[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55043-55045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22472]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-825]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 24, 2008.

SUMMARY: On May 5, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published its preliminary determination in the investigation of sales 
at less than fair value of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 
strip (PET Film) from Thailand. See Notice of Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 
Sheet, and Strip from Thailand, 73 FR 24565 (May 5, 2008) (Preliminary 
Determination).
    The Department has determined that PET Film is being, or is likely 
to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided 
in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 
final weighted-average dumping margin is listed below in the section 
entitled ``Final Determination of Investigation.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Stephen Bailey or Angelica Mendoza, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0193 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The preliminary determination in this investigation was published 
on May 5, 2008. See Preliminary Determination. Since then, we conducted 
sales and cost verifications of the responses submitted by Polyplex 
Thailand Public Company Limited and Polyplex Americas, Inc. 
(collectively Polyplex). See Memoranda to the File from Stephen Bailey, 
Case Analyst, through Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, 
titled ``Verification of the Sales Responses of Polyplex Thailand 
Public Company Limited in the Antidumping Investigation of Polyethylene 
Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and Strip from Thailand'' dated July 
23, 2008 (Polyplex Verification Report); and ``Verification of the U.S. 
Sales Responses of Polyplex Thailand Public Company Limited and its 
U.S. Affiliate, Polyplex (Americas), Inc., in the Antidumping 
Investigation of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from Thailand,'' dated July 23, 2008 (Polyplex Americas 
Verification Report); see also Memorandum to the File through Neal M. 
Halper, from Angela Strom, titled ``Verification of the Cost Response 
in the Investigation of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, 
and Strip from Thailand,'' dated July 15, 2008 (Polyplex Cost 
Verification Report). All verification reports are on file and 
available in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117, of the main 
Department of Commerce building.
    Based on the Department's findings at verification, as well as the 
minor corrections presented by Polyplex at the start of the Thailand 
and U.S. verifications, we requested that respondent submit revised 
electronic sales databases for both the U.S. and comparison markets, 
and a revised cost database. See Letter from Angelica L. Mendoza, 
Program Manager, Office 7, to Polyplex, dated July 28, 2008. As 
requested, Polyplex submitted its revised sales and cost databases on 
July 30, 2008. On July 31, 2008, Polyplex informed the Department that 
its July 30, 2008, revised U.S. sales database contained a 
transcription error in the reported returned and net quantity fields 
relating to a sale that the Department instructed Polyplex to correct. 
See Letter from Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, to 
Polyplex, dated July 28, 2008, at question 13 and Polyplex's letter to 
the Department dated July 31, 2008. The error did not impact other data 
fields of the sale in question and the Department corrected the 
transcription error in the U.S. margin program. See lines 2257 through 
2259 of the Department's margin calculation program.
    We have also determined that an allegation of targeted dumping 
submitted by DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, 
Inc., SKC, Inc. and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. (collectively, 
petitioners) on March 28, 2008, and supplemented on April 17, 2008, and 
May 23, 2008, was inadequate. See Memorandum from Angelica L. Mendoza, 
Program Manager, Office 7, to Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7, 
regarding ``Analysis on Targeting Dumping,'' dated June 30, 2008 
(Targeted Dumping Memo); see also Targeted Dumping section below.
    We received a case brief from petitioners on August 11, 2008, and a 
rebuttal brief from Polyplex on August 14, 2008.\1\ On August 26, 2008, 
we rejected an argument, and part of an argument, contained in 
Polyplex's rebuttal case brief because they constituted new arguments 
and were not a rebuttal of petitioners' case brief. See the 
Department's August 26, 2008, letter to Polyplex. On August 28, 2008, 
we received Polyplex's revised rebuttal brief per our August 26, 2008, 
letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Polyplex submitted a letter to the Department on August 11, 
2008, in which it agreed with the Department's Preliminary 
Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this antidumping investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET 
Film) from Thailand'' (Decision Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. 
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated September 
17, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues 
which parties have raised and to which we have

[[Page 55044]]

responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to 
this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding 
recommendations in the Decision Memorandum which is on file in the CRU. 
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be 
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy 
and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

Targeted Dumping

    We determined that petitioners' allegation of targeted dumping 
failed to address the Department's concerns regarding the significance 
of price differences between allegedly targeted and non-targeted 
customers. Therefore, petitioners' allegation did not allow the 
Department to determine whether observed price differences between 
allegedly targeted and non-targeted customers were significant. We 
concluded that for the final determination, we should continue to 
utilize the average-to-average methodology in calculating the final 
margins for Polyplex, which we are doing for the reasons set forth in 
the Decision Memorandum.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are all gauges of raw, 
pre-treated, or primed PET Film, whether extruded or co-extruded. 
Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at 
least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a 
performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 
inches thick. Also excluded is Roller transport cleaning film which has 
at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers 
of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. PET Film is 
classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and purposes of Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP), our written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2006, through June 30, 
2007.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by Polyplex for use in our final determination. 
We used standard verification procedures including examination of 
relevant accounting and production records, and original source 
documents provided by Polyplex.

Changes since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at 
both the sales and cost verifications, we have made certain changes to 
the margin calculation for Polyplex. With regard to cost, we have 
revised the amounts reported for direct materials, labor and fixed 
overhead costs associated with the production of PET Film. We have also 
recalculated the general and administrative (G&A) expense rate using 
our adjusted cost of sales figure as the denominator of the rate 
calculation. See Memorandum to the File from Angela Strom titled ``Cost 
of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Final Determination Polyplex (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. 
(``Polyplex'')'' dated September 17, 2008 (Cost Calculation 
Memorandum).
    With regard to sales, the Department determined that it is more 
appropriate to use sales of identical non-prime merchandise to certain 
U.S. customers as the basis of the margin for sales to a U.S. customer 
for whom we are applying the special rule, because all the transactions 
to that U.S. customer were of the same merchandise. Additionally, the 
Department has adjusted the indirect selling expense (ISE) ratio for 
Polyplex Thailand Public Company Limited because there was insufficient 
record evidence to support Polyplex's offset to ISE for storage of non-
subject merchandise. The Department also adjusted the ISE ratio for 
Polyplex Americas, Inc. (PA) because expenses associated with one of 
Polyplex's product divisions, expenses which Polyplex removed from PA's 
ISE ratio, properly belong in the ISE expenses of PA as a whole. See 
Decision Memorandum at Comments 4, 5 and 6. For a discussion of these 
changes, see Memorandum to the File from Stephen Bailey, Case Analyst, 
through Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, titled 
``Analysis Memorandum for the Final Determination of Administrative 
Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) 
from Thailand: Polyplex Thailand Public Company Limited and Polyplex 
Americas, Inc.,'' dated September 17, 2008 (Sales Analysis Memorandum).

Final Determination of Investigation

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin 
exists for the company listed below for the period July 1, 2006, 
through June 30, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
              Manufacturer or Exporter                      Margin
                                                         (Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyplex............................................                6.07
All Others..........................................                6.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from 
Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the date of publication of this final determination. We will 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal 
to the weighted-average margin, as indicated in the chart above, as 
follows: (1) the rate for Polyplex will be 6.07 percent; (2) if the 
exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the 
producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of 
the subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all other producers or 
exporters will be 6.07 percent. These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our 
final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section 
735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether 
the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or 
threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the 
likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the 
ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does 
not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted 
will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury 
does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order 
directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance

[[Page 55045]]

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO 
materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an 
APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: September 17, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

Issues

Comment 1: Whether Polyplex Understated the Cost of Polymer Chips for 
PET Film Production
Comment 2: Whether Polyplex Understated Labor Costs associated with PET 
Film Production
Comment 3: Whether Polyplex Correctly Reported the Cost of Sales 
Denominator for the General and Administrative Expense Ratio
Comment 4: Whether Polyplex Understated Warehousing Expenses and 
Misclassified Warehousing Expenses as Indirect Selling Expenses
Comment 5: Whether Polyplex Understated the Indirect Selling Expenses 
Incurred by Polyplex America, Inc.
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Apply the Dumping Margin 
Calculated on Sales of Identical Merchandise to the Further 
Manufactured Sales
Comment 7: Whether to Accept Petitioners' Targeted Dumping Allegation
Comment 8: Clerical Error
[FR Doc. E8-22472 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S