Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 57297-57298 [E7-19820]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Notices
properly suspended for antidumping
duties.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Initiation of New Shipper Reviews
[A–533–824, A–583–837]
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the
Department finds that South Vina and
Binh An’s requests meet the threshold
requirements for initiation of a new
shipper review for the shipment of
certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam
they produced and exported.
The POR for the two new shipper
reviews is August 1, 2006, through July
31, 2007. See 19 CFR
351.214(g)(1)(ii)(A). The Department
intends to issue the preliminary results
of these reviews no later than 180 days
from the date of initiation, and final
results of these reviews no later than
270 days from the date of initiation. See
section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
On August 17, 2006, the Pension
Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was
signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4
temporarily suspends the authority of
the Department to instruct CBP to
collect a bond or other security in lieu
of a cash deposit in new shipper
reviews. Therefore, the posting of a
bond under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e) in lieu
of a cash deposit is not available in this
case. Importers of subject merchandise
manufactured and exported by South
Vina and/or Binh An must continue to
pay a cash deposit of estimated
antidumping duties on each entry of
subject merchandise at the current
Vietnam–wide rate of 63.88 percent.
Interested parties requiring access to
proprietary information in this new
shipper review should submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and
351.306. This initiation and notice are
published in accordance with section
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Dated: September 26, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–19826 Filed 10–5–07; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From India and
Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited
Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping
Duty Orders
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 1, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register the notice of initiation of the
five-year sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,
and strip (PET Film) from India and
Taiwan pursuant to section 751(c) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).1 As a result of adequate
substantive response on filed on behalf
of domestic interested parties and
inadequate response from respondent
interested parties, the Department has
conducted expedited sunset reviews for
these orders pursuant to section
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(c). As a result of this
sunset review, the Department finds that
revocation of the antidumping duty
orders would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping
at the levels indicated in the ‘‘Final
Results of Review’’ section of this
notice.
DATES: Effective Date: October 9, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martha Douthit or Dana Mermelstein,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5050 and (202)
482–1391, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On June 1, 2007, the Department
initiated sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on PET Film
from India and Taiwan, pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Act. See Notice of
Initiation. Within the deadline specified
in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the
Department’s regulations, the
Department received notices of intent to
participate from domestic interested
parties DuPont Teijin Films (DuPont),
Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America
1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews,
72 FR 30544 (June 1, 2007) (Notice of Initiation).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 Oct 05, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57297
(MFA), SKC, Inc. (SKC), and Toray
Plastics (America), Inc. (TPA)
(collectively, the PET Film Group).
DuPont, MFA, and TPA were the
petitioners in the original investigation.
SKC was a supporter of the petition in
the original investigation. The PET Film
Group stated that they are not related to
any Indian or Taiwanese producers or
exporters of the subject merchandise. In
addition, members of the PET Film
Group noted that they are not importers
of the subject merchandise and they are
not related to any importer of the
subject merchandise. The PET Film
Group claimed interested party status
under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as
U.S. producers of a domestic like
product.
On July 2, 2007, the Department
received substantive responses from the
PET Film Group within the deadline
specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We
did not receive responses from
respondent interested parties in this
proceeding. As such, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(c)(1), the
Department notified the ITC that
respondent interested parties’ responses
were inadequate. See Letter from Susan
Kuhbach, Senior Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, to Robert Carpenter,
Director, Office of Investigations, ITC,
dated July 23, 2007. In accordance with
section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, the
Department has conducted an expedited
review of these orders.
Scope of the Orders
India and Taiwan
The products covered by these orders
are all gauges of raw, pretested, or
primed PET film, whether extruded or
coextruded. Excluded are metallized
films and other finished films that have
had at least one of their surfaces
modified by the application of a
performance-enhancing resinous or
inorganic layer more than 0.00001
inches thick. Imports of PET film were
currently classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) under item number
3920.62.00. Effective July 1, 2003, the
HTSUS subheading 3920.62.00.00 was
divided into 3920.62.00.10 (metallized
PET film) and 3920.62.00.90 (nonmetallized PET film). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of these
orders is dispositive. Since these orders
were published, there was one scope
determination for PET Film from India,
dated August 25, 2003. In this
determination, requested by
International Packaging Films, Inc., the
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
57298
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Notices
Department determined that tracing and
drafting film is outside of the scope of
the order on PET Film from India.2
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in these reviews are
addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset
Reviews of the Antidumping Duty
Orders on PET Film from India and
Taiwan; Final Results from Stephen J.
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, to David M.
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated concurrently
with this notice, and which is hereby
adopted by this notice (Decision
Memorandum). The issues discussed in
the Decision Memorandum include the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence
of dumping and the magnitude of the
margins likely to prevail if these orders
were to be revoked. Parties can find a
complete discussion of all issues raised
in these reviews and the corresponding
recommendations in this public
memorandum which is on file in room
B–099 of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision Memo
are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
The Department has determined that
revocation of the antidumping duty
orders on PET Film from India and
Taiwan would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping.
Further, the Department determines that
the rates likely to prevail are as follows:
Manufacturers/exporters/
producers
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
India
Ester ..................................
Polyplex Corporation Limited .................................
Weighted average margin
(percent)
17:27 Oct 05, 2007
Weighted average margin
(percent)
In accordance with section 752(c)(3)
of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the
final results of these expedited sunset
reviews.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders
(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of
proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305. Timely notification of the
return or destruction of APO materials
or conversion to judicial protective
orders is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and terms
of an APO is a violation which is subject
to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(c), 752, and 777 of the Act.
Dated: October 1, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–19820 Filed 10–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
3 5.71
4 0.01
2 See Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 24533 (May
10, 2005).
3 In the investigation, we found Ester’s rate to be
24.14 percent, which was adjusted to 5.71 percent
to take into account the export subsidy rate found
in the companion countervailing duty investigation.
4 In the investigation, we found Polyplex’s rate to
be 10.3 percent, which was adjusted to 0.01 percent
to take into account the export subsidy rate found
in the companion countervailing duty investigation,
and we excluded Polyplex from the antidumping
order. Polyplex’s exclusion was subsequently
reversed by a decision of the Court of International
Trade. See Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP, Mitsubishi
Polyester Film of America, LLC, and Toray Plastics
(America), Inc. v. United States and Polyplex
Corporation Limited, USCIT Slip Op. 04–70 (June
18, 2004); Notice of Decision of the Court of
International Trade: Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 69 FR 40352 (July
2, 2004).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
subject merchandise, Joint Stock
Company Liepajas Metalurgs (LM). The
period of review (POR) is September 1,
2005, through August 31, 2006. We
5 5.71
All Others ..........................
provided interested parties with an
Taiwan
opportunity to comment on the
Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd ..........................
2.49 preliminary results of this review, but
received no comments. The final results
Shinkong Synthetic Fibers
Corporation ....................
2.05 do not differ from the preliminary
All Others .......................
2.40 results of this review. We will instruct
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
to assess importer-specific antidumping
duties on the subject merchandise
International Trade Commission (ITC)
exported by LM.
Notification
Manufacturers/exporters/
producers
Jkt 214001
International Trade Administration
[A–449–804]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Latvia
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 4, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of its fifth administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on steel
concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from
Latvia. This review covers sales of rebar
with respect to one producer of the
AGENCY:
5 The ‘‘all others’’ rate established in the
investigation was based on Ester’s rate.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DATES:
Effective Date: October 9, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Layton at (202) 482–0371; AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the preliminary results of this
review (see Notice of Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Latvia, 72 FR
30773 (June 4, 2007) (‘‘Preliminary
Results’’)), the Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) invited interested
parties to comment on the Preliminary
Results. No comments were received.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in
straight lengths, currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) under item
numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050,
7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000,
7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, or any
other tariff item number. Specifically
excluded are plain rounds (i.e., nondeformed or smooth bars) and rebar that
has been further processed through
bending or coating. HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and
customs purposes. The written
description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Final Results of Review
These final results remain unchanged
from the Preliminary Results. We
provided an opportunity for parties to
comment on our Preliminary Results
and received no comments.
Therefore, we find that the following
percentage weighted-average margin
exists for the period of September 1,
2005, through August 31, 2006:
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57297-57298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19820]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-824, A-583-837]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India and
Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the
Antidumping Duty Orders
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 1, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of the five-
year sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on polyethylene
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from India and Taiwan
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).\1\ As a result of adequate substantive response on filed on
behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate response from
respondent interested parties, the Department has conducted expedited
sunset reviews for these orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(c). As a result of this sunset review,
the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the
levels indicated in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Initiation of Five-Year (``Sunset'') Reviews, 72 FR
30544 (June 1, 2007) (Notice of Initiation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: October 9, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit or Dana Mermelstein,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5050 and (202)
482-1391, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 1, 2007, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on PET Film from India and Taiwan, pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Act. See Notice of Initiation. Within the
deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's
regulations, the Department received notices of intent to participate
from domestic interested parties DuPont Teijin Films (DuPont),
Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America (MFA), SKC, Inc. (SKC), and Toray
Plastics (America), Inc. (TPA) (collectively, the PET Film Group).
DuPont, MFA, and TPA were the petitioners in the original
investigation. SKC was a supporter of the petition in the original
investigation. The PET Film Group stated that they are not related to
any Indian or Taiwanese producers or exporters of the subject
merchandise. In addition, members of the PET Film Group noted that they
are not importers of the subject merchandise and they are not related
to any importer of the subject merchandise. The PET Film Group claimed
interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S.
producers of a domestic like product.
On July 2, 2007, the Department received substantive responses from
the PET Film Group within the deadline specified in 19 CFR
351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive responses from respondent
interested parties in this proceeding. As such, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(c)(1), the Department notified the ITC that
respondent interested parties' responses were inadequate. See Letter
from Susan Kuhbach, Senior Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1,
Import Administration, to Robert Carpenter, Director, Office of
Investigations, ITC, dated July 23, 2007. In accordance with section
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, the Department has conducted an expedited
review of these orders.
Scope of the Orders
India and Taiwan
The products covered by these orders are all gauges of raw,
pretested, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded
are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least
one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-
enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick.
Imports of PET film were currently classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item number
3920.62.00. Effective July 1, 2003, the HTSUS subheading 3920.62.00.00
was divided into 3920.62.00.10 (metallized PET film) and 3920.62.00.90
(non-metallized PET film). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope of these orders is dispositive. Since these orders were
published, there was one scope determination for PET Film from India,
dated August 25, 2003. In this determination, requested by
International Packaging Films, Inc., the
[[Page 57298]]
Department determined that tracing and drafting film is outside of the
scope of the order on PET Film from India.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping
Duty Orders on PET Film from India and Taiwan; Final Results from
Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated concurrently with this notice, and which is
hereby adopted by this notice (Decision Memorandum). The issues
discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins
likely to prevail if these orders were to be revoked. Parties can find
a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on
file in room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on
the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic
version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
The Department has determined that revocation of the antidumping
duty orders on PET Film from India and Taiwan would be likely to lead
to continuation or recurrence of dumping. Further, the Department
determines that the rates likely to prevail are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the investigation, we found Ester's rate to be 24.14
percent, which was adjusted to 5.71 percent to take into account the
export subsidy rate found in the companion countervailing duty
investigation.
\4\ In the investigation, we found Polyplex's rate to be 10.3
percent, which was adjusted to 0.01 percent to take into account the
export subsidy rate found in the companion countervailing duty
investigation, and we excluded Polyplex from the antidumping order.
Polyplex's exclusion was subsequently reversed by a decision of the
Court of International Trade. See Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP,
Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, LLC, and Toray Plastics
(America), Inc. v. United States and Polyplex Corporation Limited,
USCIT Slip Op. 04-70 (June 18, 2004); Notice of Decision of the
Court of International Trade: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from India, 69 FR 40352 (July 2, 2004).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted
Manufacturers/exporters/ producers average margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
India
Ester................................................. \3\ 5.71
Polyplex Corporation Limited.......................... \4\ 0.01
All Others............................................ \5\ 5.71
Taiwan
Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd...................... 2.49
Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation................. 2.05
All Others.......................................... 2.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The ``all others'' rate established in the investigation was
based on Ester's rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification
In accordance with section 752(c)(3) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of the final results of these expedited sunset reviews.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure
to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which
is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777 of the Act.
Dated: October 1, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-19820 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
