Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 18715-18720 [E6-5404]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18715-18720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5404]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-824]


Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from 
India: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by certain producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise and petitioners,\1\ the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip 
(PET film) from India. This review covers three producers/exporters of 
the subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2004, 
through June 30, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi 
Polyester Film Of America, Toray Plastics (America), Inc., and SKC 
America, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has preliminarily determined that certain companies 
subject to this review made U.S. sales at prices less than normal value 
(NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative 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 of review. We will issue the final results of review no later 
than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 12, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok (MTZ), Drew Jackson 
(Polyplex), or Kavita Mohan (Jindal), AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4162, (202) 482-4406, or 
(202) 482-3542, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on PET film from India. See Notice of 
Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 
Sheet, and Strip from India, 67 FR 44175 (July 1, 2002) (Amended Final 
Determination). On July 1, 2005, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review'' of the antidumping duty order on PET film from India. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 
38099 (July 1, 2005).
    In accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  351.213(b)(2), the following 
producers/exporters requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of their sales and entries of subject merchandise 
into the United States during the POR: Garware Polyester Limited 
(Garware), MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. (MTZ), and Jindal Poly Films Limited\2\ 
(Jindal). Additionally, in accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  351.213(b)(1), 
on July 29, 2005, petitioners requested that the Department conduct a 
review of Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex) and Jindal. On August 
29, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of Garware, 
Jindal, MTZ, and Polyplex. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Formerly Jindal Polyester Limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 9, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Garware, Jindal, Polyplex, and MTZ. Subsequently, 
Garware and Jindal withdrew their respective requests for 
administrative reviews. In September and October 2005, Jindal, 
Polyplex, and MTZ responded to the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire. Thereafter, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Jindal, Polyplex, and MTZ and received timely 
responses. The petitioners submitted no comments regarding the 
respondents' questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses.
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Period of Review

    The POR is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this order, 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 currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
number 3920.62.00.90.\3\ HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this 
order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The scope reflects the HTSUS subheading currently in effect 
for non-metallized PET film. This HTSUS subheading has been revised 
since the last completed antidumping duty administrative review of 
PET film from India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Rescission of Review

    19 CFR Sec.  351.213(d)(1) provides that the Department will 
rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that 
requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of 
publication of the notice of initiation of the requested administrative 
review. On September 14, 2005, before the 90-day time period expired, 
Garware withdrew its request to be reviewed by the Department and no 
other parties requested an administrative review of Garware. 
Consequently, the Department is rescinding this administrative review 
with respect to Garware.
    Although Jindal withdrew its request to be reviewed, petitioners 
requested a review of Jindal. Therefore, we have not rescinded this 
review with respect to Jindal.

Comparison Methodology

    In order to determine whether the respondents sold PET film to the 
United States at prices less than NV, the Department compared the 
export price (EP) and constructed export price (CEP)

[[Page 18716]]

of individual U.S. sales to the monthly weighted-average NV of sales of 
the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. See 
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Act. Section 771(16) of the Act defines foreign like product as 
merchandise that is identical or similar to subject merchandise and 
produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject 
merchandise. Thus, we considered all products covered by the scope of 
the order, that were produced by the same person and in the same 
country as the subject merchandise, and sold by respondents in the 
comparison market during the POR, to be foreign like products, for the 
purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to PET film sold 
in the United States.
    The Department compared U.S. sales to sales made in the comparison 
market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from 
three months prior to the month in which the U.S. sale was made until 
two months after the month in which the U.S. sale was made. Where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise made in the comparison market in 
the ordinary course of trade, the Department compared U.S. sales to 
sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary 
course of trade. In making product comparisons, the Department selected 
identical and most similar foreign like products based on the physical 
characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order of 
importance: grade, thickness, and surface quality.

Subject Merchandise Entered Under Temporary Importation Bonds

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department can 
only assess antidumping duties on subject merchandise entered for 
consumption in the United States. See Titanium Metals Corp. v. United 
States, 901 F. Supp. 362 (CIT 1995). Normally, entries under temporary 
importation bonds (TIBs) are not entered for consumption, and the 
Department therefore does not assess antidumping or countervailing 
duties on TIB entries. Consistent with its treatment on assessment of 
duties, the Department's practice is to exclude those sales that 
entered under a TIB from its margin calculation because there will be 
no assessment of antidumping duties on such entries. See e.g., Titanium 
Sponge From the Republic of Kazakhstan; Notice of Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 48793, 48794 
(September 8, 1999). However, Article 303.3 of the North American Free 
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provides that merchandise entered into the 
United States under a TIB and subsequently re-exported to another NAFTA 
party shall be considered to be entered for consumption at the time of 
re-exportation and shall be subject to all relevant customs duties. MTZ 
reported sales of merchandise imported under TIBs. There is, however, 
no claim or evidence on the record that any of this merchandise was, or 
will be, re-exported to a NAFTA party. Therefore, we have preliminarily 
excluded these sales from our calculation of MTZ's dumping margin.

Duty Drawback

    Before increasing a respondent's reported U.S. sales prices by the 
amount of duty drawback, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, 
the Department's practice is to examine whether: (1) import duties and 
rebates are directly linked to, and are dependent upon, one another, 
or, in the context of a duty exemption, the exemption is linked to the 
exportation of subject merchandise and (2) the company claiming the 
adjustment can demonstrate that there are sufficient imports of raw 
materials to account for the duty drawback received on exports of the 
manufactured product. See Steel Wire Rope from the Republic of Korea; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 55965, 
55968 (October 30, 1996); see also, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 68 FR 6889 (February 11, 2003) and accompanying Issues and 
Decisions Memorandum at Comment 5.

Jindal

    Jindal reported that it received duty drawback under the Advance 
License program. The Advance License program allows Indian companies to 
import specified materials duty-free if such materials are used to 
produce a product that is exported by the company. Standard input/
output ratios specific to the exported product limit the quantity of 
each material input that may be imported duty-free. No customs duties 
are paid on the imported materials; however, there is a contingent 
liability for the unpaid duties. This contingent liability is 
extinguished by exporting finished products containing the types of 
materials covered by the advance license. Jindal did not pay import 
duties on certain materials because it agreed to export PET film made 
with such materials. Thus, the record indicates that the duty exemption 
is linked to the exportation of subject merchandise. Moreover, the 
record indicates that Jindal imported sufficient quantities of raw 
materials to account for its exports of PET film to the United States. 
Accordingly, in calculating EP for Jindal, the Department has 
preliminarily added an amount for duty drawback to the reported prices.

MTZ

    MTZ reported that it received duty drawback under the Duty 
Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS). Under the DEPS, Indian companies 
are granted a credit equal to a percentage of the free-on-board (FOB) 
value of their exports. These companies can then use this credit to 
offset customs duty owed on imported materials used to manufacture 
exported products or sell the credit to other Indian importers.
    The Department has preliminarily determined that MTZ is not 
entitled to a duty drawback adjustment. The DEPS does not require a 
company to link the credit granted on exported merchandise to the 
actual import duties paid on the types of materials used to manufacture 
the exported product. While the Department does not require a 
respondent to link a specific entry of materials on which duties were 
paid (or which was imported duty-free) to the specific export of the 
finished product on which the DEPS credit is based, it does require the 
respondent to demonstrate that the imported materials are of the same 
type used to produce the exported subject merchandise. Under the 
scheme, however, DEPS recipients are not required to import the types 
of inputs used to produce the exported merchandise. Moreover, in this 
case, MTZ reported that it purchased the major material inputs used to 
produce the subject merchandise domestically. See MTZ's January 19, 
2006 submission, at 56. Based on the foregoing, the Department has 
preliminarily determined not to increase MTZ's reported U.S. sales 
prices by the amount of duty drawback claimed under the DEPS.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market 
at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP sales. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV 
is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, 
general, and administrative expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. 
LOT is also the level of the starting price sale, which is usually from 
the exporter to the importer. For CEP sales,

[[Page 18717]]

the U.S. LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to 
its affiliate. The Department adjusts CEP, pursuant to section 772(d) 
of the Act, prior to performing the LOT analysis, as articulated by 19 
CFR Sec.  351.412. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 
F.3d, 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the EP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote 
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South 
Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In determining whether the respondents made sales at separate LOTs, 
we obtained information from all three respondents regarding the 
marketing stages for the reported U.S. and comparison market sales, 
including a description of the selling activities performed by 
respondents for each channel of distribution. Generally, if the 
reported LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller 
at each level should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports that 
LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the selling functions 
and activities of the seller for each group should be dissimilar.

Jindal

    Jindal reported home market sales to two categories of customers 
through two channels of distribution. The record, however, indicates 
that Jindal performs the same selling functions in both channels of 
distribution and, with one exception, performs corresponding selling 
functions in these channels at the same level of intensity. Therefore, 
we have preliminarily determined that, during the POR, Jindal sold the 
foreign like product in the home market at one LOT.
    Jindal reported U.S. sales to a single category of customer through 
one channel of distribution. Because there is only one sales channel in 
the U.S. market involving the same selling functions for all sales, we 
have preliminarily determined that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    In comparing the home and U.S. market LOTs, we found that Jindal 
performs essentially the same selling functions in both LOTs and, for a 
majority of these selling functions, there is either no difference, or 
an insignificant difference, in the level of intensity reported for 
corresponding selling functions. Therefore, we have preliminarily 
determined that Jindal sold foreign like product and subject 
merchandise at the same LOT during the POR and thus a LOT adjustment to 
NV is not warranted. See Memorandum to the File from the Team, Level of 
Trade Analysis: Jindal Poly Films Limited, dated concurrently with this 
notice.

MTZ

    MTZ reported home market sales to two categories of customers 
through one channel of distribution. The record, however, indicates 
that MTZ performs the same selling functions for both types of 
customers and, almost without exception, performs corresponding selling 
functions at essentially the same level of intensity. Therefore, we 
have preliminarily determined that, during the POR, MTZ sold foreign 
like product in the home market at one LOT.
    MTZ reported U.S. sales though one channel of distribution to two 
types of customers. The record shows that, regardless of the type of 
customer, MTZ performs essentially the same selling functions and 
performs corresponding selling functions at the same level of 
intensity. Accordingly, we have preliminarily determined that, during 
the POR, MTZ sold subject merchandise in the U.S. market at one LOT.
    In comparing the home and U.S. market LOTs, we found that MTZ 
performs a majority of the reported selling functions in both LOTs and, 
for all but one of these functions, MTZ performs corresponding selling 
functions at the same level of intensity in both LOTs. Therefore, we 
have preliminarily determined that MTZ sold foreign like product and 
subject merchandise at the same LOT during the POR and thus a LOT 
adjustment to NV is not warranted. See Memorandum to the File from the 
Team, Level of Trade Analysis: MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd., dated concurrently 
with this notice.

Polyplex

    Polyplex's reported home market sales to two categories of 
customers through two channels of distribution. The record, however, 
shows that Polyplex performs the same selling functions in both 
channels of distribution. Although Polyplex performs most of the 
corresponding selling functions in the two channels at different levels 
of intensity, we found that the differences in levels of intensity are 
not so significant as to signal two different marketing stages. 
Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that, during the POR, 
Polyplex sold foreign like product in the home market at one LOT.
    Polyplex reported CEP sales of subject merchandise to its U.S. 
affiliate through one channel of distribution. Because there is only 
one sales channel in the U.S. market involving the same selling 
functions for all sales, we have preliminarily determined that there is 
one LOT in the U.S. market.
    In comparing the home and U.S. market LOTs, we found significant 
differences in the types of selling functions performed by Polyplex in 
each LOT and the levels of intensity at which Polyplex performed those 
selling functions. Specifically, we found the selling functions 
performed by Polyplex in the home market LOT to be generally greater in 
number, and intensity, than those selling functions performed in the 
U.S. market LOT. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that, 
during the POR, Polyplex sold foreign like product at a different, more 
advanced LOT than that of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise.
    Because there is only one LOT in the home market, the difference in 
the NV and CEP LOTs cannot be quantified. Furthermore, the Department 
does not have information which would allow it to examine pricing 
patterns based on sales of other products and there is no other 
information on the record upon which such an analysis could be based. 
Therefore, a LOT adjustment is not possible. However, given that we 
have determined that the home market LOT is more advanced than the U.S. 
LOT, pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we granted Polyplex a 
CEP offset. See Memorandum from the Team to the File, Level of Trade 
Analysis: Polyplex Corporation, Ltd., dated concurrently with this 
notice.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    We based the price of both Jindal's and MTZ's U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise on EP, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
merchandise was sold, prior to importation, to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States, and the use of CEP

[[Page 18718]]

was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of the record. In 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP using 
prices, less discounts, for packed subject merchandise delivered to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States from which we deducted, 
where applicable, the following expenses: foreign inland freight (from 
the plant to the port of exportation), international freight, marine 
insurance, brokerage and handling, and U.S. duties. In accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we increased U.S. price by the 
applicable countervailing duty imposed to offset the export subsidies 
most recently found in the countervailing duty proceeding covering PET 
film from India. Additionally, for Jindal, we added to the starting 
price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of 
the Act.
    We based the price of Polyplex's U.S. sales of subject merchandise 
on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because Polyplex 
sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States after importation through its U.S. affiliate, Spectrum 
Marketing, Inc. (Spectrum). We calculated CEP using prices, less 
discounts, for packed subject merchandise delivered to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In accordance with 
sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) and (3) of the Act, we made 
deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for the 
following expenses: foreign and U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and 
handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. duties, U.S. 
warehousing expense, direct and indirect selling, to the extent these 
expenses are associated with economic activity in the United States, 
and CEP profit. In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, 
where appropriate, we increased U.S. price by the applicable 
countervailing duty imposed to offset the export subsidies found in the 
most recently completed administrative review of the countervailing 
duty order on PET film from India.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability, whether comparison-market 
sales to affiliates were at arm's-length prices, and whether 
comparison-market sales were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV for 
respondents as noted in the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section of 
this notice.
A. Home Market Viability
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home 
market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is 
greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales), we compared the aggregate volume of each respondent's home 
market sales of the foreign like product to the aggregate volume of its 
U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Because the aggregate volume of each 
respondent's home market sales of foreign like product is more than 
five percent of the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, we based NV on sales of the foreign like product in the 
respondent's home market. See section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act.
B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
    The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated 
party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is 
comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not 
affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales at arm's-length. 
See 19 CFR Sec.  351.403(c). Sales to affiliated customers for 
consumption in the home market that were determined not to be at arm's-
length were excluded from our analysis. Polyplex, reported sales of the 
foreign like product to an affiliated customer. To test whether these 
sales were made at arm's-length prices, the Department compared the 
prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, direct 
selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  351.403(c), and 
in accordance with the Department's practice, when the prices charged 
to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of 
the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable 
to that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to 
the affiliated party were at arm's-length. See Antidumping Proceedings: 
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 
(November 15, 2002). Polyplex's sales to its affiliated home market 
customer did not pass the arm's-length test. Therefore, we have 
excluded these sales from our analysis.
C. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis
    In the most recently completed proceeding segments in which Jindal 
and Polyplex received a calculated dumping margin, the Department 
determined that these companies sold certain foreign like product at 
prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such 
sales from the calculation of NV. For Polyplex, see Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 67 FR 34899 (May 16, 
2002) as amended on July 1, 2002 (67 FR 44175) (Amended Final 
Determination); for Jindal see Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 
Sheet and Strip from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 8072 (February 17, 2005). Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that during the instant POR, 
Jindal and Polyplex sold foreign like product at prices below the cost 
of producing the merchandise. As a result, the Department initiated a 
cost of production inquiry with respect to Jindal and Polyplex. The 
Department, however, has not initiated a cost of production inquiry 
with respect to MTZ because MTZ has never been a respondent in a prior 
segment of this proceeding and no party alleged, in this segment of the 
proceeding, that MTZ sold foreign like product below the cost of 
production.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each unique 
foreign like product sold by Jindal and Polyplex during the POR, we 
calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of the respondent's 
materials and fabrication costs, general and administrative expenses, 
interest expenses, and import duties normally associated with imported 
material. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 68 FR 6889 
(February 11, 2003). For further information, see the analysis 
memoranda for Jindal and Polyplex, dated concurrently with this notice.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    In order to determine whether sales were made at prices below the 
COP on a product-specific basis, we compared the respondent's weighted-
average COP to the prices of its home market sales of foreign like 
product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In accordance 
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, in determining whether 
to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the COP, we 
examined

[[Page 18719]]

whether such sales were made: (1) in substantial quantities within an 
extended period of time; and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared the COP to 
home market sales prices, less any applicable movement charges and 
direct and indirect selling expenses.
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 made at prices 
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product were made at prices less than the COP during the POR, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities'' 
and within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) 
and (C) of the Act. In such cases, because we used POR average costs, 
we also determined, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 
that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time. Based on this test, we 
disregarded below-cost sales for Jindal and Polyplex.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    Where it was appropriate to base NV on prices, we used the prices 
at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the 
home market, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course 
of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same LOT as the 
comparison U.S. sale. We calculated NV using prices, less any discounts 
or rebates, for packed foreign like product delivered to unaffiliated 
purchasers or, where appropriate, affiliated purchasers in the home 
market. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A), (B), and (C) of the 
Act, where appropriate, we deducted from the starting price the 
following home market expenses: movement, inland insurance, packing, 
credit, commissions, and other direct selling. For Jindal and MTZ, we 
added to the starting price the following U.S. expenses: packing, 
credit, and other direct selling. In addition, for Jindal, we added 
interest revenue to the starting price. For Polyplex, we added U.S. 
packing costs and interest revenue to the starting price. Finally, 
where appropriate, we made price adjustments for physical differences 
in the merchandise and made a reasonable allowance for other selling 
expenses where commissions were paid in only one of the markets under 
consideration. See 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR Sec.  
351.410(e).

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts 
expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 
2004, through June 30, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films Limited...................................        2.33
MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd..........................................        0.00
Polyplex Corporation Ltd....................................        0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    Within 10 days of publicly announcing the preliminary results of 
this review, we will disclose to interested parties any calculations 
performed in connection with the preliminary results. See 19 CFR Sec.  
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 
Sec.  351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after 
the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, or the 
first workday thereafter. Interested parties are invited to comment on 
the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider 
case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date 
of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Also, interested 
parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later 
than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who 
submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument: (1) a 
statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a 
table of authorities. Further, we request that parties submitting 
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an 
electronic copy of the public version of such comments. Unless the 
deadline for issuing the final results of review is extended, the 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in the written 
comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results in 
the Federal Register.

Assessment Rates

    In accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  351.212(b)(1), in these preliminary 
results of review we calculated importer-specific assessment rates or, 
where the importer was not known, customer-specific assessment rates 
for each respondent. If a respondent did not report the entered value 
of its sales, we calculated per-unit assessment rates for the 
respondent by summing, on an importer or customer-specific basis, the 
dumping margins calculated for all of the respondent's sales to the 
importer or customer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of 
those sales. If the importer/customer-specific assessment rate is above 
de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent ad valorem or greater), we will instruct 
CBP to assess the importer/customer-specific rate uniformly, as 
appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that 
were entered by the importer or sold to the customer. To determine 
whether the per-unit duty assessment rates are de minimis (i.e., less 
than 0.50 percent ad valorem), in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 CFR Sec.  351.106(c)(2), we calculated customer-specific ad 
valorem ratios based on the export prices. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions based on the final results of 
review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of those final 
results.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies 
examined in the instant review will be the rate established in the 
final results of this review (except that if the rate for a particular 
company is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit 
will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or 
reviewed companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; 
and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other

[[Page 18720]]

manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all others'' rate 
of 5.71 percent, which is the ``all others'' rate established in the 
LTFV investigation, adjusted for the export subsidy rate in the 
countervailing duty investigation. See Amended Final Determination. 
These cash deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR Sec.  351.402(f)(2) to file a 
certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and 
countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries 
during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement 
could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of 
antidumping and countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 3, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-5404 Filed 4-11-02; 8:45 am]
Billing Code: 3510-DS-S