Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 45037-45044 [E6-12813]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
Comment 12: Attribution of Subsidies
Aero Received under the Post–
Shipment Export Financing
Program
II. Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Benchmark for Short–Term Loans
B. Benchmark for Long–Term Loans
Issued
III. Critical Circumstances
IV. Analysis Of Programs
A. Programs Determined to Confer
Subsidies
1. Pre- and Post–Shipment Export
Financing
2. Export Promotion Capital Goods
Scheme (EPCGS)
3. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme
(DEPS)
4. Duty Free Replenishment
Certificate (DFRC) Scheme
5. Advance License Program (ALP)
6. Income Tax Exemption Scheme
under 80HHC (80HHC)
B. Programs Determined Not to be Used
1. Export Processing Zones (EPZ) and
Export Oriented Units (EOU)
2. Income Tax Exemption Scheme
(Sections 10A and 10B)
3. Market Development Assistance
(MDA)
4. Status Certificate Program
5. Market Access Initiative
6. State of Gujarat Sales Tax
Incentives
7. State of Maharashtra Sales Tax
Incentives
V. Total Ad Valorem Rates
VI. Analysis Of Comments
[FR Doc. E6–12809 Filed 8–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C–533–825)
Notice of Preliminary Results and
Rescission, in Part, of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from India
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film
from India for the period January 1,
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
2004 through December 31, 2004. We
preliminarily determine that subsidies
are being provided on the production
and export of PET film from India. See
the ‘‘Preliminary Results of
Administrative Review’’ section, below.
If the final results remain the same as
the preliminary results of this review,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to assess
countervailing duties. Interested parties
are invited to comment on the
preliminary results of this
administrative review. See the ‘‘Public
Comment’’ section of this notice. In
addition, we are rescinding this review
with respect to Garware Polyester
Limited (Garware). See the ‘‘Partial
Rescission of Review’’ section, below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi
Blum, Nicholas Czajkowski, or Toni
Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0197,
(202) 482–1395, or (202) 482–1398,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2002, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
countervailing duty (CVD) order on PET
film from India. See Countervailing
Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet and Strip (PET Film) from
India, 67 FR 44179 (July 1, 2002) (PET
Film Order). On July 1, 2005, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of this
order. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 70
FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). On July 27,
2005, MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. (MTZ), and
on July 29, 2005, Jindal Poly Films
Limited of India (Jindal), formerly
named Jindal Polyester Limited, Indian
producers and exporters of subject
merchandise, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of the CVD order on PET film
from India with respect to their exports
to the United States. On July 29, 2005,
Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi
Polyester Film of America, and Toray
Plastics (America), (collectively,
petitioners), requested that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of the CVD order on PET film
from India with respect to Jindal and
Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex)
(collectively, respondents). Also, on
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45037
August 1, 2005, Garware requested that
the Department conduct an
administrative review of the CVD order
on PET film from India with respect to
its exports to the United States.
On August 19, 2005, MTZ withdrew
its request for review of the CVD order
of PET film from India. See
Memorandum to File through Howard
Smith from Drew Jackson: ‘‘Withdrawal
of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review Request’’ (August 23, 2005) (on
file in the Central Records Unit (CRU),
room B–099 of the main Commerce
building). Since this company was the
sole requestor for an administrative
review, and since its withdrawal
occurred prior to the date of initiation,
we did not include this company in the
initiation of the administrative review.
On August 29, 2005, the Department
initiated an administrative review of the
CVD order on PET film from India
covering Jindal, Garware, and Polyplex,
for the period January 1, 2004 through
December 31, 2004. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 51009
(August 29, 2005).
The Department issued questionnaires
to the Government of India (GOI) and all
three respondents. On September 14,
2005, pursuant to 19 CFR
§ 351.213(d)(1), Garware timely
withdrew its request for an
administrative review of the CVD order
on PET film from India. Because no
other party requested an administrative
review of this respondent, the
Department is rescinding its review
with respect to Garware. See the ‘‘Partial
Rescission of Review’’ section below.
On September 29, 2005, the GOI
submitted its questionnaire response.
Jindal and Polyplex submitted their
questionnaire responses on October 3,
2005 and October 4, 2005, respectively.
The Department issued its first
supplemental questionnaires to Jindal
and Polyplex on November 4, 2005 and
November 7, 2005, respectively. On
November 28, 2005, both Jindal and
Polyplex submitted their first
supplemental responses. On February
21, 2006, the Department extended the
preliminary results until July 31, 2006.
See Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of Administrative
Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET) Film from India, 71 FR 8840
(February 21, 2006). On April 14, 2006,
the Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire to Jindal
and Polyplex, and its first supplemental
questionnaire to the GOI. The GOI
submitted its response to the
supplemental questionnaire on April 28,
2006, and Jindal and Polyplex
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45038
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
responded on May 8, 2006. On June 20,
2006, the Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire to the GOI,
and third supplemental questionnaires
to Jindal and Polyplex. The GOI
submitted its response on June 27, 2006,
and Jindal and Polyplex responded on
July 5, 2006. Also, on July 5, 2006, the
Department issued its third
supplemental questionnaire to the GOI,
to which the GOI submitted its response
on July 12, 2006.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
we intend to conduct verification of the
GOI, Jindal, and Polyplex questionnaire
responses following the issuance of the
preliminary results.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of the order, the
products covered are all gauges of raw,
pretreated, or primed Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip,
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.
Partial Rescission of Review
As provided in 19 CFR
§ 351.213(d)(1), ‘‘the Secretary will
rescind an administrative review under
this section, in whole or in part, if a
party that requested a review withdraws
the request within 90 days of the date
of publication of notice of initiation of
the requested review.’’ Garware
withdrew its review request within 90
days of the date of publication of the
notice of initiation of the instant
administrative review. Because no other
interested parties requested an
administrative review of Garware, the
Department is rescinding the instant
administrative review of this company.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Subsidies Valuation Information
Allocation Period
Under 19 CFR § 351.524(d)(2)(i), we
will presume the allocation period for
non–recurring subsidies to be the
average useful life (AUL) prescribed by
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for
renewable physical assets of the
industry under consideration (as listed
in the IRS’s 1977 Class Life Asset
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Depreciation Range System, and as
updated by the Department of the
Treasury). This presumption will apply
unless a party claims and establishes
that these tables do not reasonably
reflect the AUL of the renewable
physical assets of the company or
industry under investigation.
Specifically, the party must establish
that the difference between the AUL
from the tables and the company–
specific AUL or country–wide AUL for
the industry under investigation is
significant, pursuant to 19 CFR
§ 351.524(d)(2)(ii). For assets used to
manufacture plastic film, such as PET
film, the IRS tables prescribe an AUL of
9.5 years.
In the investigative segment of this
proceeding, the Department determined
that Polyplex had rebutted the
presumption and applied a company–
specific AUL of 18 years for Polyplex.
See Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination: Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
(PET Film), 67 FR 34905 (May 16, 2002)
(PET Film Final Determination). In the
previous review, the Department
determined that Jindal had rebutted the
presumption and applied a company–
specific AUL of 17 years for Jindal. See
Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from India, 69 FR 51063 (August 17,
2004) (First PET Film Review - Final
Results). Because there is no new
evidence on the record that would cause
the Department to reconsider this
decision in this review, the Department
has preliminarily determined to
continue to use an AUL of 17 years for
Jindal and 18 years for Polyplex in
allocating non–recurring subsidies.
Benchmark Interest Rates and Discount
Rates
For programs requiring the
application of a benchmark interest rate,
19 CFR § 351.505(a)(1) states a
preference for using an interest rate that
the company could have obtained on a
comparable loan in the commercial
market. Also, 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(3)(i)
stipulates that when selecting a
comparable commercial loan that the
recipient ‘‘could actually obtain on the
market’’ the Department will normally
rely on actual short–term and long–term
loans obtained by the firm. However,
when there are no comparable
commercial loans, the Department may
use a national average interest rate,
pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(3)(ii).
In addition, 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(2)(ii)
states that the Department will not
consider a loan provided by a
government–owned special purpose
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
bank for purposes of calculating
benchmark rates. The Department has
previously determined that the
Industrial Development Bank of India
(IDBI) is a government–owned special
purpose bank. See First PET Film
Review - Final Results and the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (Issues Memorandum First Review), at 15–16. As such, the
Department did not use loans from the
IDBI reported by Jindal and Polyplex in
its 2004 benchmark calculations.
Pursuant to 19 CFR
§ 351.505(a)(2)(iv), if a program under
review is a government–provided,
short–term loan, the preference would
be to use an annual average of the
interest rates on comparable commercial
loans during the year in which the
government–provided loan was taken
out, weighted by the principal amount
of each loan. For this review, the
Department required both dollar–
denominated and rupee–denominated
short–term loan benchmark rates to
determine benefits received under the
Pre–Shipment Export Financing and
Post–Shipment Export Financing
programs.
Both Jindal and Polyplex have
provided information on rupee–
denominated short–term commercial
loans outstanding during the period of
review (POR). Jindal provided the
following rupee–denominated short–
term commercial loans: Inland Bill
Discounting (IBD); Working Capital
Development Loans (WCDL); Cash
Credit (CC); and Other Short–Term
Loans. Polyplex provided the following
rupee–denominated short–term
commercial loans: IBD; WCDL; CC;
Commercial Paper Loans; and Other
Short–Term Loans.
In previous reviews of this case, the
Department has determined that IBD
loans are more comparable to pre–
shipment and post–shipment export
financing loans than other types of
rupee–denominated short–term loans.
See Preliminary Results and Rescission
in Part of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from India, 70 FR 46483, 46485 (August
10, 2005) (Second PET Film Review Preliminary Results) (unchanged in the
final results); and Issues Memorandum
- First Review at 10. There is no new
information or evidence of changed
circumstances which would warrant
reconsidering this finding. Therefore,
for these preliminary results, we
continue to use IBD loans as the basis
for the short–term rupee–denominated
benchmark for all applicable programs
for both Jindal and Polyplex.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
Polyplex provided information on US
dollar–denominated WCDL received
during the POR to use as the basis for
US dollar–denominated short–term
benchmark rates. The Department,
therefore, has calculated Polyplex’s US
dollar–denominated short–term
benchmark rates based on its US dollar–
denominated WCDLs.
Jindal did not have any US dollar–
denominated short–term loans during
the POR. Therefore, in accordance with
19 CFR § 351.505(a)(3)(ii), the
Department used a national average
dollar–denominated short–term interest
rate, as reported in the International
Monetary Fund’s publication
International Financial Statistics (IMF
Statistics) for Jindal.
For those programs requiring a rupee–
denominated discount rate or the
application of a rupee–denominated
long–term benchmark rate, we used,
where available, company–specific,
weighted–average interest rates on
comparable commercial long–term,
rupee–denominated loans. For this
review, the Department required
benchmarks to determine benefits
received under the Export Promotion
Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) and
Export Oriented Units (EOU) programs.
Respondents did not have comparable
commercial long–term rupee–
denominated loans for all required
years; therefore, for those years for
which we did not have company–
specific information, we relied on
comparable long–term rupee–
denominated benchmark interest rates
from the immediately preceding year as
directed by 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(2)(iii).
When there were no comparable long–
term, rupee–denominated loans from
commercial banks during either the year
under consideration or the preceding
year, we used national average interest
rates, pursuant to 19 CFR
§ 351.505(a)(3)(ii), from the IMF
Statistics.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Programs Preliminarily Determined to
be Countervailable
1. Pre–Shipment and Post–Shipment
Export Financing
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI),
through commercial banks, provides
short–term pre–shipment financing, or
‘‘packing credits,’’ to exporters. Upon
presentation of a confirmed export order
or letter of credit to a bank, companies
may receive pre–shipment loans for
working capital purposes (i.e.,
purchasing raw materials, warehousing,
packing, transportation, etc.) for
merchandise destined for exportation.
Companies may also establish pre–
shipment credit lines upon which they
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
draw as needed. Limits on credit lines
are established by commercial banks
and are based on a company’s
creditworthiness and past export
performance. Credit lines may be
denominated either in Indian rupees or
in a foreign currency. Commercial banks
extending export credit to Indian
companies must, by law, charge interest
at rates determined by the RBI.
Post–shipment export financing
consists of loans in the form of
discounted trade bills or advances by
commercial banks. Exporters qualify for
this program by presenting their export
documents to the lending bank. The
credit covers the period from the date of
shipment of the goods to the date of
realization of the proceeds from the sale
to the overseas customer. Under the
Foreign Exchange Management Act of
1999, exporters are required to realize
proceeds from their export sales within
180 days of shipment. Post–shipment
financing is, therefore, a working capital
program used to finance export
receivables. In general, post–shipment
loans are granted for a period of no more
than 180 days.
In the investigation, the Department
determined that the pre–shipment and
post–shipment export financing
programs conferred countervailable
subsidies on the subject merchandise
because: (1) The provision of the export
financing constitutes a financial
contribution pursuant to section
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act as a direct
transfer of funds in the form of loans; (2)
the provision of the export financing
confers benefits on the respondents
under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act in
as much as the interest rates given
under these programs are lower than
commercially available interest rates;
and (3) these programs are specific
under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act
because they are contingent upon export
performance. See Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip (PET Film), 67 FR 34905 (May
16, 2002) (PET Film Final
Determination) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at
‘‘Pre–Shipment and Post–Shipment
Financing’’ (PET Film Final
Determination - Decision
Memorandum). There is no new
information or evidence of changed
circumstances which would warrant
reconsidering this finding. Therefore,
for these preliminary results, we
continue to find this program
countervailable.
The benefit conferred by the pre–
shipment and post–shipment loans is
the difference between the amount of
interest the company paid on the
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45039
government loan and the amount of
interest it would have paid on a
comparable commercial loan (i.e., the
short–term benchmark). Because pre–
shipment loans are tied to a company’s
exports rather than exports of subject
merchandise, we calculated the subsidy
rate for these loans by dividing the total
benefit by the value of each
respondent’s total exports during the
POR. Because post–shipment loans are
tied to specific shipments of a particular
product to a particular country, we
divided the total benefit from post–
shipment loans tied to exports of subject
merchandise to the United States by the
value of total exports of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR. See 19 CFR § 351.525(b)(4). On
this basis, we preliminarily determine
the net countervailable subsidy from
pre–shipment export financing to be
0.02 percent ad valorem for Jindal, and
0.30 percent ad valorem for Polyplex.
We also preliminarily determine the net
countervailable subsidy provided to
Jindal from post–shipment export
financing to be 0.05 percent ad valorem.
Polyplex did not receive any benefits
under the post–shipment export
financing program during the POR.
2. Advance License Program (ALP)
Under the ALP, exporters may import,
duty free, specified quantities of
materials required to manufacture
products that are subsequently
exported. The exporting companies,
however, remain contingently liable for
the unpaid duties until they have
fulfilled their export requirement. The
quantities of imported materials and
exported finished products are linked
through standard input–output norms
(SIONs) established by the GOI. During
the POR, Jindal and Polyplex used
advance licenses to import certain
materials duty free.
The Department previously found the
1997–2003 Export/Import Guidelines
underlying the ALP to be not
countervailable. See PET Film Final
Determination. However, in the last
administrative review, the Department
examined the 2002–2007 Export/Import
Policy Guidelines underlying the ALP
and found the program to be
countervailable because the GOI does
not have in place and does not apply a
system that is reasonable and effective
for the purposes intended, in
accordance with 19 CFR § 351.519(a)(4).
See Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from India, 71 FR 7534 (February 13,
2006) (Second PET Film Review - Final
Results), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum (Issues
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
45040
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
Memorandum - Second Review). In that
review, the Department found that the
ALP confers a countervailable subsidy
because: (1) A financial contribution, as
defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of
the Act, is provided under the program,
as the GOI provides the respondents
with an exemption of import duties; (2)
the GOI does not have in place and does
not apply a system that is reasonable
and effective for the purposes intended
in accordance with 19 CFR
§ 351.519(a)(4), to confirm which
inputs, and in what amounts, are
consumed in the production of the
exported products; thus, the entire
amount of import duty exemption
earned by the respondent constitutes a
benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the
Act; and (3) this program is contingent
upon exportation and, therefore, is
specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the
Act. See Issues Memorandum - Second
Review, at 3–5. There is no new
information or evidence of changed
circumstances which would warrant
reconsidering this finding. Therefore,
for these preliminary results, we
continue to find this program
countervailable.
Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.524(c),
exemptions of import duties on imports
consumed in production normally
provide a recurring benefit. Under this
program, for 2004, Jindal and Polyplex
did not have to pay certain import
duties for inputs that were used in the
production of merchandise. Thus, we
treated the benefit provided under the
ALP as a recurring benefit. To calculate
the subsidy, we first determined the
total value of duties exempted during
the POR for each company. From this
amount, we subtracted the required
application fees paid for each license
during the POR as an allowable offset to
the actual amount in accordance with
section 771(6) of the Act (in order to
receive the benefits of the ALP,
companies must pay application fees).
We then divided the resulting net
benefit by the company’s value of total
export sales. We did not include either
respondents’ ‘‘deemed exports’’ sales
(i.e., sales of goods which do not leave
the country) as part of their total value
of export sales for this or any program.
We will examine the issue of ‘‘deemed
exports’’ further at verification and
invite parties to comment on this issue
in their briefs. On this basis, we
preliminarily determine the net
countervailable subsidy provided under
the ALP to be 5.33 ad valorem for Jindal
and 2.07 percent ad valorem for
Polyplex.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
3. Export Promotion Capital Goods
Scheme (EPCGS)
The EPCGS provides for a reduction
or exemption of customs duties and
excise taxes on imports of capital goods
used in the production of exported
products. Under this program,
producers pay reduced duty rates on
imported capital equipment by
committing to earn convertible foreign
currency equal to four to five times the
value of the capital goods within a
period of eight years. Once a company
has met its export obligation, the GOI
will formally waive the duties on the
imported goods. If a company fails to
meet the export obligation, the company
is subject to payment of all or part of the
duty reduction, depending on the extent
of the export shortfall, plus penalty
interest.
In the investigation, the Department
determined that import duty reductions
provided under the EPCGS are a
countervailable export subsidy because
the scheme: (1) Provides a financial
contribution pursuant to section
771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act in the form of
revenue foregone; and (2) provides a
benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the
Act in the amount of the revenue
foregone. Because this program is
contingent upon export performance, it
is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of
the Act. See PET Film Final
Determination - Decision Memorandum,
at 7–8. There is no new information or
evidence of changed circumstances
which would warrant reconsidering this
finding. Therefore, for these preliminary
results, we continue to find this
program countervailable.
These import duty exemptions were
provided for the purchase of capital
equipment. The preamble to our
regulations states that if a government
provides an import duty exemption tied
to major equipment purchases, ‘‘it may
be reasonable to conclude that, because
these duty exemptions are tied to capital
assets, the benefits from such duty
exemptions should be considered non–
recurring.’’ See Countervailing Duties;
Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 65393
(November 25, 1998). Accordingly, we
are treating these exemptions as non–
recurring benefits in accordance with 19
CFR 351.524(c)(2)(iii).
Jindal and Polyplex reported that they
imported capital goods under the
EPCGS in the years prior to and during
the POR. Jindal received various EPCGS
licenses, which were for the production
of: (1) Both subject merchandise and
non–subject merchandise; or (2) non–
subject merchandise. Polyplex received
EPCGS licenses which indicated that it
was allowed to import capital goods for
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the production of: (1) subject
merchandise; (2) both subject
merchandise and non–subject
merchandise; or (3) non–subject
merchandise. Based on the information
and documentation submitted by Jindal
and Polyplex, we cannot determine that
their respective EPCGS licenses are tied
to the production of a particular product
within the meaning of 19 CFR
§ 351.525(b)(5). As such, we find that
each company’s respective EPCGS
licenses benefit all of the company’s
exports.
Polyplex met the export requirements
for certain EPCGS licenses prior to
December 31, 2004 and the GOI has
formally waived the relevant import
duties. For some of its licenses,
however, Polyplex has not yet met its
export obligation as required under the
program. Jindal has not yet met its
export obligation for any of its imports
of capital goods under the program.
Therefore, although Jindal and Polyplex
have received a deferral from paying
import duties when the capital goods
were imported, the final waiver on the
obligation to pay the duties has not yet
been granted for many of these imports.
For Polyplex’s imports for which the
GOI has formally waived the duties, we
treat the full amount of the waived duty
as a grant received in the year in which
the GOI officially granted the waiver. To
calculate the benefit received from the
GOI’s formal waiver of import duties on
Polyplex’s capital equipment imports
where its export obligation was met
prior to December 31, 2004, we
considered the total amount of duties
waived (net of required application fees)
to be the benefit. Further, consistent
with the approach followed in the
investigation, we determine the year of
receipt of the benefit to be the year in
which the GOI formally waived
Polyplex’s outstanding import duties.
See PET Film Final Determination–
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 5.
Next, we performed the ‘‘0.5 percent
test,’’ as prescribed under 19 CFR
§ 351.524(b)(2), for each year in which
the GOI granted Polyplex an import
duty waiver. Those waivers with values
in excess of 0.5 percent of Polyplex’s
total export sales in the year in which
the waivers were granted were allocated
using Polyplex’s company–specific
AUL, while waivers with values less
than 0.5 percent of Polyplex’s total
export sales were expensed in the year
of receipt. See ‘‘Allocation Period’’
section, above.
As noted above, import duty
reductions that Jindal and Polyplex
received on the imports of capital
equipment for which they have not yet
met export obligations may have to be
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
repaid to the GOI if the obligations
under the licenses are not met.
Consistent with our practice and prior
determinations, we will treat the unpaid
import duty liability as an interest–free
loan. See 19 CFR § 351.505(d)(1); and
PET Film Final Determination–Decision
Memorandum, at ‘‘EPCGS’’; see also
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Bottle–Grade
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin
From India, 70 FR 13460 (March 21,
2005) (Final - Indian PET Resin).
The amount of the unpaid duty
liabilities to be treated as an interest–
free loan is the amount of the import
duty reduction or exemption for which
the respondent applied, but, as of the
end of the POR, had not been finally
waived by the GOI. Accordingly, we
find the benefit to be the interest that
Jindal and Polyplex would have paid
during the POR had they borrowed the
full amount of the duty reduction or
exemption at the time of importation.
See Second PET Film Review Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 46488
(unchanged in the final results); see also
(Final - Indian PET Resin).
As stated above, under the EPCGS
program, the time period for fulfilling
the export commitment expires eight
years after importation of the capital
good. Consequently, the date of
expiration of the time period to fulfill
the export commitment occurs at a point
in time more than one year after the date
of importation of the capital goods.
Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(d)(1), the
benchmark for measuring the benefit is
a long–term interest rate because the
event upon which repayment of the
duties depends (i.e., the date of
expiration of the time period to fulfill
the export commitment) occurs at a
point in time that is more than one year
after the date of importation of the
capital goods (i.e., under the EPCGS
program, the time period for fulfilling
the export commitment is more than
one year after importation of the capital
good). As the benchmark interest rate,
we used the weighted–average interest
rate from all comparable commercial
long–term, rupee–denominated loans
for the year in which the capital good
was imported. See the ‘‘Benchmarks for
Loans and Discount Rate’’ section above
for a discussion of the applicable
benchmark.
The benefit received under the EPCGS
is the total amount of: (1) the benefit
attributable to the POR from the
formally waived duties for imports of
capital equipment for which
respondents met export requirements by
December 31, 2004, and/or (2) interest
due on the contingent liability loans for
imports of capital equipment that have
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
not met export requirements. To
calculate the benefit from the waived
duties for Polyplex, we took the total
amount of the waived duties in each
year and treated each year’s waived
amount as a non–recurring grant. We
applied the grant methodology set forth
in 19 CFR § 351.524(d), using the
discount rates discussed in the
‘‘Benchmark Interest Rates and Discount
Rates’’ section above to determine the
benefit amounts attributable to the POR.
To calculate the benefit from the
contingent liability loans for both Jindal
and Polyplex, we multiplied the total
amount of unpaid duties under each
license by the long–term benchmark
interest rate for the year in which the
license was approved. We then summed
these amounts to determine the total
benefit for each company.
For Jindal, we divided the benefit
from the contingent liability loans under
the EPGCS by Jindal’s total exports to
determine a subsidy of 2.85 percent ad
valorem. For Polyplex, we summed the
benefits attributable to the POR from the
duty waivers under the EPGCS with the
benefits from the contingent liability
loans and divided that total by
Polyplex’s total exports to determine a
subsidy of 4.29 percent ad valorem.
4. Income Tax Exemption Scheme
80HHC (80HHC)
Under section 80HHC of the Income
Tax Act, the GOI allows exporters to
exclude profits derived from export
sales from their taxable income. In prior
proceedings, the Department found this
program to be a countervailable export
subsidy, because it is contingent upon
export performance and, therefore,
specific in accordance with section
771(5A)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, the GOI
provides a financial contribution in the
form of tax revenue not collected.
Finally, a benefit is conferred in the
amount of the tax savings in accordance
with section 771(5)(E) of the Act. See
Second PET Film Review - Preliminary
Results, 46488 (unchanged in the final
results).
To calculate the benefit under this
program, we first calculated the total
amount of income tax each company
would have paid during the POR had it
not claimed a tax deduction under
section 80HHC and subtracted from this
amount the income taxes actually paid
during the POR. We then divided this
benefit by each company’s total export
sales consistent with 19
CFR§ 351.525(b)(2). On this basis, we
preliminarily determine the net
countervailable subsidy under section
80HHC to be 0.28 percent ad valorem
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45041
for Jindal and 1.60 percent ad valorem
for Polyplex.
The GOI, Jindal, and Polyplex have
argued that the 80HHC exemption was
phased out effective March 31, 2004,
and have provided documentation to
support their claim. See Government of
India’s Questionnaire Response, at
Exhibit 10 (September 29, 2005);
Jindal’s Questionnaire Response, at
Exhibit 24a (October 3, 2005); and
Polyplex’s Questionnaire Response, at
Exhibit 23 (October 3, 2005). According
to these submissions, the 80HHC
program ended March 31, 2004. As a
result, Jindal and Polyplex only claimed
deductions of profits derived from
exported goods through March 31, 2004
in computing their total taxable income
during the POR. Due to the phase out of
the 80HHC program, both Jindal and
Polyplex have requested that the
Department determine that the
elimination of this deduction
constitutes a program–wide change
under 19 CFR § 351.526. In the Finance
Act of 2000, the GOI amended the
Income Tax Act of 1961, stating that the
80HHC exemption would be phased out
on April 1, 2004. In addition, Jindal and
Polyplex submitted their October 31,
2005 tax returns (which cover the tax
year April 1, 2004 through March 31,
2005) in which neither company
claimed an 80HHC exemption. After
analyzing the documentation on the
record, the Department preliminarily
determines that there has been a
program–wide change with respect to
the 80HHC Tax Exemption Scheme. If
we find in the final results of review
that this program was terminated in
accordance with the provisions of 19
CFR § 351.526, we will include these
subsidies in the assessment rate but
exclude them from the cash deposit rate.
5. Capital Subsidy
Polyplex received a capital infusion
in 1989 from the GOI. This subsidy was
discovered at verification during the
investigation. See PET Film Final
Determination–Decision Memorandum,
at ‘‘Capital Subsidy.’’ The Department
determined at that time that there was
insufficient time to establish whether
the program was specific under section
771(5A)(D) of the Act. Thus, the
Department stated its intention to re–
examine the program in a future
administrative review pursuant to 19
CFR § 351.311(c)(2). Id. Based on the
information obtained during the
verification in the investigation, the
Department determined that a financial
contribution was provided by the GOI,
pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the
Act, and a benefit, in the amount of the
capital subsidy, was received by
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45042
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Polyplex under section 771(5)(E) of the
Act.
In all previous administrative
reviews, the Department has sent
questionnaires to the GOI, and Polyplex,
seeking information that would allow it
to determine whether the capital
subsidy program is specific under
section 771(5A) of the Act. Neither the
GOI nor Polyplex was able to provide
any information regarding the subsidy.
As facts available, the Department
determined that the subsidy was
specific. See Second PET Film Review Preliminary Results, at 46489
(unchanged in the final results).
In the current review, the Department
again sent questionnaires to the GOI and
Polyplex, seeking information that
would allow it to determine whether the
program is specific under section
771(5A) of the Act. As in the previous
reviews, Polyplex and the GOI reported
that they were unable to provide any
information regarding the specificity of
this program due to the considerable
amount of time that has elapsed since
the provision of the subsidy. There is no
new information or evidence of changed
circumstances which would warrant
reconsidering this finding. Therefore,
for these preliminary results, we
continue to find, as facts available, that
the subsidy is specific under section
771(5A)(A) of the Act.
Because the benefit was provided
through a capital grant, pursuant to 19
CFR § 351.524(c), the Department finds
it to be non–recurring. Thus, in
calculating the subsidy for this program,
we performed the ‘‘0.5 percent test,’’ as
prescribed under 19 CFR
§ 351.524(b)(2). Because the grant
exceeded 0.5 percent of Polyplex’s total
sales in 1989, the year in which the
capital grant was received, the benefits
were allocated over 18 years, the
company–specific AUL. In allocating
this capital grant, we used the
Department’s standard allocation
methodology for non–recurring
subsidies under 19 CFR § 351.524(d). To
calculate the net subsidy to Polyplex
from this capital subsidy, we divided
the benefit attributable to the POR by
the company’s total sales during the
same period. On this basis, we
preliminarily determine the net
countervailable subsidy provided to
Polyplex under this program to be 0.01
percent ad valorem.
6. Export Oriented Units (EOU)
Companies that are designated as an
EOU are eligible to receive various
forms of assistance in exchange for
committing to export all of the products
they produce, excluding rejects and
certain domestic sales, for five years.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Companies designated as EOUs may
receive the following benefits: (1) duty–
free importation of capital goods and
raw materials; (2) reimbursement of
central sales taxes (CST) paid on
materials procured within India; (3)
purchase of materials and other inputs
free of central excise duty; and (4)
receipt of duty drawback on furnace oil
procured from domestic oil companies.
Consistent with the previous review,
Jindal reported that it had been
designated as an EOU. See Second PET
Film Review - Preliminary Results, at
46489 (unchanged in the final results).
Specifically, Jindal reported receiving
the following benefits: (1) The duty–free
importation of capital goods; (2) the
reimbursement of CST paid on raw
materials and capital goods procured
domestically; and (3) the purchase of
materials and other inputs free of
central excise duty. For the other two
types of benefits received by Jindal, the
Department previously determined that
the purchase of materials and/or inputs
free of central excise duty is not
countervailable. See Final - Indian PET
Resin. The Department determined that
the EOU program was specific, within
the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the
Act, since the receipt of benefits under
this program was contingent upon
export performance. See Preliminary
Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Alignment with
Final Antidumping Duty Determination:
Bottle–Grade Polyethylene
Terephthalate (PET) Resin From India,
69 FR 52866, 52870 (August 30, 2004)
(unchanged in final determination) (PET
Resin from India - Preliminary
Determination). There is no new
information or evidence of changed
circumstances which would warrant
reconsidering this finding. Therefore,
for these preliminary results, we
continue to find this program
countervailable.
a. Duty–Free Importation of Capital
Goods and Raw Materials
Under this program, an EOU is
entitled to import, duty–free, capital
goods and raw materials for the
production of exported goods in
exchange for committing to export all of
the products it produces, with the
exception of sales in the Domestic Tariff
Area over five years. The Department
previously determined that the duty–
free importation of capital goods
provides a financial contribution and
confers benefits equal to the amount of
exemptions and reimbursements of
customs duties and certain sales taxes.
See sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and (E) of the
Act. See also PET Resin from India Preliminary Determination, at 52870
(unchanged in final determination).
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
However, according to the GOI and
Jindal, until an EOU demonstrates that
it has fully met its export requirements,
the company retains a contingent
liability to repay the import duty
exemptions. Jindal has not yet met its
export contingency and will owe the
unpaid duties if the export requirements
are not met. Upon Jindal meeting its
export requirement, the Department will
treat the unpaid duties as a grant. In the
meantime, consistent with 19 CFR
§ 351.505(d)(1), until the contingent
liability for the unpaid duties is
officially waived by the GOI, we
consider the unpaid duties to be an
interest–free loan made to Jindal at the
time of importation. We determine the
benefit to be the interest that Jindal
would have paid during the POR had it
borrowed the full amount of the duty
reduction or exemption at the time of
importation. Pursuant to 19 CFR
§ 351.505(d)(1), the benchmark for
measuring the benefit is a long–term
interest rate because the event upon
which repayment of the duties depends
(i.e., the date of expiration of the time
period to fulfill the export commitment)
occurs at a point in time that is more
than one year after the date of
importation of the capital goods (i.e.,
under the EOU program, the time period
for fulfilling the export commitment is
more than one year after importation of
the capital good). We used the long–
term, rupee–denominated benchmark
interest rate discussed in the
‘‘Benchmarks for Loans and Discount
Rate’’ section above for each year in
which capital goods were imported as
the benchmark.
The benefit for each year is the total
amount of interest that would have been
paid if the firm had received a loan to
pay the duties. To calculate the subsidy,
we divided the total amount of benefits
under the program during the POR by
Jindal’s total value of export sales. We
preliminarily determine the net
countervailable subsidy provided to
Jindal through the duty–free
importation of capital goods under the
EOU program to be 3.53 percent ad
valorem.
b. Reimbursement of CST Paid on
Materials Procured Domestically
Jindal was reimbursed for the CST it
paid on raw materials and capital goods
procured domestically. The benefit
associated with domestically purchased
materials is the amount of reimbursed
CST received by Jindal during the POR.
The Department previously determined
that the reimbursement of CST paid on
materials procured domestically
provides a financial contribution and
confers benefits equal to the amount of
exemptions and reimbursements of sales
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
taxes pursuant to sections 771(5)(D)(ii)
and (E) of the Act. See, e.g., Second Pet
Film Review - Final Results, at 46490.
Normally, tax reimbursements, such as
the CST, are considered to be recurring
benefits. However, a portion of the
benefit of this program is tied to a
company’s capital assets. As such, we
would treat reimbursements which are
tied to capital goods as a non–recurring
benefit pursuant to 19 CFR
§ 351.524(c)(2)(iii). However, we
performed the ‘‘0.5 percent test,’’ as
prescribed under 19 CFR § 351.524(b)(2)
and find that the amount of CST
reimbursements tied to capital goods
received during the POR was less than
0.5 percent of total export sales for 2004.
Therefore, the benefit is the amount of
CST reimbursements received during
the POR. See 19 CFR § 351.524(b)(2).
To calculate the benefit for Jindal, we
first summed the total amount of CST
reimbursements for capital goods and
raw materials received during the POR.
We divided this amount by the total
value of export sales during the POR.
On this basis, we preliminarily
determine the countervailable subsidy
provided to Jindal through the
reimbursement of CST under the EOU
program to be 0.07 percent ad valorem.
7. State Sales Tax Incentive Programs
According to the GOI, various state
governments in India grant exemptions
to, or deferrals from, sales taxes in order
to encourage regional development. See
Government of India’s Questionnaire
Response, at 45 (September 29, 2005).
These incentives allow privately–owned
(i.e., not 100 percent owned by the GOI)
manufacturers, that are in selected
industries and which are located in the
designated regions, to sell goods
without charging or collecting state
sales taxes. As a result of these
programs, the respondents did not pay
sales taxes on their purchases from
suppliers located in certain states. The
states from which Jindal and Polyplex
made purchases but did not pay sales
taxes during the POR are the states of:
Uttaranchal/Uttar Pradesh (SOU/SUP),
Maharashtra (SOM), West Bengal,
Gujurat, Himachal Pradesh, Daman,
Union Territory of Dadra & Nagarhaveli,
Karnataka, Delhi, Chattisgarh,
Tamilnadu, Rajasthan, and Punjab. In
the previous review, we determined that
the operation of these types of state
sales tax programs confers a
countervailable subsidy. See Second
PET Film Review - Final Results, at
46490. The financial contribution is the
tax revenue foregone by the respective
state governments and the benefit equals
the amount of sales taxes not paid by
Jindal and Polyplex. Pursuant to section
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, these
programs are also de jure specific
because they are limited to certain
regions within the respective states
administering the programs. There is no
new information or evidence of changed
circumstances which would warrant
reconsidering this finding. Therefore,
for these preliminary results, we
continue to find this program
countervailable.
To calculate the benefit, we first
calculated the total sales tax reduction
or exemption the respondents received
during the POR by subtracting taxes
paid from the amount that would have
been paid on their purchases during the
POR absent these programs. We then
divided these amounts by each
respondent’s total sales during the POR
to calculate a net countervailable
subsidy of 1.02 percent ad valorem for
Jindal and 4.90 percent ad valorem for
Polyplex.
8. Duty Free Replenishment Certificate
(DFRC)
The DFRC scheme was introduced by
the GOI in 2001 and is administered by
the Director–General for Foreign Trade
(DGFT). The DFRC is a duty
replenishment scheme that is available
to exporters for the subsequent import
of inputs used in the manufacture of
goods without payment of basic customs
duty. In order to receive a license,
which entitles the recipient to
subsequently import, duty free, certain
inputs used in the production of the
exported product, as identified in SION,
within the following 24 months, a
company must: (1) export manufactured
products listed in the GOI’s export
policy book and against which there is
a SION for inputs required in the
manufacture of the export product based
on quantity; and (2) have realized the
payment of export proceeds in the form
of convertible foreign currency. See the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Directorate General of Foreign Trade
Policy 2004–2009, sect. 4.2 fact. See
also page 13 of the Government of
India’s Supplemental Questionnaire
Response dated April 28, 2006. The
application must be filed within six
months of the realization of the profits.
DFRC licenses are transferrable, yet the
transferee is limited to importing only
those products and in the quantities
specified on the license.
Although 19 CFR § 351.519(b)(2)
provides that the Secretary will
normally consider any benefit from a
duty drawback or exemption program as
having been received as of the date of
exportation, we preliminarily find that
an exception to this normal practice is
warranted here in view of the unique
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45043
manner in which this program operates.
Specifically, a company may not submit
an application for a DFRC license until
the proceeds of the sale are realized.
The license, once granted, specifies the
quantity of the particular inputs that the
bearer may subsequently import duty
free. In the case of the DFRC, the
company does not know at the time of
export the value of the duty exemption
that it will ultimately receive. It only
knows the quantity of the inputs it will
likely be able to import duty free if its
application for a DFRC license is
granted. Under the DFRC, the
respondent will only know the total
value of the duty exemption when it
subsequently imports the specified
products duty free with the license, or
sells it. Therefore, we preliminarily
determine that the date of receipt is
linked to when the company imports an
input duty free with the certificate. See
Notice of Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from India, 71 FR
1512 (January 10, 2006) (unchanged in
the final results). In the case in which
the company sells the certificate, the
date of sale is when the benefit occurs.
See Certain Iron–Metal Castings From
India; Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review 62 FR
32297 (June 13, 1997) (1994 Indian
Castings Final Results).
Neither Jindal nor Polyplex reported
imports using a DFRC license or exports
against a DFRC license during the POR.
However, Polyplex reported selling part
of its rights under the DFRC Scheme.
The Department has previously
determined that the sale of import
licenses confers a countervailable export
subsidy. See e.g., 1994 Indian Castings
Final Results. Therefore, in accordance
with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act, we
determine that Polyplex’s partial sale of
its rights under the DFRC Scheme is an
export subsidy and that a financial
contribution is provided, under section
771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, in the form of
the revenue foregone. We further find
that the sale conferred a benefit under
section 771(5)(E) of the Act in the
amount of the revenue from the sale.
There is no new information or
evidence of changed circumstances
which would warrant reconsidering this
finding. Therefore, for these preliminary
results, we continue to find this
program countervailable.
To calculate the benefit to Polyplex
on the partial sale of its rights under the
DFRC Scheme, we identified the
proceeds it realized from the sale during
the POR (net of required application
fees). We then calculated the subsidy by
dividing the total benefit by the total
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45044
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
value of Polyplex’s export sales during
the POR. On this basis, we determine
the net countervailable subsidy for this
program to be 0.03 percent ad valorem
for Polyplex.
Programs Preliminarily Determined to
be Not Used
We preliminarily determine that the
producers/exporters of PET film
products did not apply for or receive
benefits during the POR under the
programs listed below:
1. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme
(DEPS)
2. Electricity Duty Exemption Scheme State of Maharashtra
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Preliminary Results of Administrative
Review
In accordance with 19 CFR
§ 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated
individual subsidy for Jindal and
Polyplex for the POR. We preliminarily
determine the total estimated net
countervailable subsidy to be 13.15
percent ad valorem for Jindal and 13.19
percent ad valorem for Polyplex.
If the final results of this review
remain the same as these preliminary
results, the Department intends to
instruct CBP, within 15 days of
publication, to liquidate shipments of
PET film from India entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after January 1, 2004
through December 31, 2004 at 13.15
percent ad valorem for Jindal and at
13.20 percent ad valorem for Polyplex.
We will instruct CBP to collect cash
deposits for Jindal and Polyplex at the
rates indicated above. As discussed
above, if we determine in the final
results that the Section 80HHC program
has been terminated, we will remove the
rate for that program from the cash
deposit rate for each company. In
addition, we will instruct CBP to
continue to collect cash deposit rates for
non–reviewed companies at the most
recent rate applicable to the company.
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.224(b), the
Department will disclose to parties to
the proceeding any calculations
performed in connection with these
preliminary results within five days
after the date of the public
announcement of this notice. Pursuant
to 19 CFR § 351.309, interested parties
may submit written comments in
response to these preliminary results.
Unless otherwise instructed by the
Department, case briefs must be
submitted within 30 days after the date
of publication of this notice, pursuant to
19 CFR § 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs,
limited to arguments raised in case
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
briefs, must be submitted no later than
five days after the time limit for filing
case briefs, unless otherwise specified
by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR
§ 351.309(d). Parties who submit
argument in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument:
(1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a
brief summary of their arguments.
Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal
briefs are requested to provide the
Department copies of the public version
on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be
served on interested parties in
accordance with 19 CFR § 351.303(f).
Also, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.310(c),
within 30 days of the date of publication
of this notice, interested parties may
request a public hearing on arguments
to be raised in the case and rebuttal
briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies
otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will
be held two days after the date for
submission of rebuttal briefs.
Representatives of parties to the
proceeding may request disclosure of
proprietary information under
administrative protective order no later
than 10 days after the representative’s
client or employer becomes a party to
the proceeding, but in no event later
than the date the case briefs, under 19
CFR § 351.309(c)(ii), are due. See 19
CFR § 351.305(b)(3). The Department
will publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the
results of its analysis of arguments made
in any case or rebuttal briefs.
This administrative review is issued
and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act, and 19 CFR § 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: July 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–12813 Filed 8–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Availability of Seats for the Hawaiian
Islands Humpback Whale National
Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council
National Marine Sanctuary
Program (NMSP), National Ocean
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Notice and request for
applications.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Hawaiian Islands
Humpback Whale National Marine
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Sanctuary (HIHWNMS or Sanctuary) is
seeking applicants for both primary and
alternate members of the following seats
on its Sanctuary Advisory Council
(Council): Business/Commerce, CitizenAt-Large, Commercial Shipping,
Conservation, Ocean Recreation,
Tourism, and Whale Watching.
Applicants are chosen based upon their
particular expertise and experience in
relation to the seat for which they are
applying; community and professional
affiliations; philosophy regarding the
protection and management of marine
resources; and possibly the length of
residence in the area affected by the
Sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen
as members should expect to serve 2year terms, pursuant to the Council’s
Charter.
Applications are due by August
31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Application kits may be
obtained from Mary Grady, 6600
Kalanianaole Hwy., Suite 301,
Honolulu, HI 96825 or
Mary.Grady@noaa.gov. Completed
applications should be sent to the same
address. Applications are also available
online at https://
hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Naomi McIntosh, 6600 Kalanianaole
Hwy., Suite 301, Honolulu, HI 96825 or
Naomi.McIntosh@noaa.gov or
808.397.2651.
The
HIHWNMS Advisory Council was
established in March 1996 to assure
continued public participation in the
management of the Sanctuary. Since its
establishment, the Council has played a
vital role in the decisions affecting the
Sanctuary surrounding the main
Hawaiian Islands.
The Council’s twenty-four voting
members represent a variety of local
user groups, as well as the general
public, plus ten local, state and federal
governmental jurisdictions.
The Council is supported by three
committees: A Research Committee
chaired by the Research Representative,
and Education Committee chaired by
the Education Representative, and a
Conservation Committee chaired by the
Conservation Representative, each
respectively dealing with matters
concerning research, education and
resource protection.
The Council represents the
coordination link between the
Sanctuary and the state and federal
management agencies, user groups,
researchers, educators, policy makers,
and other various groups that help to
focus efforts and attention on the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 8, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45037-45044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12813]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C-533-825)
Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet, and Strip from India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) film from India for the period January 1, 2004
through December 31, 2004. We preliminarily determine that subsidies
are being provided on the production and export of PET film from India.
See the ``Preliminary Results of Administrative Review'' section,
below. If the final results remain the same as the preliminary results
of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to assess countervailing duties. Interested parties are invited
to comment on the preliminary results of this administrative review.
See the ``Public Comment'' section of this notice. In addition, we are
rescinding this review with respect to Garware Polyester Limited
(Garware). See the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section, below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum, Nicholas Czajkowski, or
Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-0197, (202) 482-1395, or (202) 482-1398, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register
the countervailing duty (CVD) order on PET film from India. See
Countervailing Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and
Strip (PET Film) from India, 67 FR 44179 (July 1, 2002) (PET Film
Order). On July 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of
this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,
70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). On July 27, 2005, MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd.
(MTZ), and on July 29, 2005, Jindal Poly Films Limited of India
(Jindal), formerly named Jindal Polyester Limited, Indian producers and
exporters of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from India with
respect to their exports to the United States. On July 29, 2005, Dupont
Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, and Toray Plastics
(America), (collectively, petitioners), requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from
India with respect to Jindal and Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex)
(collectively, respondents). Also, on August 1, 2005, Garware requested
that the Department conduct an administrative review of the CVD order
on PET film from India with respect to its exports to the United
States.
On August 19, 2005, MTZ withdrew its request for review of the CVD
order of PET film from India. See Memorandum to File through Howard
Smith from Drew Jackson: ``Withdrawal of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review Request'' (August 23, 2005) (on file in the
Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Commerce building).
Since this company was the sole requestor for an administrative review,
and since its withdrawal occurred prior to the date of initiation, we
did not include this company in the initiation of the administrative
review. On August 29, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative
review of the CVD order on PET film from India covering Jindal,
Garware, and Polyplex, for the period January 1, 2004 through December
31, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 51009
(August 29, 2005).
The Department issued questionnaires to the Government of India
(GOI) and all three respondents. On September 14, 2005, pursuant to 19
CFR Sec. 351.213(d)(1), Garware timely withdrew its request for an
administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from India. Because
no other party requested an administrative review of this respondent,
the Department is rescinding its review with respect to Garware. See
the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section below.
On September 29, 2005, the GOI submitted its questionnaire
response. Jindal and Polyplex submitted their questionnaire responses
on October 3, 2005 and October 4, 2005, respectively. The Department
issued its first supplemental questionnaires to Jindal and Polyplex on
November 4, 2005 and November 7, 2005, respectively. On November 28,
2005, both Jindal and Polyplex submitted their first supplemental
responses. On February 21, 2006, the Department extended the
preliminary results until July 31, 2006. See Extension of Time Limit
for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review: Polyethylene
Terephthalate (PET) Film from India, 71 FR 8840 (February 21, 2006). On
April 14, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental
questionnaire to Jindal and Polyplex, and its first supplemental
questionnaire to the GOI. The GOI submitted its response to the
supplemental questionnaire on April 28, 2006, and Jindal and Polyplex
[[Page 45038]]
responded on May 8, 2006. On June 20, 2006, the Department issued a
second supplemental questionnaire to the GOI, and third supplemental
questionnaires to Jindal and Polyplex. The GOI submitted its response
on June 27, 2006, and Jindal and Polyplex responded on July 5, 2006.
Also, on July 5, 2006, the Department issued its third supplemental
questionnaire to the GOI, to which the GOI submitted its response on
July 12, 2006.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), we intend to conduct verification of the GOI,
Jindal, and Polyplex questionnaire responses following the issuance of
the preliminary results.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of the order, the products covered are all gauges of
raw, pretreated, or primed Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and
Strip, 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.
Partial Rescission of Review
As provided in 19 CFR Sec. 351.213(d)(1), ``the Secretary will
rescind an administrative review under this section, in whole or in
part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within
90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the
requested review.'' Garware withdrew its review request within 90 days
of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the instant
administrative review. Because no other interested parties requested an
administrative review of Garware, the Department is rescinding the
instant administrative review of this company.
Subsidies Valuation Information
Allocation Period
Under 19 CFR Sec. 351.524(d)(2)(i), we will presume the allocation
period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL)
prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for renewable physical
assets of the industry under consideration (as listed in the IRS's 1977
Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, and as updated by the
Department of the Treasury). This presumption will apply unless a party
claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the
AUL of the renewable physical assets of the company or industry under
investigation. Specifically, the party must establish that the
difference between the AUL from the tables and the company-specific AUL
or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is
significant, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 351.524(d)(2)(ii). For assets
used to manufacture plastic film, such as PET film, the IRS tables
prescribe an AUL of 9.5 years.
In the investigative segment of this proceeding, the Department
determined that Polyplex had rebutted the presumption and applied a
company-specific AUL of 18 years for Polyplex. See Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip (PET Film), 67 FR 34905 (May 16, 2002) (PET Film Final
Determination). In the previous review, the Department determined that
Jindal had rebutted the presumption and applied a company-specific AUL
of 17 years for Jindal. See Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from India, 69 FR 51063 (August 17, 2004) (First PET Film Review
- Final Results). Because there is no new evidence on the record that
would cause the Department to reconsider this decision in this review,
the Department has preliminarily determined to continue to use an AUL
of 17 years for Jindal and 18 years for Polyplex in allocating non-
recurring subsidies.
Benchmark Interest Rates and Discount Rates
For programs requiring the application of a benchmark interest
rate, 19 CFR Sec. 351.505(a)(1) states a preference for using an
interest rate that the company could have obtained on a comparable loan
in the commercial market. Also, 19 CFR Sec. 351.505(a)(3)(i)
stipulates that when selecting a comparable commercial loan that the
recipient ``could actually obtain on the market'' the Department will
normally rely on actual short-term and long-term loans obtained by the
firm. However, when there are no comparable commercial loans, the
Department may use a national average interest rate, pursuant to 19 CFR
Sec. 351.505(a)(3)(ii).
In addition, 19 CFR Sec. 351.505(a)(2)(ii) states that the
Department will not consider a loan provided by a government-owned
special purpose bank for purposes of calculating benchmark rates. The
Department has previously determined that the Industrial Development
Bank of India (IDBI) is a government-owned special purpose bank. See
First PET Film Review - Final Results and the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum (Issues Memorandum - First Review), at 15-16. As
such, the Department did not use loans from the IDBI reported by Jindal
and Polyplex in its 2004 benchmark calculations.
Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 351.505(a)(2)(iv), if a program under
review is a government-provided, short-term loan, the preference would
be to use an annual average of the interest rates on comparable
commercial loans during the year in which the government-provided loan
was taken out, weighted by the principal amount of each loan. For this
review, the Department required both dollar-denominated and rupee-
denominated short-term loan benchmark rates to determine benefits
received under the Pre-Shipment Export Financing and Post-Shipment
Export Financing programs.
Both Jindal and Polyplex have provided information on rupee-
denominated short-term commercial loans outstanding during the period
of review (POR). Jindal provided the following rupee-denominated short-
term commercial loans: Inland Bill Discounting (IBD); Working Capital
Development Loans (WCDL); Cash Credit (CC); and Other Short-Term Loans.
Polyplex provided the following rupee-denominated short-term commercial
loans: IBD; WCDL; CC; Commercial Paper Loans; and Other Short-Term
Loans.
In previous reviews of this case, the Department has determined
that IBD loans are more comparable to pre-shipment and post-shipment
export financing loans than other types of rupee-denominated short-term
loans. See Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from India, 70 FR 46483, 46485 (August 10, 2005) (Second PET Film
Review - Preliminary Results) (unchanged in the final results); and
Issues Memorandum - First Review at 10. There is no new information or
evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering
this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to
use IBD loans as the basis for the short-term rupee-denominated
benchmark for all applicable programs for both Jindal and Polyplex.
[[Page 45039]]
Polyplex provided information on US dollar-denominated WCDL
received during the POR to use as the basis for US dollar-denominated
short-term benchmark rates. The Department, therefore, has calculated
Polyplex's US dollar-denominated short-term benchmark rates based on
its US dollar-denominated WCDLs.
Jindal did not have any US dollar-denominated short-term loans
during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR Sec.
351.505(a)(3)(ii), the Department used a national average dollar-
denominated short-term interest rate, as reported in the International
Monetary Fund's publication International Financial Statistics (IMF
Statistics) for Jindal.
For those programs requiring a rupee-denominated discount rate or
the application of a rupee-denominated long-term benchmark rate, we
used, where available, company-specific, weighted-average interest
rates on comparable commercial long-term, rupee-denominated loans. For
this review, the Department required benchmarks to determine benefits
received under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) and
Export Oriented Units (EOU) programs. Respondents did not have
comparable commercial long-term rupee-denominated loans for all
required years; therefore, for those years for which we did not have
company-specific information, we relied on comparable long-term rupee-
denominated benchmark interest rates from the immediately preceding
year as directed by 19 CFR Sec. 351.505(a)(2)(iii). When there were no
comparable long-term, rupee-denominated loans from commercial banks
during either the year under consideration or the preceding year, we
used national average interest rates, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.
351.505(a)(3)(ii), from the IMF Statistics.
Programs Preliminarily Determined to be Countervailable
1. Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment Export Financing
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), through commercial banks, provides
short-term pre-shipment financing, or ``packing credits,'' to
exporters. Upon presentation of a confirmed export order or letter of
credit to a bank, companies may receive pre-shipment loans for working
capital purposes (i.e., purchasing raw materials, warehousing, packing,
transportation, etc.) for merchandise destined for exportation.
Companies may also establish pre-shipment credit lines upon which they
draw as needed. Limits on credit lines are established by commercial
banks and are based on a company's creditworthiness and past export
performance. Credit lines may be denominated either in Indian rupees or
in a foreign currency. Commercial banks extending export credit to
Indian companies must, by law, charge interest at rates determined by
the RBI.
Post-shipment export financing consists of loans in the form of
discounted trade bills or advances by commercial banks. Exporters
qualify for this program by presenting their export documents to the
lending bank. The credit covers the period from the date of shipment of
the goods to the date of realization of the proceeds from the sale to
the overseas customer. Under the Foreign Exchange Management Act of
1999, exporters are required to realize proceeds from their export
sales within 180 days of shipment. Post-shipment financing is,
therefore, a working capital program used to finance export
receivables. In general, post-shipment loans are granted for a period
of no more than 180 days.
In the investigation, the Department determined that the pre-
shipment and post-shipment export financing programs conferred
countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise because: (1) The
provision of the export financing constitutes a financial contribution
pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act as a direct transfer of
funds in the form of loans; (2) the provision of the export financing
confers benefits on the respondents under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the
Act in as much as the interest rates given under these programs are
lower than commercially available interest rates; and (3) these
programs are specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because they
are contingent upon export performance. See Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip (PET Film), 67 FR 34905 (May 16, 2002) (PET Film Final
Determination) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at
``Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment Financing'' (PET Film Final
Determination - Decision Memorandum). There is no new information or
evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering
this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to
find this program countervailable.
The benefit conferred by the pre-shipment and post-shipment loans
is the difference between the amount of interest the company paid on
the government loan and the amount of interest it would have paid on a
comparable commercial loan (i.e., the short-term benchmark). Because
pre-shipment loans are tied to a company's exports rather than exports
of subject merchandise, we calculated the subsidy rate for these loans
by dividing the total benefit by the value of each respondent's total
exports during the POR. Because post-shipment loans are tied to
specific shipments of a particular product to a particular country, we
divided the total benefit from post-shipment loans tied to exports of
subject merchandise to the United States by the value of total exports
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. See 19 CFR
Sec. 351.525(b)(4). On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net
countervailable subsidy from pre-shipment export financing to be 0.02
percent ad valorem for Jindal, and 0.30 percent ad valorem for
Polyplex. We also preliminarily determine the net countervailable
subsidy provided to Jindal from post-shipment export financing to be
0.05 percent ad valorem. Polyplex did not receive any benefits under
the post-shipment export financing program during the POR.
2. Advance License Program (ALP)
Under the ALP, exporters may import, duty free, specified
quantities of materials required to manufacture products that are
subsequently exported. The exporting companies, however, remain
contingently liable for the unpaid duties until they have fulfilled
their export requirement. The quantities of imported materials and
exported finished products are linked through standard input-output
norms (SIONs) established by the GOI. During the POR, Jindal and
Polyplex used advance licenses to import certain materials duty free.
The Department previously found the 1997-2003 Export/Import
Guidelines underlying the ALP to be not countervailable. See PET Film
Final Determination. However, in the last administrative review, the
Department examined the 2002-2007 Export/Import Policy Guidelines
underlying the ALP and found the program to be countervailable because
the GOI does not have in place and does not apply a system that is
reasonable and effective for the purposes intended, in accordance with
19 CFR Sec. 351.519(a)(4). See Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from India, 71 FR 7534 (February 13, 2006) (Second PET Film
Review - Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (Issues
[[Page 45040]]
Memorandum - Second Review). In that review, the Department found that
the ALP confers a countervailable subsidy because: (1) A financial
contribution, as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, is
provided under the program, as the GOI provides the respondents with an
exemption of import duties; (2) the GOI does not have in place and does
not apply a system that is reasonable and effective for the purposes
intended in accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 351.519(a)(4), to confirm
which inputs, and in what amounts, are consumed in the production of
the exported products; thus, the entire amount of import duty exemption
earned by the respondent constitutes a benefit under section 771(5)(E)
of the Act; and (3) this program is contingent upon exportation and,
therefore, is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. See Issues
Memorandum - Second Review, at 3-5. There is no new information or
evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering
this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to
find this program countervailable.
Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 351.524(c), exemptions of import duties on
imports consumed in production normally provide a recurring benefit.
Under this program, for 2004, Jindal and Polyplex did not have to pay
certain import duties for inputs that were used in the production of
merchandise. Thus, we treated the benefit provided under the ALP as a
recurring benefit. To calculate the subsidy, we first determined the
total value of duties exempted during the POR for each company. From
this amount, we subtracted the required application fees paid for each
license during the POR as an allowable offset to the actual amount in
accordance with section 771(6) of the Act (in order to receive the
benefits of the ALP, companies must pay application fees). We then
divided the resulting net benefit by the company's value of total
export sales. We did not include either respondents' ``deemed exports''
sales (i.e., sales of goods which do not leave the country) as part of
their total value of export sales for this or any program. We will
examine the issue of ``deemed exports'' further at verification and
invite parties to comment on this issue in their briefs. On this basis,
we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided
under the ALP to be 5.33 ad valorem for Jindal and 2.07 percent ad
valorem for Polyplex.
3. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)
The EPCGS provides for a reduction or exemption of customs duties
and excise taxes on imports of capital goods used in the production of
exported products. Under this program, producers pay reduced duty rates
on imported capital equipment by committing to earn convertible foreign
currency equal to four to five times the value of the capital goods
within a period of eight years. Once a company has met its export
obligation, the GOI will formally waive the duties on the imported
goods. If a company fails to meet the export obligation, the company is
subject to payment of all or part of the duty reduction, depending on
the extent of the export shortfall, plus penalty interest.
In the investigation, the Department determined that import duty
reductions provided under the EPCGS are a countervailable export
subsidy because the scheme: (1) Provides a financial contribution
pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act in the form of revenue
foregone; and (2) provides a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act
in the amount of the revenue foregone. Because this program is
contingent upon export performance, it is specific under section
771(5A)(B) of the Act. See PET Film Final Determination - Decision
Memorandum, at 7-8. There is no new information or evidence of changed
circumstances which would warrant reconsidering this finding.
Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to find this
program countervailable.
These import duty exemptions were provided for the purchase of
capital equipment. The preamble to our regulations states that if a
government provides an import duty exemption tied to major equipment
purchases, ``it may be reasonable to conclude that, because these duty
exemptions are tied to capital assets, the benefits from such duty
exemptions should be considered non-recurring.'' See Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 65393 (November 25, 1998).
Accordingly, we are treating these exemptions as non-recurring benefits
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(2)(iii).
Jindal and Polyplex reported that they imported capital goods under
the EPCGS in the years prior to and during the POR. Jindal received
various EPCGS licenses, which were for the production of: (1) Both
subject merchandise and non-subject merchandise; or (2) non-subject
merchandise. Polyplex received EPCGS licenses which indicated that it
was allowed to import capital goods for the production of: (1) subject
merchandise; (2) both subject merchandise and non-subject merchandise;
or (3) non-subject merchandise. Based on the information and
documentation submitted by Jindal and Polyplex, we cannot determine
that their respective EPCGS licenses are tied to the production of a
particular product within the meaning of 19 CFR Sec. 351.525(b)(5). As
such, we find that each company's respective EPCGS licenses benefit all
of the company's exports.
Polyplex met the export requirements for certain EPCGS licenses
prior to December 31, 2004 and the GOI has formally waived the relevant
import duties. For some of its licenses, however, Polyplex has not yet
met its export obligation as required under the program. Jindal has not
yet met its export obligation for any of its imports of capital goods
under the program. Therefore, although Jindal and Polyplex have
received a deferral from paying import duties when the capital goods
were imported, the final waiver on the obligation to pay the duties has
not yet been granted for many of these imports.
For Polyplex's imports for which the GOI has formally waived the
duties, we treat the full amount of the waived duty as a grant received
in the year in which the GOI officially granted the waiver. To
calculate the benefit received from the GOI's formal waiver of import
duties on Polyplex's capital equipment imports where its export
obligation was met prior to December 31, 2004, we considered the total
amount of duties waived (net of required application fees) to be the
benefit. Further, consistent with the approach followed in the
investigation, we determine the year of receipt of the benefit to be
the year in which the GOI formally waived Polyplex's outstanding import
duties. See PET Film Final Determination-Decision Memorandum, at
Comment 5. Next, we performed the ``0.5 percent test,'' as prescribed
under 19 CFR Sec. 351.524(b)(2), for each year in which the GOI
granted Polyplex an import duty waiver. Those waivers with values in
excess of 0.5 percent of Polyplex's total export sales in the year in
which the waivers were granted were allocated using Polyplex's company-
specific AUL, while waivers with values less than 0.5 percent of
Polyplex's total export sales were expensed in the year of receipt. See
``Allocation Period'' section, above.
As noted above, import duty reductions that Jindal and Polyplex
received on the imports of capital equipment for which they have not
yet met export obligations may have to be
[[Page 45041]]
repaid to the GOI if the obligations under the licenses are not met.
Consistent with our practice and prior determinations, we will treat
the unpaid import duty liability as an interest-free loan. See 19 CFR
Sec. 351.505(d)(1); and PET Film Final Determination-Decision
Memorandum, at ``EPCGS''; see also Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin
From India, 70 FR 13460 (March 21, 2005) (Final - Indian PET Resin).
The amount of the unpaid duty liabilities to be treated as an
interest-free loan is the amount of the import duty reduction or
exemption for which the respondent applied, but, as of the end of the
POR, had not been finally waived by the GOI. Accordingly, we find the
benefit to be the interest that Jindal and Polyplex would have paid
during the POR had they borrowed the full amount of the duty reduction
or exemption at the time of importation. See Second PET Film Review -
Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 46488 (unchanged in the final results);
see also (Final - Indian PET Resin).
As stated above, under the EPCGS program, the time period for
fulfilling the export commitment expires eight years after importation
of the capital good. Consequently, the date of expiration of the time
period to fulfill the export commitment occurs at a point in time more
than one year after the date of importation of the capital goods.
Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 351.505(d)(1), the benchmark for measuring the
benefit is a long-term interest rate because the event upon which
repayment of the duties depends (i.e., the date of expiration of the
time period to fulfill the export commitment) occurs at a point in time
that is more than one year after the date of importation of the capital
goods (i.e., under the EPCGS program, the time period for fulfilling
the export commitment is more than one year after importation of the
capital good). As the benchmark interest rate, we used the weighted-
average interest rate from all comparable commercial long-term, rupee-
denominated loans for the year in which the capital good was imported.
See the ``Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate'' section above for a
discussion of the applicable benchmark.
The benefit received under the EPCGS is the total amount of: (1)
the benefit attributable to the POR from the formally waived duties for
imports of capital equipment for which respondents met export
requirements by December 31, 2004, and/or (2) interest due on the
contingent liability loans for imports of capital equipment that have
not met export requirements. To calculate the benefit from the waived
duties for Polyplex, we took the total amount of the waived duties in
each year and treated each year's waived amount as a non-recurring
grant. We applied the grant methodology set forth in 19 CFR Sec.
351.524(d), using the discount rates discussed in the ``Benchmark
Interest Rates and Discount Rates'' section above to determine the
benefit amounts attributable to the POR.
To calculate the benefit from the contingent liability loans for
both Jindal and Polyplex, we multiplied the total amount of unpaid
duties under each license by the long-term benchmark interest rate for
the year in which the license was approved. We then summed these
amounts to determine the total benefit for each company.
For Jindal, we divided the benefit from the contingent liability
loans under the EPGCS by Jindal's total exports to determine a subsidy
of 2.85 percent ad valorem. For Polyplex, we summed the benefits
attributable to the POR from the duty waivers under the EPGCS with the
benefits from the contingent liability loans and divided that total by
Polyplex's total exports to determine a subsidy of 4.29 percent ad
valorem.
4. Income Tax Exemption Scheme 80HHC (80HHC)
Under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, the GOI allows exporters
to exclude profits derived from export sales from their taxable income.
In prior proceedings, the Department found this program to be a
countervailable export subsidy, because it is contingent upon export
performance and, therefore, specific in accordance with section
771(5A)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act,
the GOI provides a financial contribution in the form of tax revenue
not collected. Finally, a benefit is conferred in the amount of the tax
savings in accordance with section 771(5)(E) of the Act. See Second PET
Film Review - Preliminary Results, 46488 (unchanged in the final
results).
To calculate the benefit under this program, we first calculated
the total amount of income tax each company would have paid during the
POR had it not claimed a tax deduction under section 80HHC and
subtracted from this amount the income taxes actually paid during the
POR. We then divided this benefit by each company's total export sales
consistent with 19 CFRSec. 351.525(b)(2). On this basis, we
preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy under section
80HHC to be 0.28 percent ad valorem for Jindal and 1.60 percent ad
valorem for Polyplex.
The GOI, Jindal, and Polyplex have argued that the 80HHC exemption
was phased out effective March 31, 2004, and have provided
documentation to support their claim. See Government of India's
Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 10 (September 29, 2005); Jindal's
Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 24a (October 3, 2005); and
Polyplex's Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 23 (October 3, 2005).
According to these submissions, the 80HHC program ended March 31, 2004.
As a result, Jindal and Polyplex only claimed deductions of profits
derived from exported goods through March 31, 2004 in computing their
total taxable income during the POR. Due to the phase out of the 80HHC
program, both Jindal and Polyplex have requested that the Department
determine that the elimination of this deduction constitutes a program-
wide change under 19 CFR Sec. 351.526. In the Finance Act of 2000, the
GOI amended the Income Tax Act of 1961, stating that the 80HHC
exemption would be phased out on April 1, 2004. In addition, Jindal and
Polyplex submitted their October 31, 2005 tax returns (which cover the
tax year April 1, 2004 through March 31, 2005) in which neither company
claimed an 80HHC exemption. After analyzing the documentation on the
record, the Department preliminarily determines that there has been a
program-wide change with respect to the 80HHC Tax Exemption Scheme. If
we find in the final results of review that this program was terminated
in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR Sec. 351.526, we will
include these subsidies in the assessment rate but exclude them from
the cash deposit rate.
5. Capital Subsidy
Polyplex received a capital infusion in 1989 from the GOI. This
subsidy was discovered at verification during the investigation. See
PET Film Final Determination-Decision Memorandum, at ``Capital
Subsidy.'' The Department determined at that time that there was
insufficient time to establish whether the program was specific under
section 771(5A)(D) of the Act. Thus, the Department stated its
intention to re-examine the program in a future administrative review
pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 351.311(c)(2). Id. Based on the information
obtained during the verification in the investigation, the Department
determined that a financial contribution was provided by the GOI,
pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, and a benefit, in the
amount of the capital subsidy, was received by
[[Page 45042]]
Polyplex under section 771(5)(E) of the Act.
In all previous administrative reviews, the Department has sent
questionnaires to the GOI, and Polyplex, seeking information that would
allow it to determine whether the capital subsidy program is specific
under section 771(5A) of the Act. Neither the GOI nor Polyplex was able
to provide any information regarding the subsidy. As facts available,
the Department determined that the subsidy was specific. See Second PET
Film Review - Preliminary Results, at 46489 (unchanged in the final
results).
In the current review, the Department again sent questionnaires to
the GOI and Polyplex, seeking information that would allow it to
determine whether the program is specific under section 771(5A) of the
Act. As in the previous reviews, Polyplex and the GOI reported that
they were unable to provide any information regarding the specificity
of this program due to the considerable amount of time that has elapsed
since the provision of the subsidy. There is no new information or
evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering
this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to
find, as facts available, that the subsidy is specific under section
771(5A)(A) of the Act.
Because the benefit was provided through a capital grant, pursuant
to 19 CFR Sec. 351.524(c), the Department finds it to be non-
recurring. Thus, in calculating the subsidy for this program, we
performed the ``0.5 percent test,'' as prescribed under 19 CFR Sec.
351.524(b)(2). Because the grant exceeded 0.5 percent of Polyplex's
total sales in 1989, the year in which the capital grant was received,
the benefits were allocated over 18 years, the company-specific AUL. In
allocating this capital grant, we used the Department's standard
allocation methodology for non-recurring subsidies under 19 CFR Sec.
351.524(d). To calculate the net subsidy to Polyplex from this capital
subsidy, we divided the benefit attributable to the POR by the
company's total sales during the same period. On this basis, we
preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided to
Polyplex under this program to be 0.01 percent ad valorem.
6. Export Oriented Units (EOU)
Companies that are designated as an EOU are eligible to receive
various forms of assistance in exchange for committing to export all of
the products they produce, excluding rejects and certain domestic
sales, for five years. Companies designated as EOUs may receive the
following benefits: (1) duty-free importation of capital goods and raw
materials; (2) reimbursement of central sales taxes (CST) paid on
materials procured within India; (3) purchase of materials and other
inputs free of central excise duty; and (4) receipt of duty drawback on
furnace oil procured from domestic oil companies.
Consistent with the previous review, Jindal reported that it had
been designated as an EOU. See Second PET Film Review - Preliminary
Results, at 46489 (unchanged in the final results). Specifically,
Jindal reported receiving the following benefits: (1) The duty-free
importation of capital goods; (2) the reimbursement of CST paid on raw
materials and capital goods procured domestically; and (3) the purchase
of materials and other inputs free of central excise duty. For the
other two types of benefits received by Jindal, the Department
previously determined that the purchase of materials and/or inputs free
of central excise duty is not countervailable. See Final - Indian PET
Resin. The Department determined that the EOU program was specific,
within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act, since the receipt
of benefits under this program was contingent upon export performance.
See Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Alignment with Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Bottle-Grade
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin From India, 69 FR 52866, 52870
(August 30, 2004) (unchanged in final determination) (PET Resin from
India - Preliminary Determination). There is no new information or
evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering
this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to
find this program countervailable.
a. Duty-Free Importation of Capital Goods and Raw Materials
Under this program, an EOU is entitled to import, duty-free,
capital goods and raw materials for the production of exported goods in
exchange for committing to export all of the products it produces, with
the exception of sales in the Domestic Tariff Area over five years. The
Department previously determined that the duty-free importation of
capital goods provides a financial contribution and confers benefits
equal to the amount of exemptions and reimbursements of customs duties
and certain sales taxes. See sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and (E) of the Act.
See also PET Resin from India - Preliminary Determination, at 52870
(unchanged in final determination).
However, according to the GOI and Jindal, until an EOU demonstrates
that it has fully met its export requirements, the company retains a
contingent liability to repay the import duty exemptions. Jindal has
not yet met its export contingency and will owe the unpaid duties if
the export requirements are not met. Upon Jindal meeting its export
requirement, the Department will treat the unpaid duties as a grant. In
the meantime, consistent with 19 CFR Sec. 351.505(d)(1), until the
contingent liability for the unpaid duties is officially waived by the
GOI, we consider the unpaid duties to be an interest-free loan made to
Jindal at the time of importation. We determine the benefit to be the
interest that Jindal would have paid during the POR had it borrowed the
full amount of the duty reduction or exemption at the time of
importation. Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 351.505(d)(1), the benchmark for
measuring the benefit is a long-term interest rate because the event
upon which repayment of the duties depends (i.e., the date of
expiration of the time period to fulfill the export commitment) occurs
at a point in time that is more than one year after the date of
importation of the capital goods (i.e., under the EOU program, the time
period for fulfilling the export commitment is more than one year after
importation of the capital good). We used the long-term, rupee-
denominated benchmark interest rate discussed in the ``Benchmarks for
Loans and Discount Rate'' section above for each year in which capital
goods were imported as the benchmark.
The benefit for each year is the total amount of interest that
would have been paid if the firm had received a loan to pay the duties.
To calculate the subsidy, we divided the total amount of benefits under
the program during the POR by Jindal's total value of export sales. We
preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided to
Jindal through the duty-free importation of capital goods under the EOU
program to be 3.53 percent ad valorem.
b. Reimbursement of CST Paid on Materials Procured Domestically
Jindal was reimbursed for the CST it paid on raw materials and
capital goods procured domestically. The benefit associated with
domestically purchased materials is the amount of reimbursed CST
received by Jindal during the POR. The Department previously determined
that the reimbursement of CST paid on materials procured domestically
provides a financial contribution and confers benefits equal to the
amount of exemptions and reimbursements of sales
[[Page 45043]]
taxes pursuant to sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and (E) of the Act. See, e.g.,
Second Pet Film Review - Final Results, at 46490. Normally, tax
reimbursements, such as the CST, are considered to be recurring
benefits. However, a portion of the benefit of this program is tied to
a company's capital assets. As such, we would treat reimbursements
which are tied to capital goods as a non-recurring benefit pursuant to
19 CFR Sec. 351.524(c)(2)(iii). However, we performed the ``0.5
percent test,'' as prescribed under 19 CFR Sec. 351.524(b)(2) and find
that the amount of CST reimbursements tied to capital goods received
during the POR was less than 0.5 percent of total export sales for
2004. Therefore, the benefit is the amount of CST reimbursements
received during the POR. See 19 CFR Sec. 351.524(b)(2).
To calculate the benefit for Jindal, we first summed the total
amount of CST reimbursements for capital goods and raw materials
received during the POR. We divided this amount by the total value of
export sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine
the countervailable subsidy provided to Jindal through the
reimbursement of CST under the EOU program to be 0.07 percent ad
valorem.
7. State Sales Tax Incentive Programs
According to the GOI, various state governments in India grant
exemptions to, or deferrals from, sales taxes in order to encourage
regional development. See Government of India's Questionnaire Response,
at 45 (September 29, 2005). These incentives allow privately-owned
(i.e., not 100 percent owned by the GOI) manufacturers, that are in
selected industries and which are located in the designated regions, to
sell goods without charging or collecting state sales taxes. As a
result of these programs, the respondents did not pay sales taxes on
their purchases from suppliers located in certain states. The states
from which Jindal and Polyplex made purchases but did not pay sales
taxes during the POR are the states of: Uttaranchal/Uttar Pradesh (SOU/
SUP), Maharashtra (SOM), West Bengal, Gujurat, Himachal Pradesh, Daman,
Union Territory of Dadra & Nagarhaveli, Karnataka, Delhi, Chattisgarh,
Tamilnadu, Rajasthan, and Punjab. In the previous review, we determined
that the operation of these types of state sales tax programs confers a
countervailable subsidy. See Second PET Film Review - Final Results, at
46490. The financial contribution is the tax revenue foregone by the
respective state governments and the benefit equals the amount of sales
taxes not paid by Jindal and Polyplex. Pursuant to section
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, these programs are also de jure specific
because they are limited to certain regions within the respective
states administering the programs. There is no new information or
evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering
this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to
find this program countervailable.
To calculate the benefit, we first calculated the total sales tax
reduction or exemption the respondents received during the POR by
subtracting taxes paid from the amount that would have been paid on
their purchases during the POR absent these programs. We then divided
these amounts by each respondent's total sales during the POR to
calculate a net countervailable subsidy of 1.02 percent ad valorem for
Jindal and 4.90 percent ad valorem for Polyplex.
8. Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC)
The DFRC scheme was introduced by the GOI in 2001 and is
administered by the Director-General for Foreign Trade (DGFT). The DFRC
is a duty replenishment scheme that is available to exporters for the
subsequent import of inputs used in the manufacture of goods without
payment of basic customs duty. In order to receive a license, which
entitles the recipient to subsequently import, duty free, certain
inputs used in the production of the exported product, as identified in
SION, within the following 24 months, a company must: (1) export
manufactured products listed in the GOI's export policy book and
against which there is a SION for inputs required in the manufacture of
the export product based on quantity; and (2) have realized the payment
of export proceeds in the form of convertible foreign currency. See the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry Directorate General of Foreign Trade
Policy 2004-2009, sect. 4.2 fact. See also page 13 of the Government of
India's Supplemental Questionnaire Response dated April 28, 2006. The
application must be filed within six months of the realization of the
profits. DFRC licenses are transferrable, yet the transferee is limited
to importing only those products and in the quantities specified on the
license.
Although 19 CFR Sec. 351.519(b)(2) provides that the Secretary
will normally consider any benefit from a duty drawback or exemption
program as having been received as of the date of exportation, we
preliminarily find that an exception to this normal practice is
warranted here in view of the unique manner in which this program
operates. Specifically, a company may not submit an application for a
DFRC license until the proceeds of the sale are realized. The license,
once granted, specifies the quantity of the particular inputs that the
bearer may subsequently import duty free. In the case of the DFRC, the
company does not know at the time of export the value of the duty
exemption that it will ultimately receive. It only knows the quantity
of the inputs it will likely be able to import duty free if its
application for a DFRC license is granted. Under the DFRC, the
respondent will only know the total value of the duty exemption when it
subsequently imports the specified products duty free with the license,
or sells it. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the date of
receipt is linked to when the company imports an input duty free with
the certificate. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India, 71 FR 1512 (January 10, 2006) (unchanged in the
final results). In the case in which the company sells the certificate,
the date of sale is when the benefit occurs. See Certain Iron-Metal
Castings From India; Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review 62 FR 32297 (June 13, 1997) (1994 Indian Castings
Final Results).
Neither Jindal nor Polyplex reported imports using a DFRC license
or exports against a DFRC license during the POR. However, Polyplex
reported selling part of its rights under the DFRC Scheme. The
Department has previously determined that the sale of import licenses
confers a countervailable export subsidy. See e.g., 1994 Indian
Castings Final Results. Therefore, in accordance with section
771(5A)(B) of the Act, we determine that Polyplex's partial sale of its
rights under the DFRC Scheme is an export subsidy and that a financial
contribution is provided, under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, in
the form of the revenue foregone. We further find that the sale
conferred a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act in the amount of
the revenue from the sale. There is no new information or evidence of
changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering this finding.
Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to find this
program countervailable.
To calculate the benefit to Polyplex on the partial sale of its
rights under the DFRC Scheme, we identified the proceeds it realized
from the sale during the POR (net of required application fees). We
then calculated the subsidy by dividing the total benefit by the total
[[Page 45044]]
value of Polyplex's export sales during the POR. On this basis, we
determine the net countervailable subsidy for this program to be 0.03
percent ad valorem for Polyplex.
Programs Preliminarily Determined to be Not Used
We preliminarily determine that the producers/exporters of PET film
products did not apply for or receive benefits during the POR under the
programs listed below:
1. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS)
2. Electricity Duty Exemption Scheme - State of Maharashtra
Preliminary Results of Administrative Review
In accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have
calculated individual subsidy for Jindal and Polyplex for the POR. We
preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy
to be 13.15 percent ad valorem for Jindal and 13.19 percent ad valorem
for Polyplex.
If the final results of this review remain the same as these
preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct CBP, within 15
days of publication, to liquidate shipments of PET film from India
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 at 13.15 percent ad valorem
for Jindal and at 13.20 percent ad valorem for Polyplex.
We will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits for Jindal and
Polyplex at the rates indicated above. As discussed above, if we
determine in the final results that the Section 80HHC program has been
terminated, we will remove the rate for that program from the cash
deposit rate for each company. In addition, we will instruct CBP to
continue to collect cash deposit rates for non-reviewed companies at
the most recent rate applicable to the company.
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 351.224(b), the Department will disclose
to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection
with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the
public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 351.309,
interested parties may submit written comments in response to these
preliminary results. Unless otherwise instructed by the Department,
case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 351.309(c)(ii).
Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be
submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case
briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department, pursuant to 19
CFR Sec. 351.309(d). Parties who submit argument in this proceeding
are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the
issues, and (2) a brief summary of their arguments. Parties submitting
case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department
copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be
served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR Sec.
351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 351.310(c), within 30 days
of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may
request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing,
if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of
rebuttal briefs.
Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date
the case briefs, under 19 CFR Sec. 351.309(c)(ii), are due. See 19 CFR
Sec. 351.305(b)(3). The Department will publish the final results of
this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of
arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs.
This administrative review is issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR Sec.
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: July 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-12813 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S