[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25194-25196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12512]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 25195]]


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-475-703]


Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; 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 October 17, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its 1993-94 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on granular 
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Italy. The review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter, Ausimont S.p.A. (Ausimont), for the period 
August 1, 1993, through July 31, 1994. We gave interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. Although we received 
no comments, we have changed our treatment of home market value-added 
taxes as explained below. The final margin for Ausimont is listed below 
in the section ``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle or Michael Rill, Office 
of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 17, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of its 1993-94 administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on granular PTFE resin from Italy (60 FR 
53735). The Department has now conducted this review in accordance with 
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the 
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of granular PTFE 
resins, filled or unfilled, and shipments of wet raw polymer. The order 
explicitly excludes PTFE dispersions in water and PTFE fine powders. 
During the period covered by this review, such merchandise was 
classified under item number 3904.61.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (HTS). We are providing this HTS number for convenience and 
Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope remains 
dispositive.
    The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of granular PTFE resin, 
Ausimont. The review period is August 1, 1993 through July 31, 1994.

Home Market Value-Added Tax

    Although no party raised this as an issue, in light of the Federal 
Circuit's decision in Federal Mogul v. United States, CAFC No. 94-1097, 
we have changed our treatment of home market value-added taxes (VAT). 
Where merchandise exported to the United States is exempt from the VAT, 
we will add to the U.S. price the absolute amount of such taxes charged 
in the comparison sales in the home market. This is the same 
methodology that we adopted following the decision of the Federal 
Circuit in Zenith v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and 
which was suggested by that court in footnote 4 of its decision. The 
Court of International Trade (CIT) overturned this methodology in 
Federal Mogul v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993), and we 
acquiesced in the CIT's decision. We then followed the CIT's preferred 
methodology, which was to calculate the tax to be added to U.S. price 
by multiplying the adjusted U.S. price by the foreign market tax rate; 
we made adjustments to this amount so that the tax adjustment would not 
alter a ``zero'' pre-tax dumping assessment.
    The foreign exporters in the Federal Mogul case, however, appealed 
that decision to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the CIT and held 
that the statute did not preclude the Department from using the 
``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology to calculate tax-neutral dumping 
assessments (i.e., assessments that are unaffected by the existence or 
amount of home market VAT). Moreover, the Federal Circuit recognized 
that certain international agreements of the United States, in 
particular the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the 
Tokyo Round Antidumping Code, required the calculation of tax-neutral 
dumping assessments. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the CIT 
with instructions to direct the Department to determine which tax 
methodology it will employ.
    We have determined that the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology 
should be used. First, as we have explained in numerous administrative 
determinations and court filings over the past decade, and as the 
Federal Circuit has now recognized, Article VI of the GATT and Article 
2 of the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code required that dumping assessments 
be tax neutral. This requirement continues under the new Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade. Second, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) explicitly 
amended the antidumping law to remove VAT from the home market price 
and to eliminate the addition of taxes to U.S. price, so that no VAT is 
included in the price in either market. The Statement of Administrative 
Action (p. 159) explicitly states that this change was intended to 
result in tax neutrality.
    While the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology is slightly different 
from the URAA methodology, in that section 772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA 
law required that the tax be added to U.S. price rather than subtracted 
from home market price, it does result in tax-neutral duty assessments. 
In sum, we have elected to treat VAT in a manner consistent with our 
longstanding policy of tax neutrality and with the GATT.

Final Results of the Review

    We determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
        Manufacturer/exporter                 Period          (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ausimont S.p.A.......................     08/01/93-07/31/94         6.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between U.S. price and FMV may vary from the percentage 
stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions on 
each exporter directly to the Customs Service.

[[Page 25196]]

    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results of administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Ausimont 
will be 6.64 percent; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or 
the original less than fair value 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; (4) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 46.46 
percent for the reasons explained in Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene 
Resin From Italy; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 60 FR 53735 (October 17, 1994).
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: May 9, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-12512 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P