31888 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Notices

the International Broadcasting Bureau.

(5 U.S.C. 552b. (c)(2) and (6))

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Persons interested in obtaining more

information should contact either

Brenda Hardnett or Carol Booker at

(202) 401–3736.

Dated: June 11, 2001.

Carol Booker,

Legal Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01–15018 Filed 6–11–01; 1:33 pm]

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–817, C–549–818, and C–791–810]

Notice of Postponement of Final

Antidumping Duty Determination:

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products from Thailand; and Notice of

Postponement of Final Countervailing

Duty Determinations: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Thailand and South Africa

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Postponement of Final

Antidumping Duty Determination and

Final Countervailing Duty

Determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angelica Mendoza or Nancy Decker

(antidumping duty investigation) at

(202) 482–3019 and (202) 482–0196,

respectively, Office 8, and Dana

Mermelstein (countervailing duty

investigations) at (202) 482–1391, Office

7, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce (Department)

regulations are to the regulations at 19

CFR part 351 (April 2000).

Background

This antidumping duty investigation

was initiated on December 4, 2000. See

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Argentina,

India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the

Netherlands, the People’s Republic of

China, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine, 65 FR 77568

(December 12, 2000). The period of

investigation (POI) is October 1, 1999

through September 30, 2000. On May 3,

2001, the Department published the

notice of preliminary determination. See

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

From Thailand, 66 FR 22199.

On March 23, 2001, petitioners

submitted letters requesting alignment

of the final determinations in the

countervailing duty investigations

involving Thailand and South Africa

with the final determinations of the

companion antidumping duty

investigations of certain hot-rolled

carbon steel flat products from

Argentina, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan,

the Netherlands, the People’s Republic

of China, Romania, South Africa,

Taiwan, Thailand and Ukraine. In

accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the

Act, we aligned the final determinations

in these countervailing duty

investigations with the final

determinations in the companion

antidumping investigations of certain

hot-rolled carbon steel flat products. See

Notice of Preliminary Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination and

Alignment With Final Antidumping

Duty Determinations: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From

Thailand, 66 FR 20251 (April 20, 2001),

and Notice of Preliminary Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination and

Alignment With Final Antidumping

Duty Determinations: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From

South Africa, 66 FR 20261 (April 20,

2001).

Postponement of Final Determinations

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides

that a final determination may be

postponed until not later than 135 days

after the publication of the preliminary

determination if, in the event of an

affirmative determination, a request for

such postponement is made by

exporters who account for a significant

proportion of exports of the subject

merchandise, or in the event of a

negative preliminary determination, a

request for such postponement is made

by petitioners. The Department’s

regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2),

require that requests by respondents for

postponement of a final determination

be accompanied by a request for

extension of provisional measures from

a four-month period to not more than

six months.

On May 1, 2001, Sahaviriya Steel

Industries (respondent) requested that

the Department postpone its final

determination until not later than 135

days after the date of the publication of

the preliminary determination in the

Federal Register and requested an

extension of the provisional measures.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b),

because (1) our preliminary

determination is affirmative, (2) the

respondent requesting the

postponement accounts for a significant

proportion of exports of the subject

merchandise, and (3) no compelling

reasons for denial exist, we are granting

the respondent’s request and are

postponing the final determination until

not later than 135 days after the

publication of the preliminary

determination in the Federal Register.

Suspension of liquidation will be

extended accordingly. Through this

postponement of the final antidumping

duty determination, we are also

postponing the final countervailing duty

determinations of certain hot-rolled

carbon steel flat products from Thailand

and South Africa which have been

aligned with the companion

antidumping duty investigations

pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act.

This notice is published in accordance

with section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.210(b)(2).

Dated: June 4, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–14916 Filed 6–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–824, A–583–837]

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

(PET Film) From India and Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Initiation of antidumping duty

investigations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

Trentham or Jeffrey Pedersen at (202)

482–6320 and (202) 482–4195,

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement,

Office 4, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Notices 31889

1See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Panel Displays and Display

Glass from Japan: Final Determination; Recission of

Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56

FR 32376, 32380–81 (July 16, 1991).

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (2000).

The Petitions

On May 17, 2001, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received

petitions filed in proper form by the

following parties: DuPont Teijin Films,

Mitsubishi Polyester Film, and Toray

Plastics (America) Inc., (collectively, the

petitioners). The Department received

from the petitioners information

supplementing the petitions throughout

the 20-day initiation period.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

imports of polyethylene terephthalate

film, sheet and strip (PET film) from

India and Taiwan are being, or are likely

to be, sold in the United States at less

than fair value within the meaning of

section 731 of the Act, and that such

imports are materially injuring an

industry in the United States.

The Department finds that the

petitioners filed these petitions on

behalf of the domestic industry because

they are interested parties as defined in

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

demonstrated sufficient industry

support with respect to each of the

antidumping investigations that they are

requesting the Department to initiate

(see the Determination of Industry

Support for the Petitions section below).

Scope of Investigations

For purposes of these investigations,

the products covered are all gauges of

raw, pretreated, or primed PET film,

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. HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

During our review of the petitions, we

discussed the scope with the petitioner

to ensure that it accurately reflects the

product for which the domestic industry

is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed

in the preamble to the Department’s

regulations, we are setting aside a

period for parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. See,

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295, 27323

(May 19, 1997). The Department

encourages all parties to submit such

comments within 20 days from the

publication of this notice. Comments

should be addressed to Import

Administration’s Central Records Unit

at Room 1870, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

The scope comment period is intended

to provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments

and consult with parties prior to the

issuance of the preliminary

determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petitions

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

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the 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 (section

771(10) of the Act), they do so for

different purposes and pursuant to

separate and distinct authorities. 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 the law.1

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 petition.

The domestic like product referred to

in the petitions is all PET film,

including equivalent PET film. In a

prior antidumping investigation, the ITC

adopted this definition of the domestic

like product. See, Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from Japan and the Republic of Korea,

(ITC Pub. No. 2383) (May, 1991) (Final

Determination). Because no party has

commented on the petitions’ definition

of the domestic like product, and there

is nothing on the record to indicate that

this definition is inaccurate, the

Department has adopted the domestic

like product definition set forth in 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) of

the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) 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. Finally, 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 administering agency 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.

In order to estimate production for the

domestic industry as defined for

purposes of this case, the Department

has relied upon not only the petition

and amendments thereto, but also

‘‘other information’’ it obtained through

research and which is attached to the

Initiation Checklist (See Import

Administration Antidumping

Investigation Initiation Checklist

(Initiation Checklist), Attachment I, Re:

Industry Support, June 6, 2001, on file

in the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the

main Department of Commerce

building). Based on information from

these sources the Department

determined that producers supporting

the petition with respect to each of the

two countries represent over 50 percent

31890 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Notices

2The petitioners also calculated a producerspecific COP for Polyplex in the same manner, but

since we did not use the submitted prices for

Polyplex, we also did not use the submitted costs

for Polyplex in our calculations.

2The

3The petitioners also calculated a producerspecific CV for Polyplex in the same manner, but

since we did not see the submitted prices for

Polyplex, we also did not use the submitted costs

of total production of the domestic like

product. Additionally, no person who

would qualify as an interested party

pursuant to section 771(9) of the Act has

expressed opposition to the petition.

Accordingly, the Department

determines that these petitions are filed

on behalf of the domestic industry

within the meaning of section 732(b)(1)

of the Act.

Constructed Export Price, Export Price

and Normal Value

India

The petitioners determined export

prices (‘‘EP’’) and constructed export

prices (‘‘CEP’’) based on their own

market research reports tracking the

selling activities of two Indian

producers active in the United States

market, Garware Polyester Ltd.

(‘‘Garware’’) and Polyplex Corporation

(‘‘Polyplex’’). According to the

petitioners, neither company sells

directly to U.S. end users, but rather sell

through the companies’ respective U.S.

sales agent/distributor. The petitioners

state that Garware sells its products

through its affiliated sales agent/

distributor, Global PET Films

(‘‘Global’’), while Polyplex sells through

an unaffiliated sales agent/distributor.

The petitioners based their U.S. price

calculations on the prices of the U.S.

distributors to U.S. end users. We do not

believe it is appropriate, in this

instance, to use the submitted U.S.

prices for Polyplex because these prices

are based on the prices of an unaffiliated

U.S. distributor to a U.S. end user, and

not on Polyplex’s prices to that

unaffiliated U.S. distributor. The

petition also contains two other U.S.

prices from India (i.e., Garware’s prices

through its affiliated U.S. distributor,

Global, one for 48 gauge and one for

thick industrial film) on which we can

calculate an estimated dumping margin.

Therefore, we are basing the U.S. price

on Garware’s CEP prices through its

affiliated distributor, Global.

To derive CEP for Garware, the

petitioner deducted from the price quote

an affiliated party selling markup, ocean

freight, U.S. brokerage and handling,

U.S. inland freight from port to

warehouse, marine insurance, U.S.

customs duties, U.S. warehousing, U.S.

inland freight from warehouse to

customer, slitting costs and material

losses associated with slitting. We

recalculated the affiliated party selling

markup to more accurately reflect

Global’s indirect selling expenses

incurred in the United States. The

petitioners made no adjustment for CEP

profit as Garware’s fiscal year 1999

financial statement showed no profit.

With respect to normal value (NV),

the petitioners provided home market

prices that were based on their own

market reports tracking the selling

activities of Garware and Polyplex in

the Indian market for 48 gauge film and

thick industrial film. Since we are not

using the submitted U.S. prices for

Polyplex, we are not using any of the

submitted home market prices for

Polyplex. Furthermore, we did not use

the submitted home market price for

Garware for thick industrial film

because the petitioners could not

substantiate this price with

documentation or other market reports

that would support the veracity of this

price. Thus, the Department determined

that Garware’s home market price for

the 48 gauge film is the only price in the

petition that is directly comparable to

the products exported to the U.S. which

serve as the basis for CEP.

The petitioners calculated an NV by

making deductions from the quoted

home market price for 48 gauge film for

Garware’s credit expenses, packing

costs, slitting costs, material loss, and

advertising expenses. We adjusted the

petitioners’ NV calculations by adding

the petitioners’ reported U.S. packing

costs to NV. For NV compared to CEP,

the petitioners deducted a CEP offset.

Although the petitioners provided a

margin based on a price-to-price

comparison, they also made a countrywide cost allegation and provided

information demonstrating reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of PET film in the home market were

made at prices below the fully absorbed

cost of production (COP), within the

meaning of section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

As a result, they requested that the

Department initiate sales-below-cost

investigations on a country-wide basis.

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

Act, COP consists of the cost of

manufacture (COM), selling, general,

and administrative (SG&A) expenses,

and packing costs. The petitioners

calculated COM based on the average

consumption rates of a U.S. PET film

producer. The petitioner adjusted COM

for known differences in costs between

the United States and India. To

calculate SG&A and interest expense,

the petitioner relied upon Garware’s

1999 financial statements.2 Based upon

the comparison of the adjusted prices of

the foreign like product in the home

market to the calculated COP of the

product, we find reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales of the

foreign like product were made below

the COP, within the meaning of section

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly,

the Department is initiating a countrywide cost investigation. See the

Initiation of Cost Investigations section

below.

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b)

and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners

also based NV for sales in India on

constructed value (CV). The petitioners

calculated CV using the same COM,

depreciation, SG&A and interest

expense figures used to compute Indian

home market costs.3 The petitioners did

not include profit in calculating CV. As

this approach is conservative, the

Department accepted such

methodology.

Based on a comparison of CEP to NV,

we calculated a margin of 77.52 percent.

Based on comparisons of CEP to CV, we

calculated margins of 128.33 percent

and 142.21 percent.4

Taiwan

The petitioners determined EP based

on their own market research tracking

the activity of the largest Taiwanese

exporter of PET film to the United

States, Nan Ya Plastics Industry Co.,

Ltd. (Nan Ya).

The petitioners submitted Nan Ya’s

prices for 48 gauge film and DFR base

(industrial) film. For DFR base film, the

petitioners submitted a price from a

direct sale from Nan Ya to an unrelated

U.S. purchaser. For this sale, the

petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by

deducting ocean freight, U.S. brokerage

and handling, U.S. inland freight from

port to warehouse, marine insurance,

U.S. customs duties, U.S. warehousing,

U.S. inland freight from warehouse to

customer, slitting costs and material

losses associated with slitting.

For 48 gauge film, the petitioners’

cited price was a price from an

unaffiliated U.S. distributor to a U.S.

end user. We do not believe it is

appropriate, in this instance, to use the

submitted 48 gauge film U.S. price for

Nan Ya because this is the price from an

unaffiliated U.S. distributor to a U.S.

end user, and not Nan Ya’s price to that

unaffiliated U.S. distributor. However,

the petition also contains one other U.S.

price from Taiwan on which we can

calculate an estimated dumping margin,

i.e., the EP price on a direct sale from

Nan Ya to an unrelated U.S. customer

the DFR base film price discussed

above. Therefore, we based U.S. price

on this EP sale information.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Notices 31891

With respect to NV, the petitioners

provided home market prices that were

obtained from an independent

marketing consultant for 48 gauge and

DFR base film. The petitioner also made

a country-wide cost allegation and

provided information to support its

claim that sales of PET film in the home

market were made at prices below the

fully absorbed COP, within the meaning

of section 773(b)(3) of the Act. As a

result, they requested that the

Department initiate a sales-below-cost

investigation on a country-wide basis.

However, since the submitted home

market prices were from outside of the

anticipated POI and we are able to

calculate a margin based on constructed

value, we did not use these prices in our

analysis and therefore have not

conducted an analysis for sales below

cost.

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b)

and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners

also based NV on constructed value

(CV), consisting of COM, depreciation,

SG&A expenses, interest expense, profit

and packing. The petitioner calculated

COM based on the average consumption

rates of a U.S. PET film producer. The

petitioner adjusted COM for known

differences in costs between the United

States and Taiwan. To calculate SG&A,

interest expense, and profit, the

petitioner relied upon the 1999 financial

statements of Nan Ya. We recalculated

profit to more accurately reflect the

profits attributable to plastic products

(which predominantly consist of PET

film products).

Based on a comparison of EP to CV,

calculated in accordance with section

773(c) of the Act, the estimated

dumping margin for PET film from

Taiwan is 15.65 percent.

Initiation of Cost Investigations

India

As noted above, pursuant to section

773(b) of the Act, the petitioners

provided information demonstrating

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales in India were made at prices

below the fully absorbed COP and,

accordingly, requested that the

Department conduct country-wide salesbelow-COP investigations in connection

with the requested antidumping

investigation for India. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA), submitted

to the U.S. Congress in connection with

the interpretation and application of the

URAA, states that an allegation of sales

below COP need not be specific to

individual exporters or producers. See

SAA, H. Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1, at 833

(1994). The SAA, at 833, states that

‘‘Commerce will consider allegations of

below-cost sales in the aggregate for a

foreign country, just as Commerce

currently considers allegations of sales

at less than fair value on a country-wide

basis for purposes of initiating an

antidumping investigation. ‘‘Reasonable

grounds’ * * * 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 below-cost prices.’’ Id. Based

upon the comparison of the adjusted

prices from the petition for the

representative foreign like products to

their COPs, we find the existence of

‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’’ that sales of these foreign like

products in India were made at prices

below their respective COPs within the

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

Act. Accordingly, the Department is

initiating the requested country-wide

cost investigation with respect to India.

Taiwan

As also noted above, the petitioners

alleged that sales in Taiwan were made

at prices below the fully absorbed COP

and, accordingly, requested that the

Department conduct country-wide salesbelow-COP investigations in connection

with the requested antidumping

investigation for Taiwan. However,

since we could not determine whether

sales in Taiwan were made at prices

below COP, we are not initiating a salesbelow-COP investigation at this time in

the Taiwan investigation.

Critical Circumstances

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act states that

the Department will find that critical

circumstances exist, at any time after

the date of initiation, when there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that under paragraph (A) ‘‘there is a

history of dumping and material injury

by reason of dumped imports in the

United States or elsewhere of the subject

merchandise, or . . . the person by

whom, or for whose account, the

merchandise was imported know or

should have known that the exporter

was selling the subject merchandise at

less than fair value and that there was

likely to be material injury by reason of

such sales, and (B) there have been

massive imports of the subject

merchandise over a relatively short

period of time.’’ Section 351.206(h) of

our regulations defines ‘‘massive

imports’’ as imports that have increased

by at least by 15 percent over the

imports during an immediately

preceding period of comparable

duration. Section 351.206(i) of the

regulations states that ‘‘relatively short

period’’ will normally be defined as the

period beginning on the date the

proceeding begins and ending at least

three months later.

At this time, the petitioners have not

supported their allegation under section

733(e)(1) of the Act and section 351.206

of the Department’s regulations.

Although the petitioners provided data

indicating significant increases in

imports over a three-year period, we do

not consider this to be sufficient

evidence of massive imports over a

relatively short period of time within

the meaning of section 733(e)(1)(B) of

the Act and section 351.206 of the

Department’s regulations. If, at a later

date, the petitioners adequately allege

the elements of critical circumstances,

based on reasonably available

information, the Department will

investigate this matter further.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of PET film from India and

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be,

sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petitions 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 individual and cumulated

imports of the subject merchandise sold

at less than NV. The petitioners contend

that the industry’s injured condition is

evident in declining trends in U.S.

selling prices, sales, revenue and market

share.

The allegations of injury and

causation are supported by relevant

evidence including U.S. Customs import

data, lost sales, and pricing information.

The Department assessed the allegations

and determined that these allegations

are supported by accurate and adequate

evidence and meet the statutory

requirements for initiation. See

Attachment II to the Initiation ChecklistAnalysis of Allegations and Evidence of

Material Injury and Causation.

Initiation of Antidumping

Investigations

Based upon our examination of the

petitions on PET film, and the

petitioners’ responses to our

supplemental questionnaire clarifying

the petitions, we have found that they

meet the requirements of section 732 of

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of PET film

from India and Taiwan are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value. Unless this deadline

31892 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Notices

1See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Panel Displays and Display

is extended, we will make our

preliminary determinations no later

than 140 days after the date of this

initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of each petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

governments of India and Taiwan. We

will attempt to provide a copy of the

public version of each petition to each

exporter named in the petition, as

appropriate.

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine, no later than

July 2, 2001, whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

PET film from India and Taiwan are

causing material injury, or threatening

to cause material injury, to a U.S.

industry. A negative ITC determination

for any country will result in the

investigation being terminated with

respect to that country; otherwise, these

investigations will proceed according to

statutory and regulatory time limits.

This notice is issued and published

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: June 6, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–14915 Filed 6–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–533–825]

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigation: Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

(PET film) from India

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alexander Amdur or Howard Smith,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group

II, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; (202) 482–5346 or (202) 482–

5193, respectively.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (2000).

The Petition

On May 17, 2001, the Department

received a petition filed in proper form

by the following parties: DuPont Teijin

Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, and

Toray Plastics (America) Inc.

(collectively, the petitioners). The

Department received from the

petitioners information supplementing

the petition throughout the 20-day

initiation period.

In accordance with section 702(b)(1)

of the Act, the petitioners allege that

manufacturers, producers, or exporters

of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet

and strip (PET film) in India receive

countervailable subsidies within the

meaning of section 701 of the Act.

The Department finds that the

petitioners filed this petition on behalf

of the domestic industry because they

are interested parties as defined in

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

demonstrated sufficient industry

support with respect to the

countervailing duty investigation that

they are requesting the Department to

initiate (see the Determination of

Industry Support for the Petition section

below).

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are all gauges of raw,

pretreated, or primed PET film, whether

extruded or coextruded. Excluded are

metalisized 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. HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description of the scope of

this proceeding is dispositive.

During our review of the petition, we

discussed the scope with the petitioner

to ensure that it accurately reflects the

product for which the domestic industry

is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed

in the preamble to the Department’s

regulations, we are setting aside a

period for parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. See

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295, 27323

(May 19, 1997). The Department

encourages all parties to submit such

comments within 20 days from the

publication of this notice. Comments

should be addressed to Import

Administration’s Central Records Unit

at Room 1870, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The scope comment period is intended

to provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments

and consult with parties prior to the

issuance of the preliminary

determination.

Consultations

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of

the Act, the Department invited

representatives of the Government of

India (GOI) for consultations with

respect to the petition. The GOI did not

accept our invitation to hold

consultations before the initiation.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

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

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the 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 (section

771(10) of the Act), they do so for

different purposes and pursuant to

separate and distinct authorities. 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 the law.1