for HM sales. SKC provides

engineering services, and inventory

maintenance services on its HM sales.

SKC does not provide these services on

its CEP sales. SKC also provides a

greater degree of computer, legal,

accounting, audit and/or business

systems development services on its

home market sales than it does on its

CEP sales. Therefore, the selling

functions performed by SKC for CEP

sales are sufficiently different than for

HM sales so as to establish different

levels of trade. In addition, these

differences in selling functions

indicated that the home market sales

occur at a more advanced stage of

distribution than the CEP sales.

Because we compared SKC’s CEP

sales to HM sales at a different level of

trade, we examined whether a level-oftrade adjustment may be appropriate. In

this case SKC only sold at one level of

trade in the home market; therefore,

there is no basis upon which to discern

whether there is a pattern of consistent

price differences between levels of
10530 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Notices

trade. Further, we do not have the

information which would allow us to

examine pricing patterns of SKC’s sales

of other products, and there is no other

respondent’s or other information on the

record to analyze whether the

adjustment is appropriate.

Because the data available do not

provide an appropriate basis for making

a level-of-trade adjustment but the level

of trade in Korea for SKC is at a more

advanced stage than the level of trade of

the CEP sales, a CEP offset is

appropriate in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. SKC claimed a

CEP offset, which we applied to NV. To

calculate the CEP offset, we took the

amount of home market indirect selling

expenses, and deducted this amount

from NV, on home market comparison

sales. We limited HM indirect selling

expenses to the amount of indirect

selling expenses incurred on sales in the

United States.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of PET

film in the United States were made at

less than fair value, we compared USP

to the NV, as described in the ‘‘United

States Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice. In accordance

with section 777(A) of the Act, we

calculated monthly weighted-average

prices for NV and compared these to

individual U.S. transactions.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

SKC ................................. 1.57

STC ................................. 0.37

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of

publication of this notice and any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication, or the

first working day thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs and/or

written comments no later than 30 days

after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed

no later than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish the final results of this

administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments or at a hearing, within 120

days after the publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Because the inability to link sales with

specific entries prevents calculation of

duties on an entry-by-entry basis, we

have calculated an importer specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate for the

merchandise based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the total customs

value of the sales used to calculate these

duties. This rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total amount of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between NV and U.S. Price,

by the total U.S. value of the sales

compared, and adjusting the result by

the average difference between U.S.

price and customs value for all

merchandise examined during the POR.)

The Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the determination and for

future deposits of estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of PET film from the Republic of Korea

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

these administrative reviews, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for reviewed

firms will be the rate established in the

final results of administrative review,

except if the rate was less than 0.50

percent, and therefore, de minimis

within the meaning of 19 CFR 353.6, in

which case the cash deposit rate will be

zero; (2) for merchandise exported by

manufacturers or exporters not covered

in these reviews but covered in the

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation or a previous review, the

cash deposit will continue to be the

most recent rate published in the final

determination or final results for which

the manufacturer or exporter received a

company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in these reviews,

or the original investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in the

final results of these reviews, or the

LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a

firm covered in these or any previous

reviews, the cash deposit rate will be

4.82%, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26(b) to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping

duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during these review

periods. 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.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).

Dated: March 3, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–5710 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–570–825]

Sebacic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On September 3, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on sebacic

acid from the People’s Republic of

China (PRC). This review covers

shipments of this merchandise to the

United States during the period July 13,

1994 through June 30, 1995. We gave

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results.

Based upon our analysis of the

comments received we have changed

the results from those presented in the

preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Patience or Jean Kemp, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–3793.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the statute are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the