[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65893-65899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31515]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-824]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Finn, Zev Primor, or Howard 
Smith at (202) 482-0065, (202) 482-4114, and (202) 482-5193, 
respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import 
Administration, Room 1870, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.

[[Page 65894]]

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to Department of Commerce's (the Department's) 
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 
(2001).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that polyethylene terephthalate film, 
sheet, and strip (PET film) from India is being, or is likely to be 
sold, in the United States at less-than-fair-value (LTFV), as provided 
in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 
shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on June 6, 2001. See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) From India and Taiwan, 
66 FR 31888 (June 13, 2001) (Initiation Notice).\1\ Since the 
initiation of these investigations, the following events have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in these investigations are DuPont Teijin 
Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, and Toray Plastics 
(America), Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. See Initiation Notice, at 66 
FR 31889. We received no comments from any parties on this matter.
    On July 2, 2001 the United States International Trade Commission 
(ITC) transmitted to the Department its preliminarily determination 
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United 
States is materially injured by reason of imports from India of PET 
film that are alleged to be sold in the United States at LTFV. See 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip and Taiwan, 66 FR 
36296 (July 11, 2001).
    On July 3, 2001, the Department issued antidumping questionnaires 
to, and received questionnaire responses from, the two mandatory 
respondents in this investigation, Ester Industries Limited (Ester) and 
Polyplex Corporation Limited (Polyplex) \2\ See Selection of 
Respondents section below. On August 27, 2001, the Department returned 
Ester's and Polyplex's Section A responses due to over bracketing of 
information. Ester and Polyplex resubmitted Section A on August 29, 
2001. We issued supplemental questionnaires, pertaining to sections A, 
B, C, and D of the antidumping questionnaire, to Ester and Polyplex in 
September, October, and November 2001. Ester and Polyplex responded to 
these supplemental questionnaires in September, October, November, and 
December 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Department's July 3, 2001 antidumping questionnaire 
consisted for the following sections. 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 of all home market sales of foreign like product, or, if the 
home market is not viable, sales of foreign like product in the most 
appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to 
respondents in non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a 
complete listing of all U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Section D 
requests information on the cost of production (COP) of the foreign 
like product and the constructed value (CV) of the merchandise under 
investigation. Section E requests information on further 
manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 12, 2001, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, 
the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this 
investigation by 50 days from October 24, 2001, until December 13, 
2001. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India 
and Taiwan: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty 
Determinations, 66 FR 52108 (October 12, 2001).

Postponement of the Final Determination

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioners. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the 
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six 
months.
    On December 5, 2001, Ester and Polyplex requested that, in the 
event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until 
135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination. Ester 
and Polyplex also included a request to extend the provisional measures 
to not more than 135 days after the publication of the preliminary 
determination. Accordingly, since we have made an affirmative 
preliminary determination, and the requesting parties account for a 
significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, we have 
postponed the final determination until not later than 135 days after 
the date of the publication of the preliminary determination.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2000, through March 
31, 2001. This period corresponds to the four most recently completed 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., 
May 2001).

Affiliation of Parties

    Pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act, the Department has 
preliminarily determined that two customers to whom Polyplex sold PET 
film during the POI and whom Polyplex identified as unaffiliated 
parties, are, in fact, affiliated with Polyplex. Specifically, the 
Department has determined that one U.S. customer and one home market 
customer (hereinafter referred to as Company A and Company B, 
respectively), are part of a corporate grouping which, together with 
Polyplex, controls another person. According to section 771(33)(F) of 
the Act, two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling any 
other person shall be considered affiliated. Thus, we have 
preliminarily found the corporate grouping, including companies A and 
B, to be affiliated with Polyplex. For a complete discussion of this 
issue, see the December 13, 2001 memorandum, Whether Polyplex 
Corporation Limited is Affiliated, Under the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
Amended, With Its U.S. Customer, Company A, and Its Home Market 
Customer, Company B (Affiliation Memorandum), which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Department of 
Commerce building.

Critical Circumstances

    In their petition, the petitioners requested that the Department 
initiate a critical circumstances investigation of PET film from India. 
However, the Department did not initiate a critical circumstances 
investigation because it found that petitioners failed to support their 
allegation of critical circumstances. In the Initiation Notice the 
Department stated:

    Although the petitioners provided data indicating significant 
increases in imports

[[Page 65895]]

over a three-year period, we do not consider this to be sufficient 
evidence of massive imports over a relatively short period of time 
within the meaning of section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and section 
351.206 of the Department's regulations. If, at a later date, the 
petitioners adequately allege the elements of critical 
circumstances, based on reasonably available information, the 
Department will investigate this matter further.

    See Initiation Notice, 66 FR at 31891.
    On September 14, 2001, petitioners requested, pursuant to section 
732(e) of the Act, that the Department request the Commissioner of the 
U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to compile information on an expedited 
basis regarding entries of PET film from India into the United States. 
After considering this request, we have determined that the record in 
this investigation does not contain evidence of circumstances which 
warrant invoking section 732(e) of the Act. Thus, we have not requested 
information from Customs on an expedited basis. For a complete 
discussion of this issue, see the memorandum from Holly A. Kuga, Senior 
Director, to Bernard Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Antidumping 
Investigation on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from 
India: Critical Circumstances, dated December 13, 2001, which is on 
file in the CRU.

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of these investigations, the products covered are all 
gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or 
coextruded. 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 of more than 
0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. However, where it is not practicable to examine 
all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 
777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department to investigate either (1) 
a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is 
statistically valid based on the information available at the time of 
selection, or (2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest 
volume of the subject merchandise from the exporting country that can 
reasonably be examined. The petition identified seven Indian producers 
of PET film. However, due to limited resources, we determined that we 
could investigate only two producers/exporters. Information on the 
record indicates that Ester and Polyplex were the two largest 
producers/exporters of PET film from India to the United States during 
the POI. See Memorandum from Nithya Nagarajan to Bernard T. Carreau, 
Selection of Respondents, dated June 27, 2001, which is on file in the 
CRU, room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. Therefore, 
we selected Ester and Polyplex as mandatory respondents and sent them 
antidumping questionnaires.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondents, and covered by the description in the 
Scope of Investigation section above, that were sold in India during 
the POI are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have 
relied upon the grade and thickness product characteristics to match 
U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales of the 
foreign like product or constructed value (CV). Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PET film from India were made in the 
United States at LTFV, we compared the export price (EP) or constructed 
export price (CEP) to the Normal Value (NV), as described in the Export 
Price, Constructed Export Price, and Normal Value sections of this 
notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 
we compared POI weighted-average EPs and CEPs to NVs.

U.S. Sales of Further-Manufactured PET Film

    During the POI, Polyplex and its U.S. affiliate, Spectrum Marketing 
Company Inc. (Spectrum), sold PET film to a U.S. customer, Company A, 
who further-manufactured the PET film into non-subject merchandise. 
Company A did not sell non-further-manufactured PET film in the United 
States during the POI. After examining the various relationships 
between Polyplex, Spectrum, and Company A, the Department, as noted 
above, has preliminarily determined that Company A is affiliated with 
both Polyplex and Spectrum. Polyplex has requested that if the 
Department determines Company A to be an affiliated party, it apply 
section 772(e) of the Act (the special rule for merchandise with value 
added after importation) in determining the margin for Company A's 
further-manufactured sales rather than using the standard methodology 
described under section 772(d)(2) of the Act. After examining the 
record, we have determined that it does not contain sufficient 
information for the Department to determine whether it is more 
appropriate to use the special rule or the standard methodology in 
calculating margins for the sales in question. Moreover, the record 
does not contain the information necessary to apply the standard 
methodology.
    Given the foregoing, and the requirement of section 772 of the Act 
to base export price and constructed export price on the price at which 
the merchandise is first sold to an unaffiliated purchaser, for the 
preliminary determination we have calculated the weighted-average 
dumping margin for Polyplex using only subject merchandise sales of 
non-further manufactured PET film that were made to unaffiliated 
parties. We intend to collect the information necessary to decide how 
to treat these sales for the final determination. For a complete 
discussion of this issue, see the December 13, 2001, memorandum, How to 
Account for Sales of Further-Manufactured Polyethylene Terephthalate 
(PET) Film, Sheet, and Strip in the Preliminary Dumping Calculations 
which is on file in the CRU.

Export Price

    Where Ester and Polyplex sold merchandise directly to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States, we used EP, in accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act, as the price to the United States. For both 
respondents, we calculated EP using the packed prices charged to the 
first unaffiliated customer in the United States (the starting price).
    We deducted from the starting price, where applicable, amounts for 
discounts and rebates. In addition, we deducted movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In this case, movement 
expenses include foreign inland freight, international freight, foreign 
and U.S. brokerage and

[[Page 65896]]

handling charges, insurance, U.S. duties, and U.S. inland freight.
    Finally, we increased U.S. price by the amount of the export 
subsidy found in the companion countervailing duty investigation on PET 
film from India. See Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Determination 
with Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from India (PET film CVD Prelim), 66 
FR 53389 (October 22, 2001).

Constructed Export Price

    For Ester and Polyplex, we calculated CEP, in accordance with 
subsection 772(b) of the Act, for those sales to unaffiliated 
purchasers that took place after importation into the United States. We 
based CEP on the packed FOB or delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments 
for price-billing errors and freight revenue, and made deductions for 
early payment discounts and rebates in order to identify the correct 
starting price. We also made deductions for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses 
included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, ocean freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. customs duties 
(including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), 
U.S. inland insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses, and warehousing 
expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, where 
applicable, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses, inventory carrying costs, and other indirect selling 
expenses. Also, we made an adjustment for profit in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    Finally, we increased U.S. price by the amount of the export 
subsidy found in the companion countervailing duty investigation on PET 
film from India. See PET film CVD Prelim.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market
    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or has 
sufficient aggregate value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that 
there is no particular market situation in the home market that 
prevents a proper comparison with the EP or CEP transaction. The 
statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be 
considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the 
aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to 
the United States.
    For this investigation, we found that Ester and Polyplex each had a 
viable home market for PET film. Thus, the home market is the 
appropriate comparison market in this investigation, and we used the 
respondents' submitted home market sales data for purposes of 
calculating NV.
    In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation 
of NV Based on Home Market Prices and Calculation of NV Based on CV, 
sections below.
B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
    Ester reported that it only sold PET film in the home market to 
unaffiliated customers. Therefore, the Department's arm's-length test 
is inapplicable with regard to Ester's home market sales.
    Polyplex reported that it made no home market sales to affiliated 
companies. However, since we have preliminarily determined that Company 
B is affiliated with Polyplex, we applied the arm's-length test to 
sales from Polyplex to Company B.\3\ We have applied the arm's-length 
test by comparing sales made to the home market affiliate to sales of 
identical merchandise from Polyplex to unaffiliated home market 
customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length 
prices, we compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of 
sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all discounts and 
rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and home market 
packing. Where, for the tested models of subject merchandise, prices to 
the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price 
to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the 
affiliated party were at arm's-length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c) and 
Preamble--Department's Final Antidumping Regulations 62 FR 27296, 27355 
(May 19, 1997). If the sales to the affiliated customer satisfied the 
arm's-length test, we used them in our analysis. If the sales to the 
affiliated customer in the home market did not satisfy the arm's-length 
test sales to the that customer were excluded from our analysis because 
we considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 
CFR 351.102 (defining ``ordinary course of trade'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Due to the proprietary nature of the determination, please 
see the Affiliation Memorandum, dated December 13, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. COP Analysis
    Concurrent with the filing of the original petition, the 
petitioners alleged that sales of PET film in the home market of India 
were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, and accordingly, 
requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost 
investigation. Based upon the comparison of the petition's adjusted 
prices and COP for the foreign like product, and in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of PET film manufactured in India were 
made at prices below the COP. See Initiation Notice, 66 FR at 31890. As 
a result, the Department has conducted an investigation to determine 
whether Ester and Polyplex made sales in the home market at prices 
below their respective COPs during the POI within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act. Our COP analysis is described below.
    1. Calculation of COP. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP for each respondent based on 
the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like 
product, plus amounts for the home market general and administrative 
(G&A) expenses and interest expenses.
    We relied on the COP data submitted by Ester and Polyplex in their 
cost questionnaire responses, except, as noted below, in specific 
instances where Ester's submitted costs were not appropriately 
quantified or valued.
    a. Changes to Ester's COP. Based on the information on the record, 
we recalculated Ester's reported G&A and interest expense ratios to 
include expenses on a company-wide basis rather than expenses based on 
Ester's PET film division only.
    2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices. Pursuant to section 773(b) of 
the Act, on a model-specific basis we compared the COP, or in Ester's 
case the revised COP, to the home market prices, less any applicable 
discounts and rebates, movement charges, selling expenses, commissions, 
and packing 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.
    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 sales of a given 
product were at prices

[[Page 65897]]

less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made 
in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at prices 
less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in 
``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because 
we compared prices to POI average costs, we also determined that such 
sales were not made at prices that would permit recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost 
sales.
    We found that, for certain models of PET film, more than 20 percent 
of the home market sales by Ester and Polyplex were made within an 
extended period of time at prices less than the COP. Further, the 
prices did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time. Therefore, we disregarded these below-cost sales and 
used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
D. Calculation of NV Based on Home Market Prices
    We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in India. We adjusted, where applicable, the starting price 
for discounts and rebates. We made adjustments for any differences in 
packing, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) 
of the Act, and we deducted movement expenses, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where applicable, we made 
adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act by deducting direct selling 
expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expense). We also made 
adjustments, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), 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).
E. Calculation of NV Based on CV
    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 those models of PET film for which we could not determine the NV 
based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no sales of 
a comparable product or all sales of the comparison products failed the 
COP test, we based NV on CV.
    In accordance with sections 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication 
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling expenses, G&A, 
interest, profit and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost of 
materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the 
``Calculation of COP'' section of this notice. In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based selling expenses, G&A, and 
profit on the amounts incurred and realized by Polyplex and Ester, 
respectively, in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the 
foreign country.
F. Level of Trade/CEP Offset
    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. Sales are made 
at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or 
their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(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. Id.; 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa (CTL 
Plate from South Africa), 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In 
order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different 
stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the 
distribution system in each market (i.e., the chain of distribution), 
including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and 
the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c), in identifying levels of trade for 
EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home market or 
third country prices),\4\ we consider the starting prices before any 
adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities 
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and 
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the 
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP 
or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a 
different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at 
a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it 
practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if a NV LOT is more remote from the 
factory than the CEP LOT and we are unable to make a level of trade 
adjustment, the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See CTL Plate from South Africa.
    We obtained information from each respondent regarding the 
marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. 
sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by 
the respondents for each channel of distribution. While neither company 
requested a LOT adjustment, both companies requested a CEP offset.
    Ester reported home market sales to three customer categories 
through three distribution channels. Polyplex reported home market 
sales to two customer categories through two channels of distribution. 
Both respondents offer to their respective customers in these 
distribution channels selling services such as order booking, freight, 
inventory maintenance, technical assistance and general customer 
service. Based on an analysis of the selling functions performed in the 
home market channel of distribution, we find that each respondent's 
home market sales comprise a single LOT.
    Similarly, for its U.S. sales, Ester reported EP sales to the same 
three customer categories through one channel of distribution, and CEP 
sales to the same three customer categories through a second channel of 
distribution. For its U.S. sales, Polyplex reported EP sales to one 
customer category through one channel of distribution, and CEP sales to 
two customer categories through a second channel of distribution. 
Further, for EP sales, both respondents offer their U.S. customers 
similar selling functions to those made in the home market (order 
booking, freight, inventory maintenance, technical assistance and 
general customer service).
    After reviewing the U.S. market selling functions reported by 
Polyplex and Ester, and after deducting the CEP selling expenses 
incurred by Spectrum and EIUL (their U.S. affiliates, respectively), we 
found that Polyplex and Ester provided a qualitatively different degree 
of services on EP sales than they did on CEP sales. Both

[[Page 65898]]

respondents provided various degrees of selling functions on their EP 
sales, but virtually none on their CEP sales. Therefore, we find that 
each respondent's selling functions were sufficiently different in 
their two reported channels of distribution to warrant a determination 
that two separate LOTs exist in the United States for both respondents.
    In their responses, neither Polyplex nor Ester claimed a LOT 
adjustment. However, both companies requested a CEP offset claiming 
that their NV LOTs were more remote from the factory than their CEP 
LOTs.
    In determining whether separate LOTs actually existed in the home 
market and U.S. market for each respondent, we examined whether each 
respondent's sales in the two markets involved different marketing 
stages (or their equivalent) based on the channel of distribution, 
customer categories and selling functions reported. In analyzing each 
company's selling activities for EP sales, we noted that the sales 
involved basically the same selling functions as those associated with 
the home market LOT described above. Therefore, based upon this 
conclusion, we have determined that the LOT for each respondent's EP 
sales is the same as that of its home market sales.
    Lastly, our preliminary analysis demonstrates that the home market 
LOTs are different from, and constitute a more advanced stage of 
distribution than, the CEP LOTs because after making the CEP deductions 
under section 772(d) of the Act, the home market LOTs include 
significantly more selling functions than the CEP LOTs. Therefore, 
because of the nature of selling functions, we find that the home 
market LOTs are at a different, more advanced marketing stage than the 
CEP LOTs. Consequently, since NV is established at a LOT which 
constitutes a more advanced LOT than the LOT of the CEP, and the data 
do not provide an appropriate basis upon which to determine a LOT 
adjustment (each company has only one level of trade in the home 
market), we conclude that Ester and Polyplex are each entitled to a CEP 
offset to NV. See the December 13, 2001, memoranda to the file 
regarding Ester and Polyplex: Level of Trade Analyses. 

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank, the 
Department's preferred source for exchange rates.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determination.

All Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides for the use of an ``all 
others'' rate, which is applied to non-investigated firms. See 
Statement of Administrative Actions, Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Pub. 
L. No. 103.465, 103rd Cong. 2d Sess., H. Doc. 103-316, vol. I (1994) 
(SAA) at 873. This section states that the all others rate shall 
generally be an amount equal to the weighted average of the weighted-
average dumping margins established for exporters and producers 
individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, 
and any margins based entirely upon the facts available. Therefore, 
since Polyplex has a de minimis margin, we have preliminarily assigned 
to all other exporters of PET film from India, a margin that is based 
on the weighted-average margin calculated for Ester.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of PET film 
from India, except for exports by Polyplex, that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Because the 
estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Polyplex is de minimis, 
we are not directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of 
entries of merchandise from this company from India. We are also 
instructing the Customs Service to require a cash deposit or the 
posting of a bond equal to the dumping margin for all entries of PET 
film from India, except for exports by Polyplex. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. 
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ester Industries Limited.....................................       2.96
Polyplex Corporation Limited.................................       1.38
All Others...................................................       2.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of the 
proceedings in these investigations in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b).

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our sales at LTFV determination. If our final antidumping 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether the 
imports covered by that determination are materially injuring, or 
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. The deadline for that 
ITC determination would be the later of 120 days after the date of this 
preliminary determination or 45 days after the date of our final 
determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
one week after the issuance of the last verification report. Rebuttal 
briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission 
of case briefs. A list of authorities used, 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. Further, we would appreciate it if parties 
submitting written comments would provide the Department with an 
additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by any interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing will normally be held 
two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, at 
the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC 20230. In the event that the Department receives 
requests for hearings from parties to more than one PET film case, the 
Department may schedule a single hearing to encompass all those cases. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.

[[Page 65899]]

    As noted above, the final determination will be issued within 135 
days after the date of the publication of the preliminary 
determination.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 15, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-31515 Filed 12-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P