Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Polyethylene Terphthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea, 527-531 [E6-22642]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 3 (Friday, January 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 527-531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22642]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-580-807)


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 
Polyethylene Terphthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216(b), DuPont Teijin Films 
(DuPont), Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. (Mitsubishi), and Toray 
Plastics (America) (Toray), Inc. (collectively DuPont, Mitsubishi, and 
Toray are the Petitioners), filed a request for the Department to 
initiate a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order 
on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from 
Korea. Petitioners allege that Kolon Industries Inc. (Kolon), a Korean 
PET film producer previously revoked from the antidumping duty order, 
has resumed selling subject merchandise at prices below normal value 
(NV). Petitioners explain that Kolon has agreed in writing

[[Page 528]]

to reinstatement in the antidumping duty order if Kolon were found to 
have resumed dumping. Petitioners contend that Kolon has violated its 
agreement not to sell PET film at prices below NV in the United States 
subsequent to Kolon's revocation from the order. Therefore, Petitioners 
request that the Department reinstate the antidumping duty order with 
respect to Kolon. Petitioners further request that the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) immediately order suspension of liquidation 
for all entries of Korean PET film manufactured and exported by Kolon.
    The Department finds the information submitted by Petitioners is 
sufficient to warrant initiation of a changed circumstances review of 
the antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea. In this changed 
circumstances review, we will determine whether Kolon is selling PET 
film at less than NV subsequent to its revocation from the order. If we 
determine in this changed circumstances review that Kolon sold at less 
than NV and resumed dumping PET film, we will direct Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of Korean PET 
film manufactured and exported by Kolon.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475 
and (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 5, 1991, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on PET film from Korea. See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea, 56 FR 25660 (June 5, 
1991) (Order). In June of 1995, in the course of the 1994 - 1995 
administrative review, Kolon requested revocation of the Order with 
respect to its sales of subject merchandise. See Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film from Korea: Preliminary results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, Intent to Revoke the Order in Part, and 
Termination in Part, 61 FR 36032, 36033 (July 9, 1996).
    As part of its request for revocation, on June 28, 1996, Kolon 
agreed to immediate reinstatement in the Order pursuant to 19 CFR 
353.25(b) of the regulations in effect at the time.\1\ See Kolon's June 
30, 1995 letter to the Department requesting revocation. In its 
revocation request, Kolon agreed to immediate reinstatement in the 
Order as long as any producer or reseller is subject to the order, 
should the Department determine that Kolon ``sold polyethylene 
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from Korea at less than foreign 
market value.'' Id. On November 14, 1996, the Department revoked the 
antidumping duty order with respect to Kolon after having determined 
that Kolon sold the merchandise at not less than normal value for a 
period of at least three consecutive years.\2\ See Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of 
Revocation in Part, 61 FR 58374 (November 14, 1996) (Revocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As described more fully below, 19 CFR 353.25(b) has 
subsequently been superceded by 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B). However, 
the language in 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) is largely unchanged from 
19 CFR 353.25(b).
    \2\ The three administrative reviews forming the basis of the 
revocation are the June 1,1992 through May 31, 1993 review; the June 
1, 1993 through May 31, 1994 review; and the June 1, 1994 through 
May 31, 1995 review. The final results of the June 1992 through May 
31, 1993 and the June 1993 through May 31, 1994 administrative 
reviews of Kolon were published on July 5, 1996. See Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation in 
Part 61 FR 35177, July 5, 1996 (second and third administrative 
reviews). The final results of the June 1,1994 through May 31,1995 
administrative review of Kolon were published on November 14, 1996. 
See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice 
of Revocation in Part 61 FR 58374 (November 14, 1996) (fourth 
administrative review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 19, 2006, Petitioners submitted an allegation (accompanied 
by the supporting documentation summarized below) suggesting Kolon has 
resumed dumping PET film in the United States since revocation in part 
from of the Order, and requested a changed circumstances review. See 
Petitioners' July 19, 2006 letter to the Department. Petitioners 
requested that the Department reinstate the Order with respect to 
Kolon's exports to the United States of PET film produced by Kolon. 
Petitioners also requested that the Department immediately order 
suspension of liquidation for all entries of Korean PET film 
manufactured and exported by Kolon. Id.
    On August 4, 2006, Kolon filed a letter contesting Petitioner's 
request for a changed circumstances review. See Kolon's August 4, 2006 
comments. Kolon asserted that section 751(b) of the Act, the statutory 
provision governing changed circumstance reviews, does not cover an 
attempt to reinstate a revoked company into an antidumping duty order. 
Kolon further argued that the reinstatement provisions in effect when 
Kolon was revoked were impeached by Asahi Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. 
v. United States, 727 F. Supp. 625 (CIT 1989) (Asahi). Kolon asserted 
the Department's ``new'' regulations promulgated on May 19, 1997, 
codified at 19 CFR section 351, constituted a failed ``fix'' of the 
Department's invalid reinstatement procedures in response to Asahi. See 
Kolon's August 2006 Comments at 6. Kolon also noted the Department's 
current regulations governing revocation came into effect in 1997, 
which was subsequent to Kolon's revocation. Kolon thus argued that the 
Department cannot rely on these 1997 regulations to remedy the earlier 
flaws identified by the Court in Asahi. Finally, Kolon insisted that 
during the history of the antidumping duty order, the company had never 
itself been found to be dumping. Kolon asserted the 0.60 percent margin 
that the Department determined for Kolon in the first administrative 
review, the sole above de minimis margin found for Kolon, was based 
upon an incorrect method for adjusting for home market value added 
taxes. See Polyethylene Terephthate Film, Sheet and Strip from the 
Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 60 FR 42835 (August 17, 1995), amended by Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea; 
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
5375 (February 12, 1996) (finding a margin of 0.60 percent for Kolon 
for the period November 30, 1990 through May 31, 1992). Kolon noted the 
Department determined de minimis margins for the three subsequent 
reviews, and asserted the margin for the first administrative review 
would also have been de minimis had the Department completed a pending 
remand of this review. Kolon maintained that it agreed to dismiss its 
court action contesting the results of the first administrative review 
``subject to the explicit condition that its agreement to withdraw the 
appeal not be deemed an admission that Kolon had been dumping in the 
first administrative review.'' Id. at 9.
    On August 14, 2006, Petitioners filed rebuttal comments to Kolon's 
August 4, 2006 comments. Petitioners asserted that a changed 
circumstances request is the proper venue for considering whether a 
revoked company should be reinstated within the scope of an order.

[[Page 529]]

Petitioners argued that a reinstatement request is ``a review of a 
final affirmative determination that resulted in an antidumping 
order,'' and that the ``identities of the producers and exporters who 
are subject to the order is part and parcel of that affirmative 
determination.'' Petitioners' August 14, 2006 comments at 3. 
Additionally, Petitioners accused Kolon of ``misinterpreting'' Asahi, 
explaining thatAsahi dealt with the Department's earlier 1980 
regulations. Id. at 5. Petitioners argued that the March 1989 
regulations in effect when Kolon signed its agreement to reinstatement 
fully addressed the concerns the Court expressed in Asahi. Petitioners 
asserted the Court's concerns are addressed because reinstatement will 
only occur if: 1) a producer or reseller is still subject to the order, 
2) if a revoked respondent ``sold the merchandise at less than foreign 
market value'', and 3) where an order has been revoked in part. 
Petitioners thus maintained the revised March 1989 regulations 
applicable when the Department revoked the order with respect to Kolon 
cured the flaws identified in Asahi and are thus valid. Moreover, 
Petitioners insisted that the 1997 regulations adopted by the 
Department ``in connection with the Uruguay Round Agreements Act did 
not alter the revocation and reinstatement provisions of the March 1989 
regulations in any material way.'' Id. at 7. Accordingly, Petitioners 
asserted Kolon's suggestion that the 1997 regulations somehow 
constitute a failed ``fixof the reinstatement procedures is 
misplaced. Finally, Petitioners characterized Kolon's argument 
concerning whether it was ever found to be dumping as a ``red 
herring.'' Id. at 10. Petitioners suggested Kolon's assertion that it 
did not dump PET film during the first administrative review is 
immaterial. Petitioners argued that the controlling issue is that Kolon 
signed a ``certification that contained a reinstatement agreement and 
that the Department revoked the order with respect to the company based 
on that certification.'' Id. Moreover, Petitioners asserted that even 
had the Department concluded that the margin for Kolon for the November 
1, 1990 through March 31, 1992 review was de minimis, the reinstatement 
agreement is still legally binding because Kolon of its own volition 
signed the reinstatement agreement.

Allegation of Resumed Dumping

    On September 20, 2006, we sent a letter to Petitioners requesting 
additional information concerning the U.S., home market and cost data 
provided by Petitioners in their July 19, 2006 submission. Petitioners 
provided their response on October 5, 2006. On November 1, 2006, we 
requested additional information from Petitioners concerning their 
submissions of July 19, 2006 and October 5, 2006. Petitioners submitted 
their response to our second request for additional information on 
November 9, 2006.
    In their July 19, 2006, October 5, 2006 and November 9, 2006 
submissions, Petitioners provided price quotes concerning Kolon's sales 
activity in the U.S. and home market and argued that Kolon had sold PET 
film at less than NV during the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 
2006. Petitioners also provided cost data in these submissions 
suggesting Kolon made home market sales at prices below the cost of 
production (COP). The allegation of resumed dumping upon which the 
Department has based its decision to initiate a changed circumstances 
review is detailed below. The sources of data for the deductions and 
adjustments relating to NV and U.S. price are discussed in greater 
detail in the Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist dated 
concurrently with this notice. Should the need arise to use any of this 
information as facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may 
reexamine the information and revise the margin calculation, if 
appropriate.
1. Export Price (EP)
    Petitioners based their calculation of U.S. price upon price quotes 
they obtained for three types of PET film commonly sold in the United 
States. In their July 19, 2006 submission, Petitioners made a deduction 
to EP for international freight and insurance, U.S. duties, and U.S. 
inland freight. Petitioners also made a downward adjustment to U.S. 
price for slitting costs and material losses. Petitioners provided 
price quotes to end-users. To approximate a price to distributors, 
Petitioners made a deduction from EP to approximate the distributor's 
mark-up. In their November 9, 2006 submission, Petitioners provided 
first-person affidavits from the individuals who collected the price 
quotes referenced in Petitioners' July 19, 2006 submission. Also, 
Petitioners removed the deduction for slitting costs from their 
calculation of EP in their November 9, 2006 calculation of U.S. price.
2. Normal Value
    To calculate NV, Petitioners provided in their July 19, 2006 
submission information on Kolon's pricing of PET film in the Korean 
market. This information was obtained through a Korean manufacturer of 
PET film and covered sales of three types of PET film commonly offered 
for sale by Kolon in the Korean market. The Korean pricing information 
covered the same types of PET film as those serving as the basis for 
EP. In their July 19, 2006 submission, Petitioners made a circumstance 
of sale adjustment for differences in advertising expenses between the 
U.S. and the home market (i.e., Korea). (Petitioners removed this 
adjustment for advertising from their November 9, 2006 calculation of 
NV.) In their November 9, 2006 letter, Petitioners provided first-
person affidavits from the individuals who collected the pricing 
information. Petitioners made adjustments to NV for differences in U.S. 
and Korean credit expenses and for packing expenses.
3. Sales Below Cost of Production and Constructed Value
    Petitioners also alleged that Kolon's sales of PET film in the home 
market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department 
conduct a sales-below-cost investigation. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) 
of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacture (COM), selling, 
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and financial and packing 
expenses. Based upon a comparison of the gross price of the foreign 
like product in the home market to the COP of the product, we find 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a 
sales-below-cost investigation.
    Because Petitioners alleged that Kolon sold PET film below the COP 
in the home market, Petitioners provided a comparison of EP to 
constructed value (CV). Petitioners based CV upon the sum of COM, SG&A 
expenses, financial expenses, profit and packing.
4. Alleged Margins of Dumping
    Based upon the information summarized above, Petitioners suggest 
Kolon is dumping the subject merchandise. Depending upon the type of 
PET film, petitioners estimate margins of 29 to 62 percent for price to 
price comparisons, and margins of 43 to 72 percent for comparisons of 
EP to CV.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of all gauges of raw, 
pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 
strip,

[[Page 530]]

whether extruded or coextruded. The films excluded from this review are 
metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of 
their surfaces modified by the application of a performance enhancing 
resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches (0.254 
micrometers) thick.
    PET film is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00.00. The HTS subheading is provided for 
convenience and for customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.
    This changed circumstances review covers Kolon and the period July 
1, 2005 through June 30, 2006.

Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review

    We find Petitioners have provided sufficient evidence to initiate a 
changed circumstances review in which we will determine whether Kolon 
should be reinstated within the order of PET film from Korea. Kolon has 
argued that in Asahi the CIT ruled the Department is not permitted by 
the statute to reinstate a revoked order without a new injury finding 
by the International Trade Commission (the Commission). Kolon also 
contends that under Asahi the Department has no authority to reinstate 
a revoked order, and has further argued that the statutory provision 
governing changed circumstance reviews does not cover an attempt to 
reinstate a revoked company into an antidumping duty order. Finally, 
Kolon insists it has never been found by the Department to be dumping. 
For the reasons, outlined below, we disagree with Kolon.
    Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct 
a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request ``from an 
interested party for review of an antidumping duty order which shows 
changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order.'' 
Petitioners' documented allegation that Kolon has resumed dumping PET 
film subsequent to its revocation from the order is an appropriate 
basis for a changed circumstances review.
    The Department's authority to reinstate a revoked company into an 
antidumping duty order derives from sections 751(b) and (d) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.222(b) and (e). In particular, the Department's 
authority to partially revoke an order is expressed in section 751(d) 
of the Act. The statute, however, provides no detailed description of 
the criteria, procedures or conditions relating to the Department's 
exercise of this authority. Accordingly, the Department has issued 
regulations setting forth in detail how the Department will exercise 
the authority granted to it under the statute. In particular, the 
Department has reasonably interpreted the authority to partially revoke 
the antidumping duty order with respect to a particular company it 
finds to be no longer dumping to include authority to impose a 
condition that the partial revocation may be withdrawn (i.e., the 
company may be reinstated) if dumping is resumed. To interpret the 
statute otherwise would permit the Department to abdicate its 
responsibility to ensure that injurious dumping is remedied by 
imposition of offsetting antidumping duties. Therefore, our 
determination to conduct this changed circumstances review to determine 
whether Kolon should be reinstated under the Order is supported by the 
statute and regulations. Additionally, as noted by both Kolon and the 
petitioner, conducting a changed circumstances review pursuant to 
section 751(b) of the Act to reinstate a company previously revoked 
from an antidumping duty order is consistent with the agency's 
practice. See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Reinstatement of 
the Antidumping Order 70 FR 16218, March 30, 2005.
    Moreover, we find Kolon's reliance on Asahi to support its 
assertion that the Department lacks legal authority to reinstate a 
company in an antidumping duty order is misplaced. The Court in Asahi 
was reviewing an earlier regulation (19 CFR 353.54(e)(1988)), which 
provided:
    Before the Secretary may tentatively revoke a Finding or an Order 
or terminate a suspended investigation pursuant to paragraph (a) of 
this section, the parties who are subject to the revocation or the 
termination must agree in writing to an immediate suspension of 
liquidation and reinstatement of the Finding or Order or continuation 
of the investigation, as appropriate, if circumstances which indicate 
that the merchandise thereafter imported into the United States is 
being sold at less than fair value. Opportunity for interested parties 
to present views with respect to the tentative revocation will be 
provided.
    19 CFR 353.54(e)(1988).
    The Court in Asahi acknowledged that the purpose of the 1988 
regulation was to discourage the resumption of dumping after 
revocation, and that there were policy concerns about having to 
undertake an entirely new investigation. See Asahi, 727 F. Supp. at 
628. The Court found the old regulation was so ambiguous as to make the 
standard of reinstatement conjectural. Id. However, the Court did not 
address whether reinstatement could be accomplished through an 
amendment to 19 CFR 353.54, or through a new regulatory provision. Id.
    We find that our current regulation governing reinstatement (as did 
the earlier 1989 regulation in effect at the time of Kolon's 
revocation) addresses the concerns enumerated by the Court in Asahi. 
This regulation places exporters and producers which the Department has 
previously found to be dumping, on notice that they are subject to 
immediate reinstatement once they are revoked from an order, if the 
Secretary later concludes they have resumed dumping. 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) and (e). Indeed, revoked companies agree in writing 
to immediate reinstatement upon a finding of resumed dumping. 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) and 351.222(e)(1). The present regulation makes 
clear that reinstatement can only occur as long as any exporter or 
producer is subject to the order. Thus, the Commission's determination 
that subject merchandise sold at less than NV is injurious to the 
domestic industry continues to support application of antidumping 
duties to subject merchandise sold at less than NV.
    Moreover, any guidance provided by Asahi must be read in light of 
general principles of administrative law. One such basic principle of 
administrative law is that an administering agency must abide by its 
own rules to safeguard expectations. Thus, section 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) 
of the Department's regulations suggests that a partial revocation 
determination is not a dispositive administrative pronouncement. Such a 
conclusion logically follows from the terms of the regulation, which 
directs the Department to rescind its partial revocation determination 
and to reinstate the revoked company under the existing antidumping 
duty order. In the instant case, the order on PET film from Korea has 
not been revoked. The Department's partial revocation with respect to 
Kolon was expressly conditioned upon the possibility of reinstatement 
should dumping resume. The Department's regulation is reasonable 
because it imposes a reasonable condition upon partial revocation which 
is limited to circumstances under which the statute authorizes the 
Department to impose antidumping duties to remedy injurious

[[Page 531]]

dumping of subject merchandise. Therefore, Asahi lends no support to 
Kolon's arguments.
    Kolon's claim that the Department's reinstatement regulation has no 
statutory authority is without merit. Specifically, Kolon implies that 
the Act requires an injury determination by the Commission prior to the 
imposition of an order, and that, because the order on PET film from 
Korea has been partially revoked as to Kolon, a new petition must be 
filed with respect to Kolon, and separate affirmative determinations 
must be made by the Commission and the Department concerning injury and 
dumping. We find this argument unavailing. In the instant case, the 
Department made its final determination of dumping and the Commission 
made its final injury determination. See Order. Additionally, the 
antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea remains in place. 
Therefore, the Commission has found that dumping of PET film from Korea 
causes material injury to the domestic industry; that finding was 
undisturbed by the partial revocation of Kolon. Further, that 
revocation was premised on the absence of dumping rather than the 
absence of injury and was expressly conditioned on the possibility of 
reinstatement should dumping resume.
    The partial revocation of the order with respect to Kolon did not 
nullify the validity of the underlying injury and less than fair value 
determinations that resulted in the issuance of an antidumping duty 
order which remains in force, particularly when the partial revocation 
is the result of behavior subsequent to those earlier determinations. 
The Commission's injury determination, furthermore, does not examine 
the injury caused by discrete companies, but rather the injury caused 
by all dumped exports originating in a particular exporting country. 
Even if one or more exporters in that country may have been revoked 
from the order on the basis of absence of dumping, all dumped exports 
of subject merchandise from that country continue to cause or threaten 
material injury, pursuant to the Commission's affirmative injury 
determination. Thus, unless all exporters are revoked from the order, 
the order continues to exist, as does the potential for reinstatement. 
Kolon itself agreed to such a reinstatement as a condition of its 
partial revocation, if the Department were to conclude that it has sold 
the merchandise at below NV. Thus, a new injury finding specific to 
Kolon is neither necessary nor appropriate for reinstatement pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.222(h)(2)(i)(B).
    In requesting revocation, Kolon filed a certification from a 
company official pursuant to the Department's regulations that it agree 
to the immediate reinstatement of the order, so long as any exporter or 
producer is subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes that it, 
subsequent to the revocation, sold PET film at less than NV. See 
Revocation. Several other companies remain subject to the antidumping 
duty order on PET film from Korea. The information submitted by 
Petitioners in their letters of July 19, 2006, September 20, 2006, and 
November 9, 2006 concerning Kolon's COP, and home market and U.S. sales 
activity, suggest Kolon might have resumed dumping subsequent to 
Kolon's revocation from the order. Petitioners allege underselling of 
PET film in the United States at prices between 29 percent and 72 
percent below NV during the July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006 period. 
Accordingly, the Department has properly determined to initiate a 
changed circumstances review to determine whether to reinstate Kolon in 
the order.
    Moreover, Kolon's claim that it was never found by the Department 
to be dumping is also misplaced. First, Kolon dropped its court 
challenge to the first administrative review. Thus, Kolon's argument 
that the Department would have calculated a de minimis margin for Kolon 
for the first administrative review is speculation unsubstantiated by 
the record. More importantly, whether Kolon was or was not found to be 
dumping during the first administrative review is irrelevant to our 
basis for initiating a changed circumstances review. Petitioners have 
provided credible evidence that Kolon has resumed selling subject 
merchandise at prices below NV subsequent to its revocation from the 
Order. Moreover, Kolon voluntarily agreed to reinstatement in the order 
upon evidence that it had resumed dumping in the United States, 
provided that other companies remain subject to the Order. Presently, 
several companies remain subject to the Order. The standard for 
initiation of a changed circumstances review under section 751(b) of 
the Act is whether the request shows changed circumstances that warrant 
review. The Department finds that the Petitioners' changed 
circumstances review request, which suggests above de minimis dumping 
margins for Kolon, satisfies that standard.
    Based on the foregoing, we find that Petitioners have provided 
sufficient evidence to initiate a changed circumstances review in which 
we will determine whether Kolon should be reinstated within the order 
of PET film from Korea. However, as the Department has yet to make a 
finding that Kolon did, in fact, sell subject merchandise at below NV, 
we will not order any border measures at this time.
    The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
preliminary results of changed circumstances review in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the 
Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to 
comment on the preliminary results. The Department will issue its final 
results of review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 
CFR 351.216(e).
    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b) of the Department's 
regulations.

    Dated: December 27, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-22642 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S