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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Notices 31893

Glass from Japan: Final Determination; Recession of

Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56

FR 32376, 32380–81 (July 16, 1991).

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 petition 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 petition’s 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

petition.

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 702(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 702(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 Countervailing Duty

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 represent over 50 percent 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 this petition is filed on

behalf of the domestic industry within

the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the

Act.

Injury Test

Because India is a ‘‘Subsidies

Agreement Country’’ within the

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act,

section 701(a)(2) applies to this

investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must

determine whether imports of the

subject merchandise from India

materially injure, or threaten material

injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The 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 subsidized and, as noted

below, dumped imports of the subject

merchandise. 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.

Period of Investigation (POI)

The petitioners contend that the POI

is April 1, 2000 through March 31, 2001,

which is the last completed fiscal year

for each of the alleged producers/

exporters of the subject merchandise. If

these companies do not have the same

fiscal year then the POI would be

calendar year 2000.

Allegations of Subsidies

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the

Department to initiate a countervailing

duty proceeding whenever an interested

party files a petition, on behalf of an

industry, that (1) alleges the elements

necessary for an imposition of a duty

under section 701(a), and (2) is

accompanied by information reasonably

available to petitioners supporting the

allegations.

We are initiating an investigation of

the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided

countervailable subsidies to

manufacturers, producers and exporters

of the subject merchandise in India (a

full description of each program is

provided in the Initiation Checklist): 

A. GOI Programs:

1. The Duty Entitlement Passbook

Scheme (DEPBS)—Pre-and PostExport Credits

2. Advanced License Scheme

3. Special Import Licenses (SILs)

4. Export Promotion Capital Goods

Scheme (EPCGS)

5. Pre-and Post-shipment Export

Financing

6. Exemption of Export Credit from

Interest Taxes

7. Income Tax Exemption Scheme

(ITES) (Sections 10A, 10B and 80

HHC)

8. Loan Guarantees from the GOI

9. Benefits for Export Processing

Zones/Export Oriented Units

B. State of Maharashtra Programs:

1. Octroi Refund Scheme

2. Sales Tax Incentive Scheme

3. Capital Incentive Scheme

4. Electricity Duty Exemption Scheme

C. State of Utter Pradesh Programs:

1. Sales Tax Incentive Scheme

2. Capital Incentive Scheme

We are not initiating an investigation

of the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided

countervailable subsidies to

manufacturers, producers and exporters

of the subject merchandise in India:

1. State of Utter Pradesh (SUP)

Transport Subsidy Scheme

The petitioners claim that the SUP

provides a state transport subsidy at the

rate of 25 percent of the cost of

transport. However, the petition does

not provide any information on whether

this program is specific under section

771(5A) of the Act.

2. State of Gujarat (SOG) Infrastructure

Assistance Schemes

The petitioners, citing to a document

entitled ‘‘Gujarat Industrial Policy—

2000,’’ allege that the SOG provides

three types of infrastructure assistance:

(1) Assistance for creating infrastructure

facilities and research to specific

industries, including ‘‘plastic processing

industries;’’ (2) assistance for

31894 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Notices

infrastructure for medium and large

industrial projects in rural areas; and (3)

additional incentives ‘‘at the rate of 25

percent under all of the schemes’’ for

industrial units ‘‘coming up’’ in

identified ‘‘backward talukas.’’ The

petitioners also state that the document

on Gujarat Industrial Policy provides

‘‘direct evidence’’ of the planned

existence of these programs during the

POI. However, the information provided

by the petitioners regarding the

Infrastructure Assistance Scheme only

provides information on the intentions

of the SOG to provide assistance under

this scheme in 2000. For example, the

document entitled ‘‘Gujarat Industrial

Policy—2000’’ uses such phrases as a ‘‘a

scheme will be introduced,’’ ‘‘assistance

will be provided,’’ and ‘‘intends to

introduce.’’ The petition thus provides

no information that the Infrastructure

Assistance Scheme in fact existed

during the POI. Since the petitioners

have not provided information on

whether this scheme in fact existed

during the POI, they have therefore not

provided sufficient information

supporting their allegations that this

program provides a financial

contribution under section 771(5)(D) of

the Act, that this program provides a

benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the

Act, or that this program is specific

under section 771(5A) of the Act.

3. State of Madhya Pradesh (SMP) Sales

Tax Incentive Scheme

The petitioners based their allegations

concerning this program on a SMP state

profile. The SMP state profile includes

one sentence on this program under

‘‘Industrial Incentive Schemes,’’ stating

‘‘sales tax exemption/deferment for 4 to

9 years.’’ This information does not

support the petitioners’ allegation that

this program is specific under section

771(5A) of the Act.

4. SMP Capital Incentive Scheme

The petitioners based their allegations

concerning this program on a SMP state

profile. The SMP state profile includes

one sentence on this program under

‘‘Industrial Incentive Schemes,’’ stating

‘‘capital investment subsidy at the rate

of 5 percent to 15 percent.’’ This

information does not support the

petitioners’ allegation that this program

is specific under section 771(5A) of the

Act.

Critical Circumstances

The petitioners request that the

Department initiate a critical

circumstances investigation of Indian

PET film because the petitioners believe

that these imports are likely to

‘‘undermine seriously the remedial

effect of any * * * countervailing duty

order.’’

Section 703(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 (A) the alleged countervailable

subsidies are inconsistent with the

Subsidies Agreement 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 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

703(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 703(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.

Initiation of Countervailing Duty

Investigation

The Department has examined the

countervailing duty petition on PET

film from India, and found that it

complies with the requirements of

section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in

accordance with section 702(b) of the

Act, we are initiating a countervailing

duty investigation to determine whether

manufacturers, producers, or exporters

of PET film from India receive

countervailable subsidies.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of the petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

GOI. We will attempt to provide a copy

of the public version of the petition to

each exporter named in the petition, as

appropriate.

International Trade Commission

Notification

Pursuant to section 702(d) of the Act,

we have notified the ITC of our

initiation.

Preliminary Determination 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 are causing material

injury, or threatening to cause material

injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative

ITC determination will result in the

investigation being terminated;

otherwise, this investigation 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. 01–14914 Filed 6–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of Application.

SUMMARY: The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’),

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce, has received

an application for an Export Trade

Certificate of Review. This notice

summarizes the conduct for which

certification is sought and requests

comments relevant to whether the

Certificate should be issued.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vanessa M. Bachman, Acting Director,

Office of Export Trading Company

Affairs, International Trade

Administration, by telephone at (202)

482–5131 (this is not a toll-free number)

or by E-mail at oetca@ita.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) authorizes

the Secretary of Commerce to issue

Export Trade Certificates of Review. A

Certificate of Review protects the holder

and the members identified in the

Certificate from state and federal

government antitrust actions and from

private, treble damage antitrust actions

for the export conduct specified in the

Certificate and carried out in

compliance with its terms and

conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Act

and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the