Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 31919 

1A public version of this and all public 

Departmental memoranda is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (CRU), room 1117 in the main 

building of the Commerce Department. 

2A public version of this memorandum is 

available in the CRU. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–580–862) 

Ni–Resist Piston Inserts from the 

Republic of Korea: Preliminary 

Negative Countervailing Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) preliminarily 

determines that countervailable 

subsidies are not being provided to 

producers and exporters of Ni–resist 

piston inserts from the Republic of 

Korea (Korea). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, 

Operations, Import Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–1009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On January 26, 2009, the Department 

received a countervailing duty (CVD) 

petition concerning Ni–resist piston 

inserts from Korea filed in proper form 

by Korff Holdings, LLC, doing business 

as Quaker City Castings (Petitioner). 

This investigation was initiated on 

February 17, 2009. See Ni–Resist Piston 

Inserts from Argentina and the Republic 

of Korea: Initiation of Countervailing 

Duty Investigations, 74 FR 8054 

(February 23, 2009) (Initiation Notice), 

and accompanying Initiation 

Checklist..1 On March 20, 2009, the 

Department postponed the deadline for 

the preliminary determination by 65 

days to no later than June 29, 2009. See 

Ni–Resist Piston Inserts from Argentina 

and the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigations, 74 FR 11910 (March 

20, 2009). 

On March 4, 2009, the Department 

selected Incheon Metal Co., Ltd. 

(Incheon Metal) as the mandatory 

respondent in this investigation. See 

Memorandum from the Team through 

Melissa Skinner, Director, Office 3, 

Operations, to John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, regarding ‘‘Respondent 

Selection’’ (March 4, 2009).2

On March 6, 2009, we issued the 

initial CVD questionnaire to the 

Government of Korea (GOK) and 

Incheon Metal. On April 8, 2009, the 

GOK submitted its response to the 

initial CVD questionnaire. On April 28, 

2009, Incheon Metal submitted its 

initial questionnaire response. On April 

17, 2009, we issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to the GOK, to which it 

responded on April 28, 2009. On May 

1, 2009, we issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Incheon Metal, to 

which it submitted a response on May 

29, 2009. On May 11, 2009, we issued 

a second supplemental questionnaire to 

the GOK, which submitted its response 

on May 18, 2009. On June 2, 2009, we 

issued a third supplemental 

questionnaire to the GOK. On June 11, 

2009, the GOK submitted its response to 

the third supplemental questionnaire. 

On April 20, 2009, petitioner 

submitted new subsidy allegations 

regarding six programs. On May 13, 

2009, the Department initiated 

investigations of the six newly alleged 

subsidy programs pursuant to section 

775 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). See Memorandum to 

Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Office 3 

Operations, regarding ‘‘New Subsidy 

Allegations’’ (May 13, 2009). 

Questionnaires regarding these newly 

alleged subsidies were sent to the GOK 

and Incheon Metal on May 13, 2009. 

The GOK and Incheon Metal submitted 

their response to the questionnaires on 

the new subsidy allegations on June 10, 

2009. 

On May 11, 2009, petitioner 

submitted additional new subsidy 

allegations regarding one program. On 

May 27, 2009, the Department initiated 

an investigation of the one newly 

alleged subsidy program pursuant to 

section 775 of the Act. See 

Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, 

Director, Office 3 Operations, regarding 

‘‘Additional New Subsidy Allegations’’ 

(May 27, 2009). Questionnaires 

regarding this newly alleged subsidy 

were sent to the GOK and Incheon Metal 

on May 29, 2009. The GOK and Incheon 

Metal submitted their responses to the 

questionnaires on the additional new 

subsidy allegation on June 12, 2009. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

includes all Ni–resist piston inserts 

regardless of size, thickness, weight, or 

outside diameter. Ni–resist piston 

inserts may also be called other names 

including, but not limited to, ‘‘Ring 

Carriers,’’ or ‘‘Alfin Inserts.’’ Ni–resist 

piston inserts are alloyed cast iron rings, 

with or without a sheet metal cooling 

channel pressed and welded into the 

interior of the insert. Ni–resist piston 

inserts are composed of the material 

known as Ni–resist, of the chemical 

composition: 13.5% - 17.5% Ni (nickel), 

5.5% - 8.0% Cu (copper), 0.8% - 2.5% 

Cr (chromium), 0.5% - 1.5% Mn 

(manganese), 1.0% - 3.0% Si (silicon), 

2.4% - 3.0% C (carbon). The cast iron 

composition is produced primarily to 

the material specifications of the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), ASTM A–436 grade 

1. 

The scope of this investigation does 

not include piston rings nor did any 

other product manufacture using the 

Ni–resist material. The subject imports 

are properly classified under 

subheading 8409.99.91.90 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), but have been 

imported under HTSUS 7326.90. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description is dispositive of the 

scope of these investigations. 

Injury Test 

Because Korea is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) is 

required to determine whether imports 

of the subject merchandise from Korea 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. On March 25, 

2009, the ITC published its preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of imports from Korea of subject 

merchandise. See Ni–Resist Piston 

Inserts from Argentina and Korea, 

USITC Pub.4066, Inv. Nos. 701–TA– 

460–461, (March 2009) (Prelim.). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (the POI) 

for which we are measuring subsidies is 

January 1, 2008, through December 31, 

2008, which corresponds to the most 

recently completed fiscal year for the 

two respondents. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(2). 

Allocation Period 

Under 19 CFR 351.524(b), non– 

recurring subsidies are allocated over a 

period corresponding to the average 

useful life (AUL) of the renewable 

physical assets used to produce the 

subject merchandise. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.524(d)(2), there is a rebuttable 

presumption that the AUL will be taken 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

31920 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 

from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s 

1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation 

Range System (IRS Tables), as updated 

by the Department of Treasury. For the 

subject merchandise, the IRS Tables 

prescribe an AUL of 13 years. No 

interested party has claimed that the 

AUL of 13 years is unreasonable. 

ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS 

Program Preliminarily Determined To 

Be Countervailable 

A. Tax Benefits under the Namdong 

National Industrial Complex Program 

During the POI Incheon Metal 

received tax benefits under the 

Namdong National Industrial Complex 

pursuant to the Framework Act on small 

and medium–sized enterprises (SMEs) 

from the GOK. Any SME involved in 

manufacturing, transportation, or 

information technology can locate 

inside the Namdong National Industrial 

Complex and receive assistance from 

the government. Under the program, 

firms inside the complex are eligible to 

receive exemptions from acquisition 

and registration taxes that are normally 

due on real estate transactions. Incheon 

Metal reported receiving such tax 

exemptions during the POI in 

connection with real estate transactions 

during the POI. 

We preliminarily determine that the 

Incheon Metal received a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone from the GOK within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the 

Act and that the exemptions are specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, because they 

limited to enterprises located inside the 

Namdong National Industrial Complex. 

Incheon Metal is located within this 

complex. 

Pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of the 

Act, we find the tax exemption confers 

a benefit in the amount equal to the 

exemption during the POI. We divided 

the benefit under this program by 

Incheon Metal’s total sales. The 

resulting net subsidy rate is less than 

0.005 percent ad valorem. Therefore, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we will find that the 

countervailable benefit is not 

measurable. See, e.g., Certain Hot– 

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

India: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 20923 

(May 6, 2009) (HRC from India), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (HRC from India Decision 

Memorandum) at ‘‘Exemption from the 

CST.’’ 

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Be Not Countervailable 

A. Technical Development for 

Innovation Production Environment 

(TDIPE) 

Incheon Metal’s annual report 

indicates that it received grants from the 

GOK during the POI. See Incheon 

Metal’s April 24, 2009 response at 

Exhibit 5. Supplemental questionnaire 

responses from Incheon Metal and the 

GOK indicate that Incheon Metal 

received two grants from the GOK’s 

Small and Medium Business 

Administration under the TDIPE. See 

Incheon Metal’s May 29, 2009 response 

at 2–3. In the narrative of its 

supplemental questionnaire response, 

Incheon Metal indicated that SME’s that 

purchase equipment classified under 

Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) 

Chapters 10 through 33 are eligible to 

receive grants under the TDIPE. The 

GOK’s description of the program and 

the portions of the TDIPE regulations 

and sample application forms submitted 

by the GOK do not make any reference 

to the grants being limited to purchases 

of equipment under HTS chapters 10 

through 33. See GOK’s June 12, 2009 

response at Exhibits S–29 and S–30. In 

response to our request, the GOK also 

submitted information concerning the 

enterprises and industries that received 

grants under the TDIPE program during 

the period 2005 through 2008. See 

GOK’s June 12, 2009 response at 19. 

Based on our analysis of the 

information submitted by the GOK 

regarding the TDIPE program, including 

a copy of the relevant legislation, we 

preliminarily determine that the grants 

under the program are not de jure 

specific within the meaning of sections 

771(5A)(A), (B), (C) and (D)(i) and (ii) of 

the Act. See also 19 CFR 351.502(e) and 

see also the GOK’s June 12, 2009, 

response at Exhibits S–29 and S–30. 

Where the Department finds no de 

jure specificity, section 771(5A)(D)(iii) 

of the Act also directs the Department 

to examine whether the benefits 

provided under the program are de facto 

specific, that is, whether the benefits are 

specific as a matter of fact. 

Subparagraphs under section 

771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act stipulate that 

a program is de facto specific if one or 

more of the following factors exist: 

(I) The actual recipients of the 

subsidy, whether considered on an 

enterprise or industry basis, are 

limited in number. 

(II) An enterprise or industry is a 

predominant user of the subsidy. 

(III) An enterprise or industry receives 

a disproportionately large amount 

of the subsidy. 

(IV) The manner in which the 

authority providing the subsidy has 

exercised discretion in the decision 

to grant the subsidy indicates that 

an enterprise or industry is favored 

over others. 

In response to the Department’s 

request for information regarding these 

factors, the GOK provided the 

Department with a breakdown of the 

issuance of grants (both in terms of 

amounts and number of recipients), by 

industry, for the years 2005 through 

2008. See GOK’s June 12, 2009, 

questionnaire response at 19 and the 

Department’s June 25, 2009, 

Memorandum to the File (Preliminary 

De Facto Specificity Analysis 

Memorandum), of which a public 

version is available in the Central 

Records Unit in Room 1117. In 

conducting our de facto specificity 

analysis, we examined the grant 

amounts issued by the GOK as well as 

the number of recipients, by industry, 

during the POI and each of the 

preceding three years. Specifically, we 

compared the amount of grants under 

the TDIPE program that were issued to 

the metals industry to the amount of 

grants that were issued to other 

industries under this program. We 

conducted the same analysis with 

regard to the number of recipients. See 

Preliminary De Facto Specificity 

Analysis Memorandum. 

Based on our analysis of the data for 

the TDIPE program, we preliminarily 

determine that the benefits received by 

Incheon Metal or the metals industry 

under this program were not de facto 

specific within the meaning of sections 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) through (III) of the Act, 

i.e., we find no limitation as to the 

number of recipients, predominant use 

or disproportionate share, of the 

subsidy. Lastly, we preliminarily 

determine that there is no evidence on 

the record of the investigation 

indicating that the GOK exercised 

discretion in the decision to issue 

TDIPE grants which indicates that the 

metals industry was favored over other 

industries within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(IV) of the Act. 

Consequently, the Department 

preliminarily determines that the grants 

received by Incheon Metal under this 

program are neither de jure nor de facto 

specific and, therefore, not 

countervailable. We will continue to 

examine this program in this 

proceeding. 

B. Reserve for Research and Manpower 

Development Fund Under RSTA Article 

9 (Formerly Article 8 of TERCL) 

This program allows a company 

operating in manufacturing or mining, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 31921 

or in a business prescribed by the 

Presidential Decree, to appropriate 

reserve funds to cover expenses related 

to the development or innovation of 

technology. These reserve funds are 

included in the company’s losses and 

reduce the amount of taxes paid by the 

company. Under this program, capital 

goods companies and capital intensive 

companies can establish a reserve of five 

percent of total revenue, while 

companies in all other industries are 

only allowed to establish a three– 

percent reserve. 

The Department has previously 

determined that firms that are entitled 

to establish a reserve up to the three 

percent level do not receive a 

countervailable subsidy. See e.g., 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review: Corrosion 

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 

53413, 53419 (September 11, 2006) 

(unchanged in final results). Incheon 

Metal indicated in its questionnaire 

response that it established its reserve 

up to the three percent level. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that Incheon Metal’s use of 

the program is not countervailable. 

C. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Have Been Terminated 

1. Energy Rate Reductions Under the 

Request Load Adjustment Program 

Petitioner contends that the GOK 

provides reduced energy rates to 

companies that reduce their demand by 

twenty percent. Businesses are eligible 

for a discount of 440 won per kW under 

the Requested Load Adjustment 

program. The GOK reported in its 

response that the program had been 

terminated as of January 1, 2005, by the 

Korean Electric Power Corporation and 

did not provide any residual benefits. 

See GOK’s April 8, 2009, response at 5. 

Information submitted by the GOK, 

including translated copies of the 

relevant regulation, shows that the 

regulation covering the program has 

been abolished. See GOK’s April 28, 

2009, supplemental response at 3 and 

Exhibits S–1 and S–2. The GOK also 

stated that it has not implemented a 

successor program. Therefore, subject to 

verification, we preliminarily determine 

that this program has been terminated. 

2. Reserve for Investment Funds 

Petitioner alleged that this program 

allowed Korean firms engaged in 

manufacturing and mining outside of 

Seoul to establish a tax reserve. 

Petitioner further contended that the tax 

reserve allows eligible firms to reduce 

their taxable income in a given year and 

that the program is limited to a 

geographic area outside of Seoul. The 

GOK reported that the program was 

terminated on August 31, 1999, and that 

the relevant portion of the Restriction of 

Special Taxation Act was deleted. The 

GOK provided documentation 

demonstrating its assertion. See GOK’s 

April 8, 2009, response at 7 and Exhibit 

7. Therefore, subject to verification, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program has been terminated. 

D. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Be Not Used 

1. Short–Term Export Financing 

2. Loans under the Industrial Base Fund 

3. Export Loans by Commercial Banks 

Under KEXIM’s Trade Bill 

Rediscounting Program 

4. Subsidized Loans and Guarantees 

through the Korea Development Bank 

5. Export Insurance and Guarantees 

through the Korea Export Insurance 

Corporation 

6. SME Financing through the Industrial 

Bank of Korea 

7. Export and Import Credit Financing 

and Guarantees from the Korean 

Export–Import Bank 

8. Export and Import Credit Financing 

and Guarantees from the Korean 

Export–Import Bank 

9. Financial Aid, Training Assistance 

and Export Services through the Small 

and Medium Business Administration 

10. Free Economic Zone of Incheon 

Verification 

In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of 

the Act, we intend to verify the 

information submitted by Incheon Metal 

and the GOK prior to making our final 

determination. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have 

calculated an individual rate for each 

producer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise. We preliminarily 

determine the total estimated net 

countervailable subsidy rates to be: 

Producer/Exporter Subsidy Rate 

Incheon Metal Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................. de minimis percent ad valorem 

All Others ................................................................................................................................................................... de minimis percent ad valorem 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that no countervailable subsidies are 

being provided to the production or 

exportation of Ni–resist pistons in 

Korea. Further, we will direct U.S. 

Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) not to 

require suspension of liquidation of all 

entries of Ni–resist pistons from Korea. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 703(f) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all non– 

privileged and non–proprietary 

information relating to this 

investigation. We will allow the ITC 

access to all privileged and business 

proprietary information in our files, 

provided the ITC confirms that it will 

not disclose such information, either 

publicly or under an administrative 

protective order, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

In accordance with section 705(b) (2) 

of the Act, if our final determination is 

affirmative, the ITC will make its final 

determination within 45 days after the 

Department makes its final 

determination. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), the Department will disclose 

to the parties the calculations for this 

preliminary determination within five 

days of its announcement. Case briefs 

for this investigation must be submitted 

no later than one week after the 

issuance of the last verification report. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c) (for a further 

discussion of case briefs). Rebuttal 

briefs, which must be limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs, must be filed 

within five days after the deadline for 

submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). A list of authorities relied 

upon, a table of contents, and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. Executive summaries 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.310(c), we will hold a public 

hearing, if requested, to afford interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

this preliminary determination. 

Individuals who wish to request a 

hearing must submit a written request 

within 30 days of the publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register to the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

31922 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230. Parties will be notified of the 

schedule for the hearing and parties 

should confirm the time, date, and place 

of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. Requests for a public 

hearing should contain: (1) party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

to the extent practicable, an 

identification of the arguments to be 

raised at the hearing. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 703(f) 

and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: June 29, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15967 Filed 7–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–807] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of 

Korea: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet 

and strip (PET film) from the Republic 

of Korea (Korea). This review covers one 

company, Kolon Industries Inc. (Kolon) 

and the period October 2, 2007, through 

May 31, 2008. We preliminarily 

determine that Kolon has not made sales 

below normal value (NV). If these 

preliminary results are adopted in the 

final results of review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, 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) 482–4475 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 9, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review’’ of the 

antidumping duty order on PET film 

from Korea. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 32557 (June 9, 2008). 

In accordance with Section 751 (a)(1) 

of the Tariff Act, as amended (the Act) 

and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on June 30, 

2008, Kolon requested an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on PET film from Korea. On June 30, 

2008, DuPont Teijin Films (DuPont), 

Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. 

(Mitsubishi), and Toray Plastics 

America Inc. (Toray) (collectively 

‘‘Petitioners’’), also requested a review 

of Kolon. 

On July 30, 2008, the Department 

initiated an administrative review for 

Kolon covering the period October 2, 

2007, through May 31, 2008. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008). 

On June 30, 2008, we issued our 

antidumping questionnaire to Kolon. 

We received Kolon’s response to our 

questionnaire on September 10, 2008 

(Section A) and October 3, 2008 

(Sections B, C, and D). During the 

period December 18, 2008, through 

April 1, 2009, we issued supplemental 

questionnaires to Kolon. We received 

responses to those questionnaires from 

January 23, 2009, through April 24, 

2009. 

On February 23, 2009, we extended 

the deadline for the preliminary results 

of this review until no later than June 

30, 2009. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip 

from the Republic of Korea: Extension of 

Time Limit for the Preliminary Results 

of the 2007/2008 Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 8054 (February 23, 2009). 

On May 26, 2009, Petitioners 

submitted comments concerning the 

profitability of Kolon’s home market 

and U.S. sales and the model match 

methodology that should be employed 

in this review. On June 9, 2009, Kolon 

submitted rebuttal comments to 

Petitioner’s May 26, 2009 letter. See the 

‘‘Product Comparisons’’ section of this 

Notice, infra, for a discussion of the 

Model match methodology that we have 

employed in this review. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by this review are 

shipments of all gauges of raw, 

pretreated, or primed polyethylene 

terephthalate film, sheet, and strip, 

whether extruded or coextruded. The 

films excluded from this review 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 of more than 0.00001 

inches (0.254 micrometers) thick. 

PET film is currently classifiable 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00. The HTS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and for customs purposes. The written 

description remains dispositive as to the 

scope of the product coverage. 

Period of Review 

On August 20, 2008, Kolon requested 

that the Department amend the time 

frame covered by the review to the 

period April 3, 2008, to May 31, 2008. 

See Kolon’s August 20, 2008, letter. 

Kolon noted that April 3, 2008, is the 

date that the Department published its 

final results of the changed 

circumstances review in which Kolon 

was formally reinstated within the 

order. See Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from Korea: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review and 

Reinstatement of the Antidumping Duty 

Order, 73 FR 18259 (April 3, 2008) 

(Final Results of CC Review). Kolon 

asserted the Department has no basis to 

review transactions prior to the date 

Kolon was formally reinstated into the 

order. 

On August 27, 2008, Petitioners filed 

a rebuttal to Kolon’s August 20, 2008 

letter. See Petitioners’ August 27, 2008, 

letter. Petitioners noted the Department 

ordered CBP to suspend liquidation of 

Kolon’s entries on October 2, 2007, 

which is the date the Department issued 

its Preliminary Results of the Changed 

Circumstances Review. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the Republic of Korea: 

Preliminary Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review and Intent to 

Reinstate Kolon Industries, Inc. in the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 72 FR 56048 

(October 2, 2007). Petitioners assert that 

because the Department ordered 

suspension of liquidation with respect 

to Kolon’s entries effective October 2, 

2007, that date is the proper date for the 

beginning of the review period. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES