[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45699-45703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18028]


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

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

[[Page 45700]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As 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.
    \2\ Section 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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{time} 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.

[[Page 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.

[[Page 45702]]

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

[[Page 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