Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 54557 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–475–703] 

Amended Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From 

Italy 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 22, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yasmin Nair or Alicia Winston, at (202) 

482–3813 or (202) 482–1785, 

respectively; AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin 

from Italy, covering the period August 1, 

2006, through July 31, 2007. We 

preliminarily determine that sales of 

subject merchandise by Solvay Solexis, 

Inc. and Solvay Solexis S.p.A. have 

been made below normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We released the preliminary results to 

the parties on Wednesday, September 3, 

2008. However, that version 

inadvertently included business 

proprietary information, so this 

amended preliminary determination 

corrects that error. The error was 

discovered prior to publication in the 

Federal Register, consequently this 

amended notice is being published in its 

place. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 30, 1988, The Department 

of Commerce (the Department) 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on granular 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE) 

from Italy. See Antidumping Duty 

Order; Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene 

Resin from Italy, 53 FR 33163 (August 

30, 1988). On August 2, 2007, the 

Department issued a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of this order. See Antidumping 

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 

or Suspended Investigation; 

Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 42383 (August 2, 2007). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), 

Solvay requested an administrative 

review. On September 25, 2007, the 

Department published the notice of 

initiation of this antidumping duty 

administrative review, covering the 

period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 

2007 (the period of review, or POR). See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 72 FR 54428 (September 25, 2007). 

On October 12, 2007, the Department 

issued its antidumping questionnaire to 

Solvay Solexis, Inc. and Solvay Solexis 

S.p.A (collectively, Solvay). The 

Department received timely responses 

to Sections A–E of the initial 

antidumping questionnaire and 

associated supplemental questionnaires. 

On April 9, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of a 120-day 

extension of the preliminary results of 

this administrative review. See Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy: 

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

19193. This notice extended the 

deadline for the preliminary results to 

September 2, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

granular PTFE resin, filled or unfilled. 

This order also covers PTFE wet raw 

polymer exported from Italy to the 

United States. See Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; 

Final Affirmative Determination of 

Circumvention of Antidumping Duty 

Order, 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993). 

This order excludes PTFE dispersions in 

water and fine powders. During the 

period covered by this review, such 

merchandise was classified under item 

number 3904.61.00 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS). We are providing this HTSUS 

number for convenience and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

purposes only. The written description 

of the scope remains dispositive. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

We compared the constructed export 

price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as 

described in the Constructed Export 

Price and Normal Value sections of this 

notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), we compared the CEPs of 

individual transactions to 

contemporaneous monthly weighted– 

average prices of sales of the foreign like 

product. 

Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, 

we first attempted to compare 

contemporaneous sales of products sold 

in the United States and the comparison 

market that were identical with respect 

to the following characteristics: type, 

filler, percentage of filler, and grade. 

Where we were unable to compare sales 

of identical merchandise, we compared 

U.S. sales with comparison market sales 

of the most similar merchandise. Where 

there were no sales of identical or 

similar merchandise made in the 

ordinary course of trade in the 

comparison market, we compared U.S. 

sales to constructed value (CV). 

Date of Sale 

Normally, the Department employs 

invoice date as the date of sale. 

However, if the Department determines 

that another date reflects the date on 

which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale, 

the Department may use this date. See 

19 CFR 351.401(i). Solvay reported that 

its terms of sale in the home market are 

subject to change until shipment. For 

virtually all of its home market sales, 

shipment date precedes the invoice 

date. When shipment date precedes 

invoice date, it is the Department’s 

practice to use shipment date as the date 

of sale. See Certain Cold Rolled and 

Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Korea: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13172 73 

(Mar.18, 1998). Therefore, we have 

relied upon Solvay’s reported date of 

sale for home market transactions. For 

U.S. market sales, Solvay reported that 

the invoice date is the date on which the 

material terms of sale were established. 

Therefore, we are preliminarily using 

the date of invoice as the date of sale for 

Solvay’s U.S. market sales. 

Constructed Export Price 

For all sales to the United States, we 

calculated CEP, as defined in section 

772(b) of the Act, because all sales to 

unaffiliated parties were made after 

importation of the subject merchandise 

into the United States through the 

respondent’s affiliate, Solvay Solexis, 

Inc. We based CEP on the packed, 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States, net of 

billing adjustments. We adjusted these 

prices for movement expenses, 

including international freight, marine 

insurance, brokerage and handling in 

the United States, U.S. other transport 

expense, U.S. inland freight, U.S. 

warehousing, and U.S. customs duties, 

in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) 

of the Act. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
54558 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, we deducted selling 

expenses incurred by the affiliated 

reseller. These expenses include credit, 

inventory carrying costs, and indirect 

selling expenses incurred by Solvay 

Solexis, Inc. See Memorandum from 

Alicia Winston, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, to The File, Re: 

Preliminary Results Calculation 

Memorandum, dated September 2, 2008 

(Analysis Memo). 

Normal Value 

A. Selection of Comparison Markets 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales of 

granular PTFE resin in the home market 

to serve as a viable basis for calculating 

NV, we compared Solvay’s volume of 

home market sales of the foreign like 

product to the volume of U.S. sales of 

the subject merchandise, in accordance 

with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 

Because the aggregate volume of home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

was greater than five percent of the 

respective aggregate volume of U.S. 

sales for the subject merchandise, we 

determined that the home market 

provided a viable basis for calculating 

NV. Therefore, in accordance with 

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

based NV on the prices at which the 

foreign like product was first sold for 

consumption in the exporting country, 

in the usual commercial quantities and 

in the ordinary course of trade. 

B. Cost of Production Analysis 

Because we disregarded below–cost 

sales in the calculation of the final 

results of the 2004–2005 administrative 

review, the most recently completed 

review of PTFE at the time of initiation 

of this review, with respect to Solvay, 

we had reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect that home market sales of the 

foreign like product by Solvay had been 

made at prices below the cost of 

production (COP) during the period of 

this review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 

of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated 

a COP investigation regarding home 

market sales. Solvay calculated its 

model–specific costs of production on a 

POR basis. 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of Solvay’s cost of materials 

and fabrication for the foreign like 

product, plus amounts for general and 

administrative expenses (G&A), and 

interest expenses. 

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices 

We compared the weighted–average 

COP to the home market sales of the 

foreign like product, as required under 

section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 

determine whether these sales had been 

made at prices below the COP within an 

extended period of time (i.e., a period of 

one year) in substantial quantities and 

whether such prices were sufficient to 

permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time. 

On a model–specific basis, we 

compared the COP to home market 

prices, less any rebates, discounts, 

applicable movement charges, and 

direct and indirect selling expenses. 

3. Adjustments to Respondent’s Data 

We relied on the COP information 

provided by Solvay except in the 

following instances. We adjusted the 

transfer prices for certain inputs 

purchased by Solvay from affiliated 

suppliers in accordance with the major 

input rule of section 773(f)(3) of the Act. 

Specifically, we increased the reported 

cost of manufacturing where we found 

that the transfer price for the inputs was 

below the reported costs of the affiliated 

suppliers of that input. Also, Solvay 

excluded certain expenses from the 

G&A expenses. Therefore, we adjusted 

the respondent’s G&A expense ratio to 

include expenses that appear to relate to 

the general operations of the company 

and for which Solvay failed to provide 

an explanation for excluding these 

items. Finally, Solvay did not exclude 

packing costs from the cost of goods 

sold denominators used to calculate the 

G&A and financial expense ratios. 

Therefore, for the ratios to be applied on 

the same basis as they were calculated, 

we applied the G&A and financial 

expense ratios to the total cost of 

manufacturing including the packing 

costs. See Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary Results 

Solvay Solexis S.p.A. (Cost Calc Memo). 

4. Results of the COP Test 

We disregarded below–cost sales 

where: (1) 20 percent or more of 

Solvay’s sales of a given product during 

the POR were made at prices below the 

COP, because such sales were made 

within an extended period of time in 

substantial quantities in accordance 

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

Act; and (2) based on comparisons of 

price to weighted–average COPs for the 

POR, we determined that the below– 

cost sales of the product were at prices 

which would not permit recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable time period, in 

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

the Act. We found that Solvay made 

sales below cost, and we disregarded 

such sales where appropriate pursuant 

to section 773(b) of the Act. 

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison–Market Prices 

We determined home market prices 

net of price adjustments (e.g., other 

discounts and rebates). Where 

applicable, we made adjustments for 

packing and movement expenses, in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. In order to adjust for 

differences in packing between the two 

markets, we deducted home market 

packing costs from NV and added U.S. 

packing costs. We also made 

adjustments for differences in costs 

attributable to differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise, 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of 

the Act, and for other differences in the 

circumstances of sale (COS) in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 

of the Act (i.e., differences in credit 

expenses). Finally, we made a CEP– 

offset adjustment to the NV for indirect 

selling expenses pursuant to section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, as discussed in 

the Level of Trade/CEP Offset section 

below. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides 

that where NV cannot be based on 

comparison–market sales, NV may be 

based on CV. Accordingly, for PTFE for 

which we could not determine the NV 

based on comparison market sales, 

either because there were no useable 

sales of a comparable product or all 

sales of the comparable products failed 

the COP test, we based NV on the CV. 

Section 773(e) of the Act provides that 

the CV shall be based on the sum of the 

cost of materials and fabrication for the 

imported merchandise, plus amounts 

for selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. 

packing costs. We calculated the cost of 

materials and fabrication based on the 

methodology described in the Cost of 

Production Analysis section, above. We 

based SG&A and profit on the actual 

amounts incurred and realized by 

Solvay in connection with the 

production and sale of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade 

for consumption in the comparison 

market, in accordance with section 

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We used U.S. 

packing costs as described in the 

Constructed Export Price section, above. 

We made adjustments to CV for 

differences in COS in accordance with 

section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410. For comparisons to CEP, we 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 54559 

1See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy, 72 FR 

65939 (November 26, 2007). 

made COS adjustments by deducting 

from CV direct selling expenses 

incurred on home–market sales (i.e., 

credit expense and warranty expense). 

E. Level of Trade/CEP Offset 

In accordance with section 

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

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade in the 

comparison market as the level of trade 

of the U.S. sales. The comparison 

market level of trade is that of the 

starting–price sales in the comparison 

market. For CEP sales, such as those 

made by Solvay in this review, the U.S. 

level of trade is the level of the 

constructed sale from the exporter to the 

importer. 

To determine whether comparison 

market sales are at a different level of 

trade than that of the U.S. sales, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. If the 

comparison–market sales are at a 

different level of trade and the 

difference affects price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and comparison– 

market sales at the level of trade of the 

export transaction, we make a level–oftrade adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the 

NV level is more remote from the 

factory than the CEP level and there is 

no basis for determining whether the 

difference in the levels between NV and 

CEP affects price comparability, we 

adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act (the CEP–offset provision). See, 

e.g., Industrial Nitrocellulose from the 

United Kingdom; Notice of Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 6148, 6151 (February 8, 

2000) (Industrial Nitrocellulose). 

For this review, we obtained 

information from Solvay about the 

marketing involved in the reported U.S. 

sales and in the home market sales, 

including a description of the selling 

activities performed by Solvay for each 

channel of distribution. In identifying 

levels of trade for CEP and for home 

market sales, we considered the selling 

functions reflected in the CEP, after the 

deduction of expenses and profit under 

section 772(d) of the Act, and those 

reflected in the home market starting 

price before making any adjustments. 

We expect that, if claimed levels of 

trade are the same, the functions and 

activities of the seller should be similar. 

Conversely, if a party claims that levels 

of trade are different for different groups 

of sales, the functions and activities of 

the seller should be dissimilar. 

The record evidence in this review 

indicates that the home market and the 

CEP levels of trade for Solvay have not 

changed from the 2005–2006 review,1

the most recently completed review in 

this case. As explained below, we 

preliminarily determine in this review, 

as in the 2005–2006 administrative 

review, that there was one home market 

level of trade and one U.S. level of trade 

(i.e., the CEP level of trade). 

In the home market, Solvay sold 

directly to fabricators. These sales 

primarily entailed selling activities such 

as technical assistance, engineering 

services, research and development, 

technical programs, and delivery 

services. Given this fact pattern, we 

found that all home market sales were 

made at a single level of trade. In 

determining the level of trade for the 

U.S. sales, we considered only the 

selling activities reflected in the price 

after making the appropriate 

adjustments under section 772(d) of the 

Act. See, e.g., Industrial Nitrocellulose, 

65 FR at 6150. The CEP level of trade 

involves minimal selling functions such 

as invoicing and the occasional 

exchange of personnel between Solvay 

and its U.S. affiliate. Given this fact 

pattern, we found that all U.S. sales 

were made at a single level of trade. 

Based on a comparison of the home 

market level of trade and this CEP level 

of trade, we find the home market sales 

to be at a different level of trade from, 

and more remote from the factory than, 

the CEP sales. Section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act directs us to make an 

adjustment for difference in levels of 

trade where such differences affect price 

comparability. However, we were 

unable to quantify such price 

differences from information on the 

record. Because we have determined 

that the home–market level of trade is 

more remote from the factory than the 

CEP level of trade, and because the data 

necessary to calculate a level–of-trade 

adjustment are unavailable, we made a 

CEP–offset adjustment to NV pursuant 

to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A of the Act, based on exchange 

rates in effect on the date of the U.S. 

sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve 

Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted–average margin 

exists for the period August 1, 2006, 

through July 31, 2007: 

Producer 

Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percentage) 

Solvay Solexis, Inc. and 

Solvay Solexis S.p.A 

(collectively, Solvay) 95.24 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), the Department will disclose 

its weighted average antidumping 

margin calculations within 5 days of the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results. An interested party may request 

a hearing within 30 days of publication 

of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held 44 days after the date of 

publication, or the first working day 

thereafter. Interested parties may submit 

case briefs and/or written comments no 

later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs 

and rebuttals to written comments, 

limited to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, may be filed no later than 37 

days after the date of publication. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments are requested to submit with 

the argument: (1) a statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

Further, the parties submitting written 

comments should provide the 

Department with an additional copy of 

the public version of any such 

comments on diskette. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Assessment 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.212(b), the Department will 

calculate an assessment rate on all 

appropriate entries. We will calculate 

importer–specific duty assessment rates 

based on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total quantity of 

the sales for that importer. Where the 

assessment rate is above de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. 

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). This 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
54560 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the 

POR produced by the company 

included in these preliminary results for 

which the reviewed company did not 

know their merchandise 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 intermediate 

company or companies involved in the 

transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of PTFE from Italy 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit 

rate listed above for Solvay will be the 

rate established in the final results of 

this review, except if a rate is less than 

0.5 percent, and therefore de minimis, 

the cash deposit rate will be zero; (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 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) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous review 

conducted by the Department, the cash 

deposit rate will be 46.46 percent, the 

‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV 

investigation. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

from Italy, 53 FR 26096 (July 11, 1988). 

These cash deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

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 entities 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 determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: September 16, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–22108 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Applications for Duty–Free Entry of 

Scientific Instruments 

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– 

36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we 

invite comments on the question of 

whether instruments of equivalent 

scientific value, for the purposes for 

which the instruments shown below are 

intended to be used, are being 

manufactured in the United States. 

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and 

be postmarked on or before October 14, 

2008. Address written comments to 

Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 

2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Washington, D.C. 20230. Applications 

may be examined between 8:30 A.M. 

and 5:00 P.M. at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce in Room 2104. 

Docket Number: 08–047. Applicant: 

Stanford University, Department of 

Structural Biology, D100 Fairchild 

Building, 299 Campus Drive West, 

Stanford, CA 94305–5126. Instrument: 

Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 

F20 TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, 

the Netherlands. Intended Use: The 

instrument is intended to be used to 

study purified proteins from yeast 

Saccharomyces cerevisiae, also known 

as baker’s yeast, which are involved in 

transcription. Researchers plan to 

employ single particle analysis to study 

the protein complexes involved in 

transcription, the synthesis on RNA 

from a DNA template. Application 

accepted by Commissioner of Customs 

and Border Protection: August 25, 2008. 

Dated: September 16, 2008. 

Faye Robinson, 

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff. 

[FR Doc. E8–22107 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Exemption of Foreign Air Carriers 

From Excise Taxes; Review of Finding 

of Reciprocity (Dominican Republic), 

26 U.S.C. 4221 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Solicitation of public comments 

concerning a review of the existing 

exemption for aircraft registered in the 

Dominican Republic from certain 

internal revenue taxes on the purchase 

of supplies in the United States for such 

aircraft in connection with their 

international commercial operations. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Department of Commerce is 

conducting a review to determine, 

pursuant to Section 4221 of the Internal 

Revenue Code, as amended (26 U.S.C. 

4221), whether the Government of the 

Dominican Republic has discontinued 

allowing substantially reciprocal tax 

exemptions to aircraft of U.S. registry in 

connection with international 

commercial operations similar to those 

exemptions currently granted to aircraft 

of Dominican Republic registry by the 

United States under the aforementioned 

statute. 

The above-cited statute provides 

exemptions for aircraft of foreign 

registry from payment of certain internal 

revenue taxes on the purchase of 

supplies in the United States for such 

aircraft in connection with their 

international commercial operations. 

These exemptions apply upon a finding 

by the Secretary of Commerce, or his 

designee, and communicated to the 

Department of the Treasury, that such 

country allows, or will allow, 

‘‘substantially reciprocal privileges’’ to 

aircraft of U.S. registry with respect to 

purchases of such supplies in that 

country. If a foreign country 

discontinues the allowance of such 

substantially reciprocal exemption, the 

exemption allowed by the United States 

will not apply after the Secretary of the 

Treasury is notified by the Secretary of 

Commerce, or his designee, of the 

discontinuance. 

Interested parties are invited to 

submit their views, comments and 

supporting documentation in writing 

concerning this matter to Mr. Mark 

Brady, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Services, Room 1128, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. 

Submissions should be sent 

electronically to 

Airservices@ita.doc.gov. All 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES