Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 7753 

10See 19 CFR 351.212(b). 

11See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

12See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

1See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and 

Strip From India: Preliminary Results And Partial 

Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review; 2013, 80 FR 46956 (August 6, 2015) 

(Preliminary Results 2013). 

2As explained in the memorandum from the 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & 

Compliance, the Department has exercised its 

discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due 

to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All 

deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have 

been extended by four business days. The revised 

deadline for the final results of this review is now 

February 8, 2016. See Memorandum to the Record 

from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & 

Compliance, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Adminstrative 

Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure 

During Snowstorm Jonas,’’ dated January 27, 2016. 

3 DuPont Teijin Films, Inc., Mitsubishi Polyester 

Film, Inc. and SKC, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’). 

4See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from India; 2013,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice and herein 

Continued 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review.10 The Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 

days after the publication date of the 

final results of this review. 

For any individually examined 

respondent whose weighted average 

dumping margin is above de minimis 

(i.e., 0.50 percent) in the final results of 

this review, the Department will 

calculate importer-specific assessment 

rates on the basis of the ratio of the total 

amount of dumping calculated for the 

importer’s examined sales to the total 

entered value of sales, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an 

importer- (or customer-) specific ad 

valorem rate is greater than de minimis, 

the Department will instruct CBP to 

collect the appropriate duties at the time 

of liquidation.11 Where either a 

respondent’s weighted average dumping 

margin is zero or de minimis, or an 

importer- (or customer-) specific ad 

valorem is zero or de minimis, the 

Department will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties.12

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

review for shipments of the subject 

merchandise from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided by sections 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

companies listed above that have a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be that established in the final results of 

this review (except, if the rate is zero or 

de minimis, then zero cash deposit will 

be required); (2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that 

received a separate rate in a prior 

segment of this proceeding, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all 

PRC exporters of subject merchandise 

that have not been found to be entitled 

to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate 

will be that for the PRC-wide entity; and 

(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter that supplied that non-PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during the POR. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in the Department’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results are issued 

and published in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: February 8, 2016. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

1. Summary 

2. Case History 

3. Scope of the Order 

4. Discussion of the Methodology 

a. Non-Market Economy Country Status 

b. Separate Rates 

c. Surrogate Country 

d. PRC-Wide Entity 

e. Determination of Comparison Method 

f. Results of Differential Pricing Analysis 

g. Comparisons to Normal Value 

h. Date of Sale 

i. Export Price 

j. Value Added Tax 

k. Normal Value 

l. Factor Valuations 

m. Currency Conversion 

5. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2016–03073 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–825] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From India: Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review; 2013 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 6, 2015, the 

Department published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the countervailing duty order on 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, 

and strip (PET film) from India.1 The 

period of review (POR) is January 1, 

2013, through December 31, 2013.2

Based on an analysis of the comments 

received, the Department has made 

changes to the subsidy rate determined 

for Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal). 

The final subsidy rates are listed in the 

‘‘Final Results of Administrative 

Review’’ section below. 

DATES: Effective date: February 16, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi 

Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, 

Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0197. 

Scope of the Order 

For the purposes of the order, the 

products covered are all gauges of raw, 

pretreated, or primed polyethylene 

terephthalate film, sheet and strip, 

whether extruded or coextruded. 

Excluded are metallized films and other 

finished films that have had at least one 

of their surfaces modified by the 

application of a performance-enhancing 

resinous or inorganic layer of more than 

0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET 

film are classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item number 

3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The issues raised by Petitioners 3 and 

Jindal in their case briefs, and 

Petitioners’ rebuttal brief, are addressed 

in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum.4 The issues are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7754 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 

incorporated by reference (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum). 

5See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act 

regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) 

of the Act regarding benefit; and, section 771(5A) 

of the Act regarding specificity. 

6The statute and the Department’s regulations do 

not directly address the establishment of rates to be 

applied to companies not selected for individual 

examination where the Department limited its 

examination in an administrative review pursuant 

to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, the 

Department normally determines the rates for nonselected companies in reviews in a manner that is 

consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which 

provides instructions for calculating the all others 

rate in an investigation. Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the 

Act instructs the Department to calculate an all 

others rate using the weighted average of the 

subsidy rates established for the producers/

exporters individually examined, excluding any 

zero, de minimis, or facts available rates. In this 

review, calculating the non-selected rate by weight 

averaging Jindal’s and SRF’s rates risks disclosure 

of proprietary information. Therefore, we calculated 

the rate for the non-selected companies by weight 

averaging the rates of Jindal and SRF using 

publicly-ranged sales data. 

identified in the Appendix to this 

notice. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is a public document and 

is on file electronically via Enforcement 

and Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at http://access.trade.gov and in the 

Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of 

the main Department of Commerce 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Internet at http://trade.gov/

enforcement/frn/index.html. The signed 

Issues and Decision Memorandum and 

electronic versions of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on the comments received from 

Petitioners and Jindal, we adjusted the 

numerators used in Jindal’s subsidy rate 

calculations for the Export Promotion 

Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) and the 

Duty Drawback (DDB) programs. For a 

discussion of these issues, see the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum and 

Memorandum to the File from Elfi Page, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, titled ‘‘Final Results of 2013 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from India-Jindal 

Polyfilms Limited,’’ each dated 

concurrently with these final results. 

Methodology 

The Department conducted this 

review in accordance with section 

751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). For each of the 

subsidy programs found 

countervailable, we find that there is a 

subsidy, i.e., a government-provided 

financial contribution that gives rise to 

a benefit to the recipient, and that the 

subsidy is specific.5 For a description of 

the methodology underlying all of the 

Department’s conclusions, see the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. 

Companies Not Selected for Individual 

Review 

For the companies not selected for 

individual review (Ester, Garware, 

Polyplex, Vacmet, and Vacmet India 

Limited), because the rates calculated 

for Jindal and SRF were above de 

minimis and not based entirely on facts 

available, we applied a subsidy rate 

based on a weighted average of the 

subsidy rates calculated for Jindal and 

SRF using publicly ranged sales data 

submitted by respondents.6

Final Results of Administrative Review 

In accordance with section 777A(e)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we 

determine the total estimated net 

countervailable subsidy rates for the 

period January 1, 2013, through 

December 31, 2013 to be: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Subsidy rate 

(percent ad 

valorem) 

Jindal Poly Films of India 

Limited ............................... 8.90 

SRF Limited .......................... 2.11 

Ester Industries Limited ........ 6.09 

Garware Polyester Ltd. ......... 6.09 

Polyplex Corporation Ltd. ..... 6.09 

Vacmet .................................. 6.09 

Vacmet India Limited ............ 6.09 

Assessment and Cash Deposit 

Requirements 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(2), the Department intends to 

issue appropriate instructions to U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 

days after publication of the final results 

of this review. The Department will 

instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of 

subject merchandise produced and/or 

exported by the companies listed above, 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption from January 1, 2013, 

through December 31, 2013, at the 

percent rates, as listed above for each of 

the respective companies, of the entered 

value. 

The Department intends also to 

instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of 

estimated countervailing duties, in the 

amounts shown above for each of the 

respective companies shown above, on 

shipments of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. For all non-reviewed firms, we 

will instruct CBP to continue to collect 

cash deposits at the most-recent 

company-specific or all-others rate 

applicable to the company, as 

appropriate. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to parties subject to an 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), 

which continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

These final results are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 8, 2016. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix I—Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

Scope of the Order 

III. Subsidies Valuation Information 

A. Allocation Period 

B. Benchmarks Interest Rates 

C. Denominator 

IV. Analysis of Programs 

A. Programs Determined To Be 

Countervailable 

B. Programs Determined To Be Not Used or 

To Provide No Benefit During the POR 

V. Analysis of Comments 

Comment 1: Whether the Department 

Wrongly Countervailed Export 

Promotion Capital Goods Scheme 

(EPCGS) Benefits That Apply to NonSubject Merchandise. 

Comment 2: Whether the Department Used 

the Wrong Numerator To Calculate the 

POR Benefit For the Status Holder 

Incentive Scheme (SHIS). 

Comment 3: Whether the Value Added Tax 

(VAT) and Central Sales Tax (CST) 

Refunds Under the Industrial Promotion 

Subsidy (IPS) of the State Government of 

Maharashtra’s (SGOM) Package Scheme 

of Incentives (PSI) Is Countervailable. 

Comment 4: Whether the Department 

Double Counted One of the EPCGS 

Licences Reported by Jindal and Failed 

To Include the Benefit of Another 

License in Its Rate Calculations for Jindal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 7755 

1See the Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties: 

Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated January 13, 2016 

(‘‘the Petition’’). 

2 Id. 

3See Volume I of the Petition at 2. 

4See Letters from the Department to Petitioner 

entitled ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports 

of Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from 

the People’s Republic of China: Supplemental 

Questions,’’ January 15, 2016 (‘‘General Issues 

Supplemental Questionnaire’’); and ‘‘Petition for 

the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Certain 

Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated January 15, 2016 (‘‘AD 

Supplemental Questionnaire’’). 

5See Petitioner’s Response to the AD 

Supplemental Questionnaire, dated January 20, 

2016 (‘‘AD Petition Supplement’’) and Petitioner’s 

Response to the General Issues Supplemental 

Questionnaire, dated January 20, 2016 (‘‘General 

Issues Supplement’’). 

6See Letter from the Department to Petitioner 

entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Biaxial 

Integral Geogrid Products from the People’s 

Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,’’ 

January 26, 2016 (‘‘Second AD Supplemental 

Questionnaire’’). 

7See Petitioner’s January 28, 2016 submission 

(‘‘Second AD Petition Supplement’’). 

8See Memorandum to the Record from Ron 

Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & 

Compliance, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative 

Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure 

During Snowstorm Jonas,’’’ dated January 27, 2016. 

9See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition’’ section below. 

10See General Issues Supplemental 

Questionnaire and General Issues Supplement. 

11See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 

Comment 5: Whether the Department Used 

the Wrong Figure To Calculate the Duty 

Drawback Subsidy for Jindal 

[FR Doc. 2016–03082 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–036] 

Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid 

Products From the People’s Republic 

of China: Initiation of Less-Than-FairValue Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective date: February 16, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

Hancock at (202) 482–1394 and Susan 

Pulongbarit (202) 482–4031, AD/CVD 

Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On January 13, 2016, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

received an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) 

petition concerning imports of certain 

biaxial integral geogrid products 

(‘‘geogrids’’) from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’), filed in proper form 

on behalf of Tensar Corporation 

(‘‘Petitioner’’).1 The AD petition was 

accompanied by a countervailing duty 

(‘‘CVD’’) petition for the PRC.2

Petitioner is a domestic producer of 

geogrids.3

On January 15, 2016, the Department 

requested additional information and 

clarification of certain areas of the 

Petition,4 and Petitioner timely filed 

responses to these requests on January 

20, 2016.5 On January 26, 2016, the 

Department requested additional 

information and clarification on the 

calculation of AD margins,6 and 

Petitioner timely filed a response to this 

request on January 28, 2016.7 On 

January 27, 2016, the Department 

determined to toll all deadlines four 

business days as a result of the Federal 

Government closure during snowstorm 

Jonas, which is applicable to this 

initiation. 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, the 

Department has exercised its discretion 

to toll all administrative deadlines due 

to the recent closure of the Federal 

Government. All deadlines in this 

segment of the proceeding have been 

extended by four business days. The 

revised deadline for the initiation of this 

investigation is now February 8, 2016.8

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’), Petitioner alleges that imports of 

geogrids from the PRC 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, or 

threatening material injury to, an 

industry in the United States. Also, 

consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the 

Act, the Petition is accompanied by 

information reasonably available to 

Petitioner supporting its allegations. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed these Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioner is 

an interested party as defined in section 

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

also finds that Petitioner demonstrated 

sufficient industry support with respect 

to the initiation of the AD investigation 

that Petitioner is requesting.9

Period of Investigation 

Because the AD Petition was filed on 

January 13, 2015, the period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’) is, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.204(b)(1), July 1, 2015, through 

December 31, 2015. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are geogrids from the PRC. 

For a full description of the scope of this 

investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of the Investigation 

During our review of the AD and CVD 

Petitions, the Department issued 

questions to, and received responses 

from, Petitioner pertaining to the 

proposed scope to ensure that the scope 

language in the Petition would be an 

accurate reflection of the products for 

which the domestic industry is seeking 

relief.10

As discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations,11 we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage (i.e., the scope). The 

Department will consider all comments 

received from parties and, if necessary, 

will 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. In order to facilitate 

preparation of its questionnaires, the 

Department requests all interested 

parties to submit such comments by 

5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (‘‘ET’’) on 

February 29, 2016, which is 20 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. ET on March 10, 

2016, which is 10 calendar days after 

the initial comments deadline. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES