Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65893

home market customers but not EP

customers. However the information on

the record indicates that there is

insufficient qualitative differences in

the selling functions performed by Nan

Ya in making sales in the home market

and United States to find them to be

distinct LOTs. Therefore, using the

information on the record, we

preliminarily determine that Nan Ya

makes home market and EP sales at the

same LOT.

Because Nan Ya’s EP sales are made

at the same LOT as home market sales,

we did not make a LOT adjustment for

any sales of subject merchandise by Nan

Ya. See Memorandum to the File Re:

Level of Trade Analysis for Nan Ya

Plastics Corporation, Ltd., dated

December 13, 2001.

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 noninvestigated firms. See Statement of

Administrative Actions, Uruguay Round

Agreements Act, Pub. L. 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 Nan Ya has a de

minimis margin, we have preliminarily

assigned to all other exporters of PET

Film from Taiwan, a margin that is

based on the weighted-average margin

calculated for Shinkong.

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 Taiwan,

except for exports by Nan Ya, 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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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

Nan Ya is de minimis, we are not

directing the Customs Service to

suspend liquidation of entries of

merchandise from this company from

Taiwan. 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 Taiwan, except for

exports by Nan Ya.

Margin

(percent)

Manufacturer/exporter:

Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation .................................. 9.19

Nan Ya Plastics Corporation,

Ltd. ......................................... 1.70

All Others .................................. 9.19

Disclosure

The Department will disclose

calculations performed within five days

of the date of publication of this notice

to the parties to the proceeding 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

threatening 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 an interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing

normally will 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.

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 13, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–31514 Filed 12–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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.

65894 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

1The petitioners in these investigations are

DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of

America, and Toray Plastics (America), Inc.

2The 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 nonmarket 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.

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.

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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 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 furthermanufactured the PET film into nonsubject 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 FurtherManufactured 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

65896 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

3 Due to the proprietary nature of the

determination, please see the Affiliation

Memorandum, dated December 13, 2001.

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’slength 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’’).

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65897

4Where 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.

less than the COP, we did not disregard

any below-cost sales of that product

because we determined that the belowcost 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).

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

65898 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

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 noninvestigated 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 weightedaverage 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 weightedaverage 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-ofliquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–816]

Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe

Fittings From Taiwan: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results in the

antidumping duty administrative review

of certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe

fittings from Taiwan.

SUMMARY: On July 12, 2001, the

Department of Commerce

(‘‘Department’’) published the

preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe

fittings from Taiwan. This review covers

one manufacturer/exporter of the

subject merchandise. The period of

review (‘‘POR’’) is June 1, 1999 through

May 31, 2000.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based upon our

analysis of the comments received, we

have made changes in the margin

calculation. Therefore, the final results

differ from the preliminary results of

this review. The final weighted-average

dumping margin is listed below in the

section titled ‘‘Final Results of the

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James C. Doyle or Alex Villanueva,

Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone

202–482–0159 (Doyle) or 202–482–6412

(Villanueva), fax 202–482–1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930

(‘‘Act’’) are references to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(‘‘URAA’’). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

On June 16, 1993, the Department

published the antidumping duty order

on certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe

fittings from Taiwan. See Certain

Welded Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe

Fittings From Taiwan: Final

Determination and Antidumping Order,

58 FR 33250 (June 16, 1993). On June

20, 2000, we published in the Federal

Register a notice of opportunity to

request an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings

from Taiwan covering the period June 1,

1999 through May 31, 2000. See Notice

of Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review of Antidumping

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,

Or Suspended Investigation 65 FR

38242 (June 20, 2000). On June 20, 2000,

respondent, Ta Chen Stainless Steel

Pipe Ltd., (‘‘Ta Chen’’), requested that

the Department conduct an

administrative review of Ta Chen for the

period of June 1, 1999 through May 31,

2000. On June 30, 2000, Markovitz

Enterprises, Inc. (Flowline Division),

Alloy Piping Products Inc., Gerlin, Inc.,

and Taylor Forge, (collectively,

‘‘Petitioners’’) requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of Ta Chen for the period of June

1, 1999 through May 31, 2000. On July

31, 2000, in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act, the Department

published a notice of initiation of this

antidumping duty administrative review

for the period of June 1, 1999 through

May 31, 2000. See Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews and Requests

for Revocation in Part, 65 FR 46687

(July 31, 2000). On July 12, 2001, the

Department published the preliminary

results of the administrative review in

the Federal Register. See Certain

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings

from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 66 FR 36555 (July 12, 2001)

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We gave

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our Preliminary Results. Ta

Chen and Petitioners filed briefs on

August 21, 2001. On August 27, 2001,

Ta Chen and Petitioners filed rebuttal

briefs. No hearing was requested or

held. The date for issuing the final

results of the review was November 9,

2001. Because of complex issues in this

proceeding, the Department extended

the time limit for the final results by 30

days in accordance with section 751

(a)(3)(A) of the Act. See Notice of

Extension of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Review: Certain

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings

from Taiwan, 66 FR 55639 (November 2,

2001). The date for issuing the final

results was moved from November 9,

2001 to December 10, 2001. The

Department has conducted and

completed the administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise subject to this

administrative review is certain

stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings

(‘‘SSBWPF’’) whether finished or

unfinished, under 14 inches inside

diameter. Certain SSBWPF are used to

connect pipe sections in piping systems

where conditions require welded

connections. The subject merchandise is

used where one or more of the following

conditions is a factor in designing the

piping system: (1) Corrosion of the

piping system will occur if material

other than stainless steel is used; (2)

contamination of the material in the

system by the system itself must be

prevented; (3) high temperatures are

present; (4) extreme low temperatures

are present; and (5) high pressures are

contained within the system.

Pipe fittings come in a variety of

shapes, with the following five shapes

the most basic: ‘‘elbows’’, ‘‘tees’’,

‘‘reducers’’, ‘‘stub-ends’’, and ‘‘caps.’’

The edges of finished pipe fittings are

beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted

fittings are excluded from this review.

The pipe fittings subject to this review

are classifiable under subheading

7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’).

Although the HTSUS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of the review is dispositive. Pipe

fittings manufactured to American

Society of Testing and Materials

specification A774 are included in the

scope of this order.

During this administrative review, the

Department received a scope ruling

request on April 12, 2001 and in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2)

from Allegheny Bradford Corporation d/

b/a Top Line Process Equipment

Company (‘‘Top Line’’), for a scope

ruling on whether stainless steel buttVerDate 11<MAY>2000 18:41 Dec 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21DEN1.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 21DEN1