Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45699 

merchandise entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse on or after October 31, 2007, 

the effective date of revocation of this 

AD order. See Canned Pineapple Fruit 

from Thailand: Notice of Final Results 

of Changed Circumstances Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order and 

Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, 

73 FR 21311 (April 21, 2008). Therefore, 

cash deposits of estimated antidumping 

duties are no longer required. 

Duty Assessment 

Upon publication of the final results 

of this review, the Department shall 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates 

an assessment rate for each importer of 

the subject merchandise for each 

respondent. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer–specific assessment rates on 

the basis of the ratio of the total amount 

of antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales and the total entered 

value of the examined sales. These rates 

will be assessed uniformly on all entries 

of the respective importers made during 

the POR if these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of review. 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in the final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise it sold 

to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–

others rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the 

Department will disclose to any party to 

the proceeding the calculations 

performed in connection with these 

preliminary results within five days 

after the date of public announcement of 

this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit written 

comments in response to these 

preliminary results. Unless extended by 

the Department, case briefs are to be 

submitted within 30 days after the date 

of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to arguments raised in 

case briefs, may be submitted no later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing case briefs. Parties who submit 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

1) a statement of the issues; 2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and 3) a table 

of authorities. See 19 CFR 309(c)(2). 

Case and rebuttal briefs must be served 

on interested parties in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.303(f). 

Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing or to participate if one is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice. Requests 

should contain 1) the party’s name, 

address and telephone number; 2) the 

number of participants; and, 3) a list of 

issues to be raised. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. Unless the 

Secretary specifies otherwise, the 

hearing, if requested, will be held two 

days after the date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of 

the time and location. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review 

within 120 days after the publication of 

this notice, unless extended. See section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act; 19 CFR 

351.213(h). 

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 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. 

The preliminary results of this 

administrative review and this notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: July 29, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18027 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–824] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip from India: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests 

for review by respondents, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene terephtalate film, sheet 

and strip (PET Film) from India for the 

period of review (POR) July 1, 2006 

through June 30, 2007. The review 

covers one respondent, Jindal Poly Film, 

Ltd. (Jindal). 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that Jindal did not make 

sales at less than normal value (NV) 

during the POR. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in the final results 

of this administrative review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to liquidate entries 

during the POR without regard to 

antidumping duties. The preliminary 

results are listed below in the section 

titled ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martha Douthit, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–5050. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on PET Film 

from India. See Notice of Amended 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from India, 67 FR 44175 (July 1, 20002). 

On July 3, 2007, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review.’’ See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 36420 

(July 3, 2007). On July 30, 2007, the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45700 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

1As discussed infra, because the Department is 

rescinding the administrative review of MTZ, based 

upon MTZ’s timely withdrawal of its review 

request, there is no review pertaining to MTZ in 

which to examine MTZ’s revocation from the 

antidumping duty order. 2Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning a company’s corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 

which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 

Section B requests a complete listing all home 

market sales or if the home market is not viable, of 

sales in the most appropriate third-country market 

(this section is not applicable to respondents in 

non-market economy cases). Section C requests a 

complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests 

information of the cost of production of the foreign 

like product and the constructed value of 

merchandise under investigation. 

Department received timely requests for 

an administrative review from Jindal 

and MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. (MTZ), 

manufacturers and exporters of PET film 

in India. On July 31, 2007, MTZ 

submitted a request for revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on certain PET 

Film produced and exported by MTZ.1

The Department initiated an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on August 24, 

2007 of Jindal and MTZ. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Requests for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 

48613 (August 24, 2007). On September 

14, 2007 the Department issued 

questionnaires to Jindal and MTZ.2

On October 19, 2007, Jindal submitted 

its section A response. On October 30, 

2007, MTZ withdrew its request for 

review. On November 6, 2007, Jindal 

submitted sections B and C responses to 

the Department’s questionnaire. On 

November 20, 2007, Jindal submitted its 

section D response. In accordance with 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2), on February 14, 2008, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the completion of the preliminary 

results of this review. See Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from India: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 9768 (February 22, 2008). 

On February 28, 2008, the Department 

issued a section A supplemental 

questionnaire to Jindal. On April 14, 

2008, Jindal timely responded to the 

Department’s section A supplemental 

questionnaire. On April 18, 2008, the 

Department issued sections B and C 

supplemental questionnaires. We 

received Jindal’s responses to these 

supplementals on May 1, 2008. On May 

20, 2008, the Department issued its 

section D supplemental questionnaire. 

On June 30, 2008, we received Jindal’s 

response to the section D supplemental 

questionnaire. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

all gauges of raw, pretreated or primed 

PET film, whether extruded or 

coextruded. Excluded are metalized 

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 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item number 

3920.62.90. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for the 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Partial Rescission of Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Department will rescind an 

administrative review, in whole or in 

part, if a party that requested a review 

withdraws its request within 90 days of 

the date of publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested 

administrative review. MTZ withdrew 

its request to be reviewed by the 

Department before the 90–day time 

period expired. MTZ was the only party 

to request an administrative review of 

its sales. Therefore, the Department is 

rescinding this administrative review 

with respect to MTZ. 

Date of Sale 

The Department’s regulations at 19 

CFR 351.401(i) state that ‘‘{i}n 

identifying the date of sale of the subject 

merchandise or foreign like product, the 

Secretary normally will use the date of 

invoice, as recorded in the exporter or 

producer’s records kept in the ordinary 

course of business. However, the 

Secretary may use a date other than the 

date of invoice if the Secretary is 

satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the exporter 

or producer establishes the material 

terms of sale.’’ Jindal reported invoice 

date as the date of sale for sales in the 

home market and U.S. market. We 

examined Jindal’s responses to the 

Department’s questionnaire and 

preliminarily determine that invoice 

date is the appropriate date of Jindal’s 

sales under review. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether Jindal’s sales of 

subject merchandise to the U.S. were 

made at less than normal value (NV), we 

compared the export price (EP) of 

individual U.S. sales to the weighted 

average NV of sales of the foreign like 

product, as described in the ‘‘Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice in accordance with section 

777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(‘‘the Act’’). 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by Jindal that are covered by 

the description in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Order’’ section above, and that were 

sold in the home market during the 

POR, to be foreign like products for the 

purposes of determining appropriate 

product comparison to U.S. sales. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we 

compared U.S. sales made by Jindal to 

sales made in the home market within 

the contemporaneous window period. 

Where there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the comparison market 

made in the ordinary course of trade to 

compare to U.S. sales, the Department 

compared U.S. sales to sales of the most 

similar foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. In making the 

product comparison, the Department 

used the physical characteristics of the 

subject merchandise to match foreign 

like products to U.S. sales, according to 

specification (type/grade), thickness, 

microns, and surface. See Analysis 

Memorandum for Jindal Poly Film 

Limited for Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film Sheet and Strip from India; 2006–

2007 (Analysis’s Memorandum), 

concurrently with this notice and on file 

in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 

1117, of the main Commerce building. 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we used export price (EP) in 

this review because the subject 

merchandise was sold prior to 

importation to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States, and constructed 

export price (CEP) methodology was not 

warranted based on the facts on the 

record. Jindal reported its U.S. sales on 

a Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) 

basis. As such, in accordance with 

sections 772(a) and 772(c) of the Act, we 

calculated EP by using the prices that 

Jindal sold to its unaffiliated purchaser 

in the United States. We made 

deductions from the starting price, 

where appropriate, for foreign 

movement expenses, brokerage and 

handling, insurance, international 

freight, and marine insurance under 

section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance 

with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we 

have increased EP to account for 

countervailing duties attributable to 

export subsidies. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45701 

Normal Value 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based 

NV on the price at which the foreign 

like product was first sold for 

consumption in the comparison market, 

in the usual commercial quantities, in 

the ordinary course of trade, and, to the 

extent practicable, at the same level of 

trade (LOT) as the EP sale. See ‘‘Level 

of Trade’’ section below. After testing 

comparison market viability and 

whether comparison market sales were 

at below–cost prices, we calculated NV 

for Jindal as discussed in the following 

sections. 

A. Home Market Viability 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating normal value (NV) (i.e., 

the aggregate volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product is five 

percent or more of the aggregate volume 

of U.S. sales), we compared the volume 

of Jindal’s home market sales of the 

foreign like product during the POR to 

the volume of U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise during the POR. See 

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on 

this comparison, we determined that 

Jindal’s quantity of sales in the home 

market exceeded five percent of its sales 

of PET Film to the United States. Thus, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b), 

Jindal’s volume of sales in the home 

market during the POR was sufficient to 

serve as a viable basis for calculating 

NV. 

B. Cost of Production Analysis 

In the most recently completed 

administrative review of PET Film from 

India, the Department determined that 

Jindal sold certain foreign like product 

at prices below the cost of production 

and the Department excluded such sales 

from the calculation of NV. See Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip from India: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 8072 (February 17, 2005). 

As a result, in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 

Department determined that there are 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that Jindal sold foreign like product at 

prices below the cost of production 

during the instant POR. We have relied 

upon Jindal’s cost of production (COP) 

and constructed value (CV) information 

from Jindal’s submissions, except in the 

instances where the data presented was 

not appropriately quantified or valued. 

See Analysis’s Memorandum. 

Accordingly, the Department required 

that Jindal provide a response to section 

D of the questionnaire. Thus, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 

of the Act, there are reasonable grounds 

to believe or suspect that during the 

POR, Jindal sold foreign like product at 

prices below the cost of production of 

the subject merchandise. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

We have revised Jindal’s consolidated 

financial expense rate to exclude 

interest income related to sales, 

dividends from investments, and profit 

on sales of investments. As a result, the 

financial expense rate was adjusted. See 

Calculation Memorandum for Jindal 

Poly Film Limited for Preliminary 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from 

India; 2006–2007. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

To determine whether sales were 

made at prices below the COP, on a 

product-specific basis, the Department 

compared Jindal’s adjusted weighted–

average COP to the prices of its home 

market sales of the foreign like product, 

as required under section 773(b)(3) of 

the Act. In accordance with sections 

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, in 

determining whether to disregard home 

market sales made at prices less than the 

COP, we examined whether such sales 

were made (1) within an extended 

period of time in substantial quantities, 

and (2) were not at prices which permit 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. The prices, here, were 

inclusive of billing adjustments and 

exclusive of any applicable movement 

charges, discounts and rebates, direct 

and indirect selling expenses, and 

packing expenses, revised where 

appropriate. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of a 

respondent’s home market sales of a 

given product are at prices below the 

COP, the Department does not disregard 

any below cost of sales of that product, 

because the Department determines that 

in such instances the below cost of sales 

were not made and in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of a respondent’s sales of a given 

product are at prices below the COP, the 

Department disregards the below cost 

sales because they: (1) were in 

‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 

Act; and (2) based on our comparison of 

home market prices to the weighted–

average COPs for the POR, the below 

cost sales were at prices which would 

not permit the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time, in 

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

the Act. Based on the results of our test, 

we found that, for certain products, 

more than 20 percent of Jindal’s home 

market sales were at prices less than the 

COP. In addition, such sales did not 

provide for the recovery of costs within 

a reasonable period of time. We 

therefore excluded these sales and used 

the remaining sales of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade 

as the basis for determining NV, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act. 

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV 

on the price at which the foreign like 

product was first sold for consumption 

in the home market, in the usual 

commercial quantities, in the ordinary 

course of trade, and, to the extent 

practicable, at the same level of trade as 

the export price or constructed export 

price. Pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made 

deductions from normal value for 

movement expenses, including 

domestic inland freight, and domestic 

brokerage, as appropriate. In accordance 

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410(c) and 19 CFR 

351.410(d), we deducted home market 

credit and added U.S. credit. Jindal 

reported that it did not pay 

commissions on U.S. sales, and that it 

paid commissions in the home market. 

Therefore, we made the appropriate 

adjustment for commissions paid in the 

comparison market pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410(c). In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e), we made adjustments for 

indirect selling expenses incurred on 

comparison market or U.S. sales where 

commissions were granted on sales in 

one market but not in the other, the 

commission offset. Specifically, where 

commissions are incurred in one 

market, but not in the other, we will 

limit the amount of such allowance to 

the amount of either the selling 

expenses incurred in the one market or 

the commissions allowed in the other 

market, whichever is less. In accordance 

with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of 

the Act, we deducted home market 

packing and added U.S. packing costs. 

We made an adjustment for other direct 

selling expenses, such as bank charges, 

because Jindal’s supplemental responses 

demonstrate that these expenses consist 

of additional direct selling expenses that 

have not already been accounted for 

elsewhere. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45702 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, the Department determines 

NV based on sales in the comparison 

market at the same level of trade (LOT) 

as the EP or CEP sales in the U.S. market 

(Jindal had only EP sales in the U.S. 

market). The NV LOT is based on the 

starting price of the sales in the 

comparison market. Where NV is based 

on constructed value (CV), the 

Department determines the NV LOT 

based on the LOT of the sales from 

which the Department derives selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit for CV, where possible. See 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile, 63 

FR 2664–2670 (January 16, 

1998)(unchanged in final 

determination). For EP sales, the U.S 

LOT is based on the starting price of the 

sales to the U.S. market. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP sales, the 

Department examines stages in the 

marketing process and level of selling 

function along the chain of distribution 

between the producer and the 

unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 

412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 

selling activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. See id.; see also Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 

1997). When the Department is unable 

to match U.S. sales to foreign like 

product sales in the comparison market 

at the same LOT as the EP sale, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sales 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP 

sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where the 

differences affect price comparability, as 

manifested by a pattern of consistent 

price differences between comparison 

market sales at the NV LOT and 

comparison market at the LOT of the 

export transaction, the Department 

makes an LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Because Jindal 

had only EP sales in the U.S. market, it 

is not necessary to apply the CEP 

methodology. 

Because Jindal’s U.S. sales during this 

POR are made through one single 

distribution channel, Jindal to an 

unaffiliated trading company, we 

preliminarily determine that one LOT 

exists in the U.S. market. For home 

market sales, Jindal reported two 

categories of customers through two 

channels of distribution, end users and 

trading companies. We reviewed 

information from Jindal’s questionnaire 

responses regarding the marketing 

stages for the reported U.S. and home 

market sales, including a description of 

the selling activities performed for each 

channel of distribution. See Exhibit A–

Questionnaire Response. We compared 

the selling functions performed by 

Jindal for the two home market 

distribution channels and found that 

Jindal performed similar selling 

activities in the home market for its 

customers in both channels of 

distribution. See Jindal’s Analysis 

Memorandum dated July 30, 2008. We 

preliminarily determined that Jindal 

sold foreign like product in the home 

market at one LOT. We noted that the 

record of this review indicates that 

Jindal performs essentially the same 

sales functions for all its home market 

and U.S. sales. Thus, we determine that 

Jindal’s home market sales were made at 

the same LOT as its U.S. sales. See 

Jindal’s Analysis Memorandum dated 

July 30, 2008. Therefore, the Department 

preliminarily determines that no level of 

trade adjustment is necessary for Jindal. 

Currency Conversion 

In accordance with section 773A(a) of 

the Act, we made currency conversions 

based on the official exchange rates in 

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of 

New York. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily find that the following 

weighted–average dumping margin 

exists for the period July 1, 2006 

through June 30, 2007: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) 

Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal) ............... 0.47 (de minimis) 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash 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 the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the 

cash deposit rate for the company listed 

above will be that established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is less than 0.50 percent, and 

therefore, de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 

which case the cash deposit rate will be 

zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not 

participating in this review, 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, or the 

original less than fair value (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 (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be 5.71 

percent, the all–others rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation, 

adjusted for the export subsidy rate 

found in the companion countervailing 

duty investigation. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon publication of the final results 

of this review, the Department shall 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates 

an assessment rate for each importer of 

the subject merchandise for each 

respondent. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer–specific assessment rates on 

the basis of the ratio of the total amount 

of antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales and the total entered 

value of the examined sales. For the 

period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 

2007, we preliminarily determine the 

antidumping duty margin to be 0.47 

percent ad valorem. This rate is less 

than 0.5 percent. Consequently, if these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of this review, the 

Department will instruct CBP to 

liquidate shipments of PET Film by 

Jindal entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption from July 

1, 2006 through June 30, 2007, without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification applies 

to entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by any company 

included in the final results of review 

for which the reviewed company did 

not know that the merchandise it sold 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45703 

to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, the Department will instruct 

CBP to liquidate un–reviewed entries at 

the all others rate if there is no rate for 

the intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

For MTZ, for which this 

administrative review is rescinded, 

antidumping duties shall be assessed at 

rates equal to the cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties required 

at the time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(I). The Department will 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

publication of this notice. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this segment 

of the proceeding within five days of the 

public announcement of this notice. See 

19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties 

who wish to request a hearing, or to 

participate if one is requested, must 

submit a written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

Room 1117, within 30 days of the date 

of publication of this notice. Requests 

should contain: (1) the party’s name, 

address and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; and (3) a list of 

issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit written 

comments in response to these 

preliminary results. Unless the time 

period is extended by the Department, 

case briefs are to be submitted within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, which 

must be limited to arguments raised in 

case briefs, are to be submitted no later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) a statement of the issues; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities cited. Further, we 

request that parties submitting written 

comments provide the Department with 

a diskette containing an electronic copy 

of the public version of such comments. 

Case and rebuttal briefs must be 

served on interested parties, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). 

Unless extended, the Department will 

issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any written briefs, not later than 120 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice 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 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. 

The preliminary results of this 

administrative review and this notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: July 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18028 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–401–808] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Sweden: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from 

Sweden, in response to timely received 

requests for review, submitted by CP 

Kelco AB (respondent), and the Aqualon 

Company, a division of Hercules 

Incorporated (Aqualon), a U.S. 

manufacturer of CMC (petitioner). 

This review covers the period July 1, 

2006, through June 30, 2007. We 

preliminarily determine that U.S. sales 

of subject merchandise have been made 

by CP Kelco AB (CP Kelco) below 

normal value (NV). If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties based on the 

difference between the export price (EP) 

or constructed export price (CEP) and 

the NV. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See the ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’

section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Edwards or Angelica Mendoza, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

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

telephone: (202) 482–8029 or (202) 482–

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 11, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on CMC from 

Sweden. See Notice of Antidumping 

Duty Orders: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 

70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005) (Order). On 

July 3, 2007, we published in the 

Federal Register a notice of opportunity 

to request an administrative review of, 

inter alia, the antidumping duty order 

on CMC from Sweden. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 36420 

(July 3, 2007). Pursuant to section 

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

amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.213(b), Aqualon timely requested an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on CMC from 

Sweden for CP Kelco on July 25, 2007. 

On July 27, 2007, CP Kelco entered its 

appearance and also requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on CMC from Sweden. On August 24, 

2007, in accordance with section 751(a) 

of the Act and 19 C.F.R. 351.221(c)(1)(i), 

the Department published a notice of 

initiation of the administrative review of 

this order. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 48613, 

48614 (August 24, 2007). We are 

conducting an administrative review of 

the order on CMC from Sweden for CP 

Kelco for the period July 1, 2006, 

through June 30, 2007. 

On September 6, 2007, the 

Department issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to CP Kelco. On October 

12, 2007, we received the section A 

response from CP Kelco (SQA). On 

October 26, 2007, CP Kelco filed its 

sections B and C questionnaire 

responses (SQBC). On November 14, 

2007, Aqualon alleged that CP Kelco 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES