Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, 24560-24565 [E8-9846]
Download as PDF
24560
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 87 / Monday, May 5, 2008 / Notices
Verification
Combination Rates
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the
Act, we intend to verify the information
upon which we will rely in making our
final determination.
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. See
Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 60806. This
practice is described in Policy Bulletin
05.1, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/.
Preliminary Determination
The weighted–average dumping margins
are as follows:
PET FILM FROM THE PRC
Exporter
Producer
DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd. ..................................................................
DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd. ..................................................................
Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. .............................................................
Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd. ..............................................
Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd. ........................................
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. ...........................................................................
Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd. ........................................................................
Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd. ........................................................................
PRC–wide (including Jiangyin Jinzhongda New Material Co., Ltd.) .........
DuPont Hongji Films Foshan Co. Ltd.
DuPont Teijin Hongji Films Ningbo Co., Ltd.
Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd.
Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd.
Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd.
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd.
Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Xishu Electric Material Co., Ltd.
............................................................................................
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of
the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend
liquidation of all entries of PET Film
from the PRC as described in the ‘‘Scope
of Investigation’’ section, entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption from DTFC, Fuwei Films,
Green Packing, Tianjin Wanhua,
Sichuan Dongfang, Shanghai Uchem,
and the PRC–wide entity on or after the
date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. We will instruct CBP
to require a cash deposit or the posting
of a bond equal to the weighted–average
amount by which the normal value
exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Weighted–
Average
Margin
International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of our
preliminary affirmative determination of
sales at less than fair value. Section
735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to
make its final determination as to
whether the domestic industry in the
United States is materially injured, or
threatened with material injury, by
reason of imports of PET Film, or sales
(or the likelihood of sales) for
importation, of the subject merchandise
within 45 days of our final
determination.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments
may be submitted to the Assistant
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 May 02, 2008
Jkt 214001
Secretary for Import Administration no
later than seven days after the date of
the final verification report is issued in
this proceeding and rebuttal briefs
limited to issues raised in case briefs no
later than five days after the deadline
date for case briefs (see 19 CFR
351.309(c)(i) and (d)). A list of
authorities used and an executive
summary of issues should accompany
any briefs submitted to the Department.
This summary should be limited to five
pages total, including footnotes.
In accordance with section 774 of the
Act, and if requested, we will hold a
public hearing, to afford interested
parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal
briefs. If a request for a hearing is made,
we intend to hold the hearing shortly
after the deadline of submission of
rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a
time and location to be determined.
Parties should confirm by telephone the
date, time, and location of the hearing
two days before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30
days after the date of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests
should contain the party’s name,
address, and telephone number, the
number of participants, and a list of the
issues to be discussed. At the hearing,
each party may make an affirmative
presentation only on issues raised in
that party’s case brief and may make
rebuttal presentations only on
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46.82%
46.82%
46.82%
46.82%
46.82%
46.82%
46.82%
46.82%
76.72%
arguments included in that party’s
rebuttal brief.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 25, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–9845 Filed 5–2–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–351–841)
Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from Brazil
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Commerce (the Department)
preliminarily determines that
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,
and strip (PET film) from Brazil is being,
or is likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value (LTFV), as
provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
The estimated margins of sales at LTFV
are listed in the ‘‘Suspension of
Liquidation’’ section of this notice.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on this preliminary
determination. Accordingly, we will
make our final determination not later
than 75 days after the signature date of
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 87 / Monday, May 5, 2008 / Notices
the preliminary determination, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.210.
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
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4475, or (202)
482–0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Background:
On October 26, 2007, the Department
initiated the antidumping duty
investigation of PET film from Brazil.
See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, the
People’s Republic of China, Thailand,
and the United Arab Emirates: Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 72
FR 60801 (October 26, 2007) (Initiation
Notice). The petitioners in this
investigation are DuPont Teijin Films,
Mitsubishi Polyester Film Inc., SKC Inc,
and Toray Plastics (America) Inc.
On November 13, 2007, the United
States International Trade Commission
(the Commission) preliminarily
determined there is a reasonable
indication that imports of PET film from
Brazil, the People’s Republic of China,
Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates
are materially injuring the U.S. industry
and notified the Department of its
findings. See Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
From Brazil, China, Thailand, and the
United Arab Emirates Case Number.
731–TA–1131–1134 (Preliminary), 72 FR
67756, (November 30, 2007).
On November 15, 2007, Avery
Dennison Fasson Roll North America
(Avery Dennison) requested that the
Department find that ‘‘release liner,’’ a
PET film product treated on one or both
sides with a specially–cured silicon
coating of less than 0.00001 inches, is
outside the scope of the investigations.
Petitioners objected to Avery Dennison’s
request on November 29, 2007;
petitioners re–submitted their objections
with amended bracketing on December
14, 2007, and the document was
accepted for the record on that date.
Petitioners insist release liner is ‘‘PET
film that clearly falls within the scope
of these investigations.’’ See Petitioners’
December 14, 2007 submission at 1 and
2. Avery Dennison responded to
petitioners comments on February 1,
2008.
In accordance with section 731(1) of
the Tariff Act, we have determined that
the descriptions of the merchandise
contained in the petition and the Notice
of Initiation support the conclusion that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 May 02, 2008
Jkt 214001
release film is of the same class or kind
of merchandise covered by the proposed
antidumping order. See also generally
19 CFR 351.225(k)(1). The product
descriptions in the petition and in the
Department’s Notice of Initiation
specifically exclude finished films with
a ‘‘performance enhancing resinous or
inorganic layer of more than 0.00001
inches thick.’’ There is nothing in the
proposed scope language of either the
petition or our Notice of Initiation that
excludes products bearing a
performance enhancing resinous or
inorganic layer of less than 0.00001
inches from the scope of the order.
Moreover, there is no language in either
the proposed scope language of the
petition or our Notice of Initiation that
limits the scope of the investigation to
‘‘PET base film’’ (i.e., PET film prior to
the application of in–line coatings), as
Avery Dennison suggests. In addition,
release liner shares the chemical
composition of PET film described in
the proposed scope of the petition and
Notice of Initiation.
One of the purposes of a less than fair
value investigation is to decide the class
or kind of merchandise specifically
covered by the scope of the ultimate
antidumping order. Based upon the
foregoing, we have preliminarily
determined that release film is of the
same class or kind of merchandise
covered by the scope of the AD
investigation of PET film from Brazil.
Thus, we have determined that release
film is covered by the scope of the AD
investigation of PET film from Brazil.
For a full discussion of this issue see the
memorandum titled ‘‘Antidumping
Duty Investigations on Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
(PET film) from Brazil, the People’s
Republic of China, Thailand, and the
United Arab Emirates,’’ from Michael J.
Heaney, Senior Case Analyst, to
Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration,
dated April 25, 2008, and issued
concurrently with this notice.
On January 23, 2008, the petitioners
requested the Department postpone the
preliminary determination by 50 days.
The Department published a notice of
postponement on February 11, 2008,
which set the new deadline for the
preliminary determination at April 25,
2008. See Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, the
People’s Republic of China, Thailand,
and the United Arab Emirates:
Postponement of Preliminary
Determination of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 73 FR 7710, (February
11, 2008).
In their September 28, 2007 petition,
Petitioners identified one respondent,
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24561
Terphane Ltda. (Brazil) (Terphane). See
Antidumping Petition: Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from Brazil, People’s Republic of China,
Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates
at 11. See also, October 18, 2007,
Initiation Checklist: Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from Brazil (Initiation Checklist) at 2.
We issued our antidumping
questionnaire to Terphane on November
21, 2007. Terphane submitted its section
A response on December 21, 2007. The
Department received Terphane’s
response to sections B, C, D, and E of
our questionnaire on January 15, 2008.
Our analysis of Terphane’s section A, B,
C, D, and E responses indicated
numerous areas requiring additional
information and clarification from
Terphane. Those areas which required
additional information and clarification
from Terphane included: 1) whether
affiliated parties provided any of the
sales or production inputs used in the
sale of PET film, 2) how the United
States and home market sales totals
shown in Terphane’s response relate
and reconcile to Terphane’s financial
statements, 3) the allocation method
used by Terphane to derive U.S. ocean
freight, warehousing, and U.S. inland
freight charges, and 4) how Terphane
derived the cost of production (COP)
and constructed value (CV) data
reported in its section D response.
Petitioners provided comments on
Terphane’s response on February 19,
2008. On February 13, 2008, we sent a
supplemental questionnaire to Terphane
requesting additional information
concerning its January 15, 2008 Section
D Response. See the Department’s
February 13, 2008, letter to Terphane
Ltda. (February 13 letter). On February
29, 2008, we issued a supplemental
questionnaire covering Terphane’s
Section A, B, and C responses. See
February 29, 2008 letter to Terphane
Ltda., (February 29, 2008 letter).
However, on March 26, 2008, Terphane
submitted a letter indicating that it was
withdrawing from the investigation, and
thus would no longer participate or
cooperate with the Department’s request
for information.
As a result, the home market and U.S.
sales and cost data submitted by
Terphane are incomplete, and as noted
above, there are still significant
deficiencies in Terphane’s Section A, B,
C, D and E responses that require
additional information and/or
clarification. In addition, we cannot
verify Terphane’s responses. Thus,
because we are unable to trust the
reliability of the information conveyed
in Terphane’s questionnaire responses,
Terphane’s questionnaire responses
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
24562
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 87 / Monday, May 5, 2008 / Notices
cannot serve as the basis of Terphane’s
margin calculation. See Section below
entitled, ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise
Available.’’
Period of Investigation:
The POI is July 1, 2006, to June 30,
2007.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Scope of Investigation:
The products covered in this
investigation are all gauges of raw, pre–
treated, or primed PET film, whether
extruded or co–extruded. Excluded are
metalized 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. Also, excluded is Roller
transport cleaning film which has at
least one of its surfaces modified by
application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR
latex. Tracing and drafting film is also
excluded. PET film is classifiable under
subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and Customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Model Match:
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Tariff Act, all products produced by
the respondent covered by the
description in the Scope of Investigation
section, above, and sold in Brazil during
the POI are considered to be foreign like
products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales.
The Department set aside a period of
time for parties to raise issues regarding
model match and encouraged all parties
to submit comments concerning our
model–match procedures. See October
30, 2008, letter from Robert James to All
Interested Parties. We received model–
match comments from petitioners on
November 7, 2007. In their comments,
petitioners suggested that we employ
each of the model match criteria used in
the Preliminary Results of the Changed
Circumstances Review of PET film from
Korea. See, Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic
of Korea; Preliminary Results of
Changed Circumstances Review and
Intent to Reinstate Kolon Industries Inc.
in the Antidumping Order, 72 FR 56048
(October 2, 2007) Korean CC Review.
The model–match criteria employed in
the Korean CC Review were: 1)
specification, 2) thickness, 3) surface
treatment, and 4) grade. Id., at 56049. In
addition to 1) specification, 2)
thickness, 3) surface treatment, and 4)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 May 02, 2008
Jkt 214001
grade. In addition, petitioners suggested
that we also consider a fifth criteron:
whether the product has been extruded.
See Petitioners November 7, 2007, letter
at 1–2. For purposes of this preliminary
determination, the Department has
determined that it is unnecessary to
change the proposed product
characteristics and model matching
methodology with regard to coextrusion.
For purposes of distinguishing subject
merchandise, the Department will take
into account the grade of PET film, as
advocated by petitioners in their
submission.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available:
For the reasons discussed below, we
determine the use of facts available is
appropriate for the preliminary
determination with respect to Terpane.
As noted in the Supplementary
Information section above, Terpahne
has withdrawn from the proceeding.
Additionally, Terphane failed to
respond to our supplemental
questionnaires of February 13, 2008 and
February 29, 2008. As such, Terphane
has withheld information necessary to
calculate a margin for Terphane.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act
provides that if an interested party
withholds information requested by the
administering authority, fails to provide
such information by the deadlines for
submission of the information and in
the form or manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782,
significantly impedes a proceeding
under this title, or provides such
information but the information cannot
be verified as provided in 782(i), the
administering authority shall use,
subject to section 782(d) of the Tariff
Act, facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(d) of the Tariff Act provides
that if the administering authority
determines a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, the administering authority
shall promptly inform the responding
party and provide an opportunity to
remedy the deficient submission.
Section 782(e) of the Tariff Act states
further the Department shall not decline
to consider submitted information if all
of the following requirements are met:
(1) the information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information
can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as
a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination; (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it
acted to the best of its ability; and (5)
the information can be used without
undue difficulties.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In this case, Terphane has withdrawn
from the proceeding, and, thus, has
determined not to participate further or
to cooperate with the Department’s
requests for information. Moreover, as
noted previously, the U.S., home
market, and cost information provided
by Terphane in its December 21, 2007,
Section A response and its January 15,
2008, Section B, C, D, and E responses
is substantially deficient. Terphane also
failed to provide requested information
by the established deadlines.
Additionally, Terphane’s decision to
withdraw from this investigation has
precluded the Department from
conducting the verification of
Terphane’s questionnaire responses
required by Section 782(i)(1) of the Act,
and has demonstrated its failure to act
to the best of its ability in responding to
our requests for information.
Application of Adverse Inferences for
Facts Available
Section 776(b) of the Act stipulates
that if the Department finds an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information, the
Department may use an inference
adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from the facts otherwise
available. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,
70 FR 54023, 54025–26 (September 13,
2005); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Final Negative Critical
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR
55792, 55794–96 (August 30, 2002). It is
the Department’s practice to apply
adverse inferences to ensure that the
party does not obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than if it
had cooperated fully. See, e.g., Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea: Final
Results of the 2005–2006 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
69663 (December 10, 2007).
Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of
bad faith on the part of a respondent is
not required before the Department may
make an adverse inference.’’ See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340
(May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel
Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373,
1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon); and
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from
Korea: Final Results of the 2005-2006
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 69663 (December 10,
2007).
Although the Department provided
Terphane with notice informing it of the
consequences of its failure to fully
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 87 / Monday, May 5, 2008 / Notices
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
respond to sections A through E of our
antidumping questionnaire, Terphane
has withdrawn from this investigation
and has failed to provide complete
responses to the Department’s requests
for information. This constitutes a
failure on the part of Terphane to
cooperate to the best of its ability to
comply with a request for information
by the Department, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Tariff Act. Moreover,
because Terphane has withdrawn from
the proceeding and did not provide the
information requested in our
supplemental questionnaires of
February 13, 2008, and February 29,
2008, the requirements of section 782(e)
of the Tariff Act have not been satisfied.
Based on the above, the Department
has preliminarily determined that
Terphane has failed to cooperate to the
best of its ability and, therefore, in
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, an adverse
inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value: Circular Seamless
Stainless Steel Hollow Products from
Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000) (the
Department applied total adverse facts
available (AFA) where the respondent
failed to respond to the antidumping
questionnaire).
Selection and Corroboration of
Information Used as Facts Available
Where the Department applies AFA
because a respondent failed to cooperate
by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with a request for information,
section 776(b) of the Tariff Act
authorizes the Department to rely on
information derived from the petition, a
final determination, a previous
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record. See
also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at
829–831. It is the Department’s practice
to use the highest rate from the petition
in an investigation when a respondent
fails to act to the best of its ability to
provide the necessary information and
there are no other respondents. See, e.g.,
Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination:
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From
Finland, 69 FR 77216 (December 27,
2004) (unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Purified
Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland,
70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). Therefore,
because an adverse inference is
warranted, we have assigned to
Terphane the highest margin alleged in
the petition, as referenced in the
Initiation Notice, or 44.36 percent. See
Initiation Notice at 60806.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 May 02, 2008
Jkt 214001
When using facts otherwise available,
section 776(c) of the Tariff Act provides
that where the Department relies on
secondary information (such as the
petition) rather than information
obtained in the course of an
investigation, it must corroborate, to the
extent practicable, information from
independent sources that are reasonably
at its disposal.
The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’
means the Department will satisfy itself
that the secondary information to be
used has probative value. See SAA at
870. As stated in Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished
and Unfinished, from Japan, and
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, from Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November
6, 1996) (unchanged in Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished
and Unfinished, From Japan, and
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, From Japan; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and
Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825,
11843 (March 13, 1997)), to corroborate
secondary information, the Department
will examine, to the extent practicable,
the reliability and relevance of the
information used. The Department’s
regulations state that independent
sources used to corroborate such
evidence may include, for example,
published price lists, official import
statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested
parties during the particular
investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d)
and the SAA at 870.
For the purposes of this investigation,
to the extent appropriate information
was available, we reviewed the
adequacy and accuracy of the
information in the petition during our
pre–initiation analysis and for purposes
of this preliminary determination. See
Initiation Checklist at pages 8 through
10. See also Initiation Notice at 60803
and 60806. We examined evidence
supporting the calculations in the
petition to determine the probative
value of the margins alleged in the
petition for use as AFA for purposes of
this preliminary determination. During
our pre–initiation analysis we examined
the key elements of the constructed
export price (CEP) and normal–value
calculations used in the petition to
derive margins. During our pre–
initiation analysis we also examined
information from various independent
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24563
sources provided either in the petition
or in supplements to the petition that
corroborates key elements of the
constructed export price and normal–
value calculations used in the petition
to derive estimated margins. Id.
The petitioners calculated CEP from
information regarding a representative
sale of 48–gauge packaging film by
Terphane to an unaffiliated customer in
the United States. See Initiation
Checklist at 6. Petitioners made
deductions from CEP for a distributor
mark up and for international freight
and insurance, U.S. customs duties,
inland freight from the U.S. warehouse
to the U.S. customer and credit
expenses. Id. at 6–7. We adjusted
petitioner’s calculation of the distributor
mark–up to exclude certain charges
covered in separate deductions from
U.S. price (i.e. inland freight from the
U.S. port to the distribution warehouse
and brokerage charges. Id. at 6.
The petitioners based normal value on
a sale of 48 gauge packaging film by
Terphane to a customer in Brazil during
the POI. Id. at 8. Petitioners made an
adjustment to home market price for
credit. Id. Based upon the Department’s
deficiency questions, petitioners revised
their calculation of normal value by
eliminating deductions from the home
market price for advertising, slitting,
and material losses. Id.
Petitioners also alleged that Terphane
made sales below the home market
below its cost of production. Id.
Petitioners calculated constructed value
(CV) as the cost of manufacture (COM);
selling general and administrative
expenses (SG&A) expenses; packing
expenses, and profit. In calculating CV,
we recalculated factory overhead based
upon the financial statements of a
Brazilian thermoplastic resin producer.
(The resins manufactured by this
Brazilian producer include PET film.)
Id. at 9. Based upon the methodology
described above, the estimated dumping
margins for Brazil ranged from 13.08
percent (price–to price margin) to 44.36
percent (price–to CV margin). Id. at 10.
Based on our examination of the
aforementioned information, we
consider the petitioners’ calculation of
normal value based both upon a sale of
48 gauge packaging film by Terphane to
a customer in Brazil and constructed
value to be corroborated. Therefore,
because we confirmed the accuracy and
validity of the information underlying
the derivation of margins in the petition
by examining source documents as well
as publicly available information, we
preliminarily determine the margins in
the petition are reliable for the purposes
of this investigation.
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
24564
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 87 / Monday, May 5, 2008 / Notices
In making a determination as to the
relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information
reasonably at its disposal as to whether
there are circumstances that would
render a margin not relevant. Where
circumstances indicate the selected
margin is not appropriate as adverse
facts available, the Department will
disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin. For example, in
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812
(February 22, 1996), the Department
disregarded the highest margin as ‘‘best
information available’’ (the predecessor
to ‘‘facts available’’) because the margin
was based on another company’s
uncharacteristic business expense that
resulted in an unusually high dumping
margin.
In the pre–initiation stage of this
investigation, we confirmed the
calculation of margins in the Petition
(e.g., prices, expenses, adjustments, etc.)
reflects the commercial practices of the
particular industry during the period of
investigation. See Memorandum to the
File, ‘‘Telephone Call to Market
Research Firm,’’ dated July 17, 2007. No
information has been presented in the
investigation that calls into question the
relevance of this information. As such,
and as established during our pre–
initiation analysis, we preliminarily
determine the highest margin in the
petition was based on adequate and
accurate information. Accordingly, we
consider that highest margin
corroborated for purposes of this
preliminary determination. Therefore, it
is relevant as the adverse facts-available
rate for Terphane.
Similar to our position in
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Thailand: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 53405 (September 11,
2006) (unchanged in Polyethylene Retail
Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982
(January 17, 2007)), because this is the
first proceeding involving this company,
we find there are no probative
alternatives to the margins alleged in the
petition. Accordingly, by using
information that was corroborated in the
pre-initiation stage of this investigation
and preliminarily determining it to be
relevant for the uncooperative
respondents in this investigation, we
have corroborated the adverse facts–
available rate ‘‘to the extent
practicable.’’ See section 776(c) of the
Tariff Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d).
Therefore, we find that the estimated
margin of 44.36 percent in the Initiation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 May 02, 2008
Jkt 214001
Notice has probative value.
Consequently, with respect to Terphane,
we have applied the margin rate of
44.36 percent, the highest estimated
dumping margin set forth in the notice
of initiation. See Initiation Notice at
60806.
All–Others Rate:
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act
provides that, where the estimated
weighted–averaged dumping margins
established for all exporters and
producers individually investigated are
zero or de minimis or are determined
entirely under section 776 of the Tariff
Act, the Department may use any
reasonable method to establish the
estimated all–others rate for exporters
and producers not individually
investigated. Our recent practice under
these circumstances has been to assign
as the all-others rate the simple average
of the margins in the petition. See, e.g.,
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative
Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Glycine from Japan, 72
FR 67271, 67272 (November 28, 2007).
See also Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From
Malaysia, 69 FR 34128, 34129 (June 18,
2004). Consistent with our practice we
used the rates in the petition that were
considered in the Department’s
initiation to calculate a simple average
to be assigned as the all–others rate.
That simple average, 28.72 percent, is
derived from the following petition
rates: 13.08 (price to price margin) and
44.36 percent (price to CV margin). This
28.72 percent rate will be applied to all
Brazilian producers and exporters of
PET film other than Terphane.
margins, as indicated in the chart above,
as follows: (1) the rate for Terphane will
be the rate we have determined in this
preliminary determination; (2) if the
exporter is not a firm identified in this
investigation, but the producer is, the
rate will be the rate established for the
producer of the subject merchandise; (3)
the rate for all other producers or
exporters will be 28.72 percent. These
suspension–of-liquidation instructions
will remain in effect until further notice.
Commission Notification:
In accordance with section 733(f) of
the Tariff Act, we have notified the
Commission of the Department’s
preliminary affirmative determination.
If the Department’s final determination
is affirmative, the ITC will determine
before the later of 120 days after the date
of this preliminary determination or 45
days after our final determination
whether imports of PET film from Brazil
are materially injuring, or threaten
material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment:
Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary
determination. Interested parties may
submit case briefs to the Department no
later than fifty days after the date of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, limited
to the issues raised in the case briefs,
must be filed within five days from the
deadline date for the submission of case
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and (2).
A list of authorities used, a table of
contents, and an executive summary of
issues should accompany any briefs
submitted to the Department. Executive
summaries should be limited to five
pages total, including footnotes. Further,
we request that parties submitting briefs
Preliminary Determination:
and rebuttal briefs provide the
Department with a copy of the public
We preliminarily determine the
version of such briefs on diskette.
following weighted–average dumping
In accordance with section 774 of the
margins exist for the period April 1,
Tariff Act, the Department will hold a
2006, through March 31, 2007:
public hearing, if requested, to afford
interested parties an opportunity to
Producer/Exporter
Margin
comment on arguments raised in case or
Terphane ......................
44.36 rebuttal briefs, provided that such a
All Others ......................
28.72 hearing is requested by an interested
party. If a request for a hearing is made
Suspension of Liquidation:
in this investigation, the hearing will be
In accordance with section 733(d)(2)
scheduled two days after the deadline
of the Tariff Act, we are directing U.S.
for submitting rebuttal briefs at the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to Department of Commerce, 14th Street
suspend liquidation of all entries of PET and Constitution Avenue, NW,
film from Brazil that are entered, or
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in
withdrawn from warehouse, for
a room to be determined. Parties should
consumption on or after the date of
confirm by telephone the date, time, and
publication of this notice in the Federal location of the hearing 48 hours before
Register. We will instruct CBP to
the scheduled date. Interested parties
require a cash deposit or the posting of
who wish to request a hearing, or to
a bond equal to the weighted–average
participate in a hearing if one is
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 87 / Monday, May 5, 2008 / Notices
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, APO/Dockets, Room
1870, within 30 days of the publication
of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1) the party’s name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of the issues
to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
At the hearing oral presentations will be
limited to issues raised in the briefs.
This determination is issued and
published pursuant to sections 733(f)
and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: April 25, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–9846 Filed 5–2–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–549–825)
Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from Thailand
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 2008.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Commerce (the Department)
preliminarily determines that
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,
and strip (PET Film) from Thailand is
not being, nor likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value
(LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). Interested parties are invited to
comment on this preliminary
determination.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Bailey or Angelica Mendoza,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0193, or (202)
482–3019, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Background
On July 17, 2007, the Department
initiated the antidumping duty
investigation of PET Film from
Thailand. See Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
(PET Film) from Brazil, the People’s
Republic of China, Thailand, and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 May 02, 2008
Jkt 214001
United Arab Emirates: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 72 FR
60801 (October 26, 2007) (Notice of
Initiation).
The Department set aside a period of
time for parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage and encouraged all
parties to submit comments within 20
calendar days of publication of the
Notice of Initiation. See Notice of
Initiation. On November 15, 2007,
Avery Dennison Fasson Roll North
America (Avery Dennison) requested
that the Department find ‘‘release liner,’’
a PET film product treated on one or
both sides with a specially–cured
silicon coating, is outside the scope of
these investigations. Petitioners (DuPont
Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film
of America, Inc., SKC, Inc. and Toray
Plastics (America), Inc. (collectively,
petitioners)) objected to Avery
Dennison’s request on November 29,
2007; petitioners re–submitted their
objections with amended bracketing on
December 14, 2007, and the document
was accepted for the record on that date.
On August 28, 2007, the United States
International Trade Commission (ITC)
preliminarily determined that there is a
reasonable indication that imports of
PET Film from Brazil, China, Thailand,
and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are
materially injuring the U.S. industry
and the ITC notified the Department of
its findings. See Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
From Brazil, China, Thailand, and the
United Arab Emirates Case Number:
731–TA–1131–1134, 72 FR 67756,
(November 30, 2007) (Preliminary ITC
Determination).
Polyplex (Thailand) Public Company
Ltd. (Polyplex Thailand) and Polyplex
(Americas) Inc. (PA) (collectively
Polyplex) was issued an antidumping
duty questionnaire on November 29,
2007. The Department received the
Section A response from Polyplex on
January 4, 2008 (AQR), and received the
Sections B and C responses from
Polyplex on January 18, 2008 (BCQR).
On January 23, 2008, petitioners
requested that the Department postpone
the preliminary determination by 50
days. The Department published an
extension notice on February 11, 2008,
which set the new deadline for the
preliminary determination at April 25,
2008. See Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, the
People’s Republic of China, Thailand,
and the United Arab Emirates:
Postponement of Preliminary
Determinations of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 73 FR 7710 (February 11,
2008).
Petitioners filed comments on
Polyplex’s Sections A, B and C
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24565
responses on February 13, 2008. The
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire regarding Polyplex’s
Sections A, B and C responses on
February 19, 2008. Also on February 19,
2008, based on a timely allegation filed
by petitioners on February 6, 2008, the
Department initiated a sales–below-cost
investigation for Polyplex, finding
reasonable grounds to believe that
Polyplex made comparison market sales
of PET Film at prices below its cost of
production (COP). See ‘‘Sales Below
Cost of Production’’ section below for
further information. Consequently, the
Department requested that Polyplex
respond to Section D of the
Department’s antidumping duty
questionnaire. We received Polyplex’s
Section D response on March 11, 2008.
On March 12, 2008, Polyplex filed its
response to the Department’s
supplemental questionnaire regarding
Sections A–C (SABCQR). Additionally
on March 12, 2008, a U.S. customer of
Polyplex filed a response to Department
questions regarding this U.S. customer’s
relationship with Polyplex Thailand.
On March 14, 2008, the Department
requested a SAS version of Polyplex’s
comparison market, United States
market, and cost datasets submitted
with its SABCQR, which Polyplex did
on March 17, 2008. See the
Department’s March 17, 2008,
Memorandum to the File.
On March 21, 2008, petitioners filed
a targeted dumping allegation on sales
made by Polyplex in the U.S., and also
filed section D comments. On March 24,
2008, the Department issued a section D
supplemental questionnaire to Polyplex.
On March 31, 2008, Polyplex filed
comments on petitioners’ targeted
dumping allegation.
The Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire to Polyplex
concerning the company’s Sections A,
B, C, and D responses and information
regarding the value added to PET Film
by one U.S. customer on April 1, 2008.
On April 7, 2008, the Department
issued a memorandum in which it
determined that Polyplex Thailand was
affiliated with one of Polyplex
Thailand’s U.S. customers that produces
non–subject merchandise using PET
Film. See Affiliation section below.
Because the name of this customer is
proprietary we will refer to it here as
‘‘Company A.’’
In light of our finding of affiliation, on
April 7, 2008, the Department requested
that Polyplex Thailand and Company A
respond to Section E (Cost of Further
Manufacture or Assembly Performed in
the United States) of the Department’s
November 29, 2007, antidumping
questionnaire in regard to the PET Film
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 87 (Monday, May 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24560-24565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9846]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-351-841)
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily
determines that polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET
film) from Brazil is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). The estimated
margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to
comment on this preliminary determination. Accordingly, we will make
our final determination not later than 75 days after the signature date
of
[[Page 24561]]
the preliminary determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.210.
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 Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4475, or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background:
On October 26, 2007, the Department initiated the antidumping duty
investigation of PET film from Brazil. See Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, the People's Republic of China,
Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 72 FR 60801 (October 26, 2007) (Initiation Notice). The
petitioners in this investigation are DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi
Polyester Film Inc., SKC Inc, and Toray Plastics (America) Inc.
On November 13, 2007, the United States International Trade
Commission (the Commission) preliminarily determined there is a
reasonable indication that imports of PET film from Brazil, the
People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates are
materially injuring the U.S. industry and notified the Department of
its findings. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
From Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates Case Number.
731-TA-1131-1134 (Preliminary), 72 FR 67756, (November 30, 2007).
On November 15, 2007, Avery Dennison Fasson Roll North America
(Avery Dennison) requested that the Department find that ``release
liner,'' a PET film product treated on one or both sides with a
specially-cured silicon coating of less than 0.00001 inches, is outside
the scope of the investigations. Petitioners objected to Avery
Dennison's request on November 29, 2007; petitioners re-submitted their
objections with amended bracketing on December 14, 2007, and the
document was accepted for the record on that date. Petitioners insist
release liner is ``PET film that clearly falls within the scope of
these investigations.'' See Petitioners' December 14, 2007 submission
at 1 and 2. Avery Dennison responded to petitioners comments on
February 1, 2008.
In accordance with section 731(1) of the Tariff Act, we have
determined that the descriptions of the merchandise contained in the
petition and the Notice of Initiation support the conclusion that
release film is of the same class or kind of merchandise covered by the
proposed antidumping order. See also generally 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1).
The product descriptions in the petition and in the Department's Notice
of Initiation specifically exclude finished films with a ``performance
enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches
thick.'' There is nothing in the proposed scope language of either the
petition or our Notice of Initiation that excludes products bearing a
performance enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of less than 0.00001
inches from the scope of the order. Moreover, there is no language in
either the proposed scope language of the petition or our Notice of
Initiation that limits the scope of the investigation to ``PET base
film'' (i.e., PET film prior to the application of in-line coatings),
as Avery Dennison suggests. In addition, release liner shares the
chemical composition of PET film described in the proposed scope of the
petition and Notice of Initiation.
One of the purposes of a less than fair value investigation is to
decide the class or kind of merchandise specifically covered by the
scope of the ultimate antidumping order. Based upon the foregoing, we
have preliminarily determined that release film is of the same class or
kind of merchandise covered by the scope of the AD investigation of PET
film from Brazil. Thus, we have determined that release film is covered
by the scope of the AD investigation of PET film from Brazil. For a
full discussion of this issue see the memorandum titled ``Antidumping
Duty Investigations on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip (PET film) from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Thailand,
and the United Arab Emirates,'' from Michael J. Heaney, Senior Case
Analyst, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated April 25, 2008, and issued concurrently with this
notice.
On January 23, 2008, the petitioners requested the Department
postpone the preliminary determination by 50 days. The Department
published a notice of postponement on February 11, 2008, which set the
new deadline for the preliminary determination at April 25, 2008. See
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, the
People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates:
Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 73 FR 7710, (February 11, 2008).
In their September 28, 2007 petition, Petitioners identified one
respondent, Terphane Ltda. (Brazil) (Terphane). See Antidumping
Petition: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from
Brazil, People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab
Emirates at 11. See also, October 18, 2007, Initiation Checklist:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil
(Initiation Checklist) at 2.
We issued our antidumping questionnaire to Terphane on November 21,
2007. Terphane submitted its section A response on December 21, 2007.
The Department received Terphane's response to sections B, C, D, and E
of our questionnaire on January 15, 2008. Our analysis of Terphane's
section A, B, C, D, and E responses indicated numerous areas requiring
additional information and clarification from Terphane. Those areas
which required additional information and clarification from Terphane
included: 1) whether affiliated parties provided any of the sales or
production inputs used in the sale of PET film, 2) how the United
States and home market sales totals shown in Terphane's response relate
and reconcile to Terphane's financial statements, 3) the allocation
method used by Terphane to derive U.S. ocean freight, warehousing, and
U.S. inland freight charges, and 4) how Terphane derived the cost of
production (COP) and constructed value (CV) data reported in its
section D response. Petitioners provided comments on Terphane's
response on February 19, 2008. On February 13, 2008, we sent a
supplemental questionnaire to Terphane requesting additional
information concerning its January 15, 2008 Section D Response. See the
Department's February 13, 2008, letter to Terphane Ltda. (February 13
letter). On February 29, 2008, we issued a supplemental questionnaire
covering Terphane's Section A, B, and C responses. See February 29,
2008 letter to Terphane Ltda., (February 29, 2008 letter). However, on
March 26, 2008, Terphane submitted a letter indicating that it was
withdrawing from the investigation, and thus would no longer
participate or cooperate with the Department's request for information.
As a result, the home market and U.S. sales and cost data submitted
by Terphane are incomplete, and as noted above, there are still
significant deficiencies in Terphane's Section A, B, C, D and E
responses that require additional information and/or clarification. In
addition, we cannot verify Terphane's responses. Thus, because we are
unable to trust the reliability of the information conveyed in
Terphane's questionnaire responses, Terphane's questionnaire responses
[[Page 24562]]
cannot serve as the basis of Terphane's margin calculation. See Section
below entitled, ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available.''
Period of Investigation:
The POI is July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007.
Scope of Investigation:
The products covered in this investigation are all gauges of raw,
pre-treated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or co-extruded.
Excluded are metalized 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. Also, excluded is Roller transport cleaning film which
has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5
micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded.
PET film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Model Match:
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, all products
produced by the respondent covered by the description in the Scope of
Investigation section, above, and sold in Brazil during the POI are
considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise
issues regarding model match and encouraged all parties to submit
comments concerning our model-match procedures. See October 30, 2008,
letter from Robert James to All Interested Parties. We received model-
match comments from petitioners on November 7, 2007. In their comments,
petitioners suggested that we employ each of the model match criteria
used in the Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances Review of
PET film from Korea. See, Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Changed
Circumstances Review and Intent to Reinstate Kolon Industries Inc. in
the Antidumping Order, 72 FR 56048 (October 2, 2007) Korean CC Review.
The model-match criteria employed in the Korean CC Review were: 1)
specification, 2) thickness, 3) surface treatment, and 4) grade. Id.,
at 56049. In addition to 1) specification, 2) thickness, 3) surface
treatment, and 4) grade. In addition, petitioners suggested that we
also consider a fifth criteron: whether the product has been extruded.
See Petitioners November 7, 2007, letter at 1-2. For purposes of this
preliminary determination, the Department has determined that it is
unnecessary to change the proposed product characteristics and model
matching methodology with regard to coextrusion. For purposes of
distinguishing subject merchandise, the Department will take into
account the grade of PET film, as advocated by petitioners in their
submission.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available:
For the reasons discussed below, we determine the use of facts
available is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect
to Terpane. As noted in the Supplementary Information section above,
Terpahne has withdrawn from the proceeding. Additionally, Terphane
failed to respond to our supplemental questionnaires of February 13,
2008 and February 29, 2008. As such, Terphane has withheld information
necessary to calculate a margin for Terphane.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides that if an interested
party withholds information requested by the administering authority,
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of
the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, significantly impedes a
proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the
information cannot be verified as provided in 782(i), the administering
authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Tariff Act, facts
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section
782(d) of the Tariff Act provides that if the administering authority
determines a response to a request for information does not comply with
the request, the administering authority shall promptly inform the
responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient
submission. Section 782(e) of the Tariff Act states further the
Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all
of the following requirements are met: (1) the information is submitted
by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3)
the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
In this case, Terphane has withdrawn from the proceeding, and,
thus, has determined not to participate further or to cooperate with
the Department's requests for information. Moreover, as noted
previously, the U.S., home market, and cost information provided by
Terphane in its December 21, 2007, Section A response and its January
15, 2008, Section B, C, D, and E responses is substantially deficient.
Terphane also failed to provide requested information by the
established deadlines. Additionally, Terphane's decision to withdraw
from this investigation has precluded the Department from conducting
the verification of Terphane's questionnaire responses required by
Section 782(i)(1) of the Act, and has demonstrated its failure to act
to the best of its ability in responding to our requests for
information.
Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available
Section 776(b) of the Act stipulates that if the Department finds
an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may use
an inference adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from
the facts otherwise available. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,
70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). It is the Department's
practice to apply adverse inferences to ensure that the party does not
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully. See, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea:
Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
72 FR 69663 (December 10, 2007). Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of
bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the
Department may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997);
see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon); and Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from
Korea: Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 69663 (December 10, 2007).
Although the Department provided Terphane with notice informing it
of the consequences of its failure to fully
[[Page 24563]]
respond to sections A through E of our antidumping questionnaire,
Terphane has withdrawn from this investigation and has failed to
provide complete responses to the Department's requests for
information. This constitutes a failure on the part of Terphane to
cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information by the Department, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Tariff
Act. Moreover, because Terphane has withdrawn from the proceeding and
did not provide the information requested in our supplemental
questionnaires of February 13, 2008, and February 29, 2008, the
requirements of section 782(e) of the Tariff Act have not been
satisfied.
Based on the above, the Department has preliminarily determined
that Terphane has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and,
therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an
adverse inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless
Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000)
(the Department applied total adverse facts available (AFA) where the
respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire).
Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available
Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act authorizes
the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a
final determination, a previous administrative review, or other
information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the
SAA at 829-831. It is the Department's practice to use the highest rate
from the petition in an investigation when a respondent fails to act to
the best of its ability to provide the necessary information and there
are no other respondents. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 69
FR 77216 (December 27, 2004) (unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified
Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)).
Therefore, because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned
to Terphane the highest margin alleged in the petition, as referenced
in the Initiation Notice, or 44.36 percent. See Initiation Notice at
60806.
When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Tariff
Act provides that where the Department relies on secondary information
(such as the petition) rather than information obtained in the course
of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent practicable,
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its
disposal.
The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means the Department will
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative
value. See SAA at 870. As stated in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan,
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825, 11843
(March 13, 1997)), to corroborate secondary information, the Department
will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance
of the information used. The Department's regulations state that
independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for
example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs
data, and information obtained from interested parties during the
particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and the SAA at 870.
For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate
information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the
information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis and for
purposes of this preliminary determination. See Initiation Checklist at
pages 8 through 10. See also Initiation Notice at 60803 and 60806. We
examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition to
determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the petition
for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary determination. During
our pre-initiation analysis we examined the key elements of the
constructed export price (CEP) and normal-value calculations used in
the petition to derive margins. During our pre-initiation analysis we
also examined information from various independent sources provided
either in the petition or in supplements to the petition that
corroborates key elements of the constructed export price and normal-
value calculations used in the petition to derive estimated margins.
Id.
The petitioners calculated CEP from information regarding a
representative sale of 48-gauge packaging film by Terphane to an
unaffiliated customer in the United States. See Initiation Checklist at
6. Petitioners made deductions from CEP for a distributor mark up and
for international freight and insurance, U.S. customs duties, inland
freight from the U.S. warehouse to the U.S. customer and credit
expenses. Id. at 6-7. We adjusted petitioner's calculation of the
distributor mark-up to exclude certain charges covered in separate
deductions from U.S. price (i.e. inland freight from the U.S. port to
the distribution warehouse and brokerage charges. Id. at 6.
The petitioners based normal value on a sale of 48 gauge packaging
film by Terphane to a customer in Brazil during the POI. Id. at 8.
Petitioners made an adjustment to home market price for credit. Id.
Based upon the Department's deficiency questions, petitioners revised
their calculation of normal value by eliminating deductions from the
home market price for advertising, slitting, and material losses. Id.
Petitioners also alleged that Terphane made sales below the home
market below its cost of production. Id. Petitioners calculated
constructed value (CV) as the cost of manufacture (COM); selling
general and administrative expenses (SG&A) expenses; packing expenses,
and profit. In calculating CV, we recalculated factory overhead based
upon the financial statements of a Brazilian thermoplastic resin
producer. (The resins manufactured by this Brazilian producer include
PET film.) Id. at 9. Based upon the methodology described above, the
estimated dumping margins for Brazil ranged from 13.08 percent (price-
to price margin) to 44.36 percent (price-to CV margin). Id. at 10.
Based on our examination of the aforementioned information, we
consider the petitioners' calculation of normal value based both upon a
sale of 48 gauge packaging film by Terphane to a customer in Brazil and
constructed value to be corroborated. Therefore, because we confirmed
the accuracy and validity of the information underlying the derivation
of margins in the petition by examining source documents as well as
publicly available information, we preliminarily determine the margins
in the petition are reliable for the purposes of this investigation.
[[Page 24564]]
In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of
corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at
its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a
margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate the selected margin
is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example,
in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department
disregarded the highest margin as ``best information available'' (the
predecessor to ``facts available'') because the margin was based on
another company's uncharacteristic business expense that resulted in an
unusually high dumping margin.
In the pre-initiation stage of this investigation, we confirmed the
calculation of margins in the Petition (e.g., prices, expenses,
adjustments, etc.) reflects the commercial practices of the particular
industry during the period of investigation. See Memorandum to the
File, ``Telephone Call to Market Research Firm,'' dated July 17, 2007.
No information has been presented in the investigation that calls into
question the relevance of this information. As such, and as established
during our pre-initiation analysis, we preliminarily determine the
highest margin in the petition was based on adequate and accurate
information. Accordingly, we consider that highest margin corroborated
for purposes of this preliminary determination. Therefore, it is
relevant as the adverse facts-available rate for Terphane.
Similar to our position in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 53405 (September 11, 2006) (unchanged in Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982 (January 17, 2007)), because this is
the first proceeding involving this company, we find there are no
probative alternatives to the margins alleged in the petition.
Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated in the pre-
initiation stage of this investigation and preliminarily determining it
to be relevant for the uncooperative respondents in this investigation,
we have corroborated the adverse facts-available rate ``to the extent
practicable.'' See section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d).
Therefore, we find that the estimated margin of 44.36 percent in the
Initiation Notice has probative value. Consequently, with respect to
Terphane, we have applied the margin rate of 44.36 percent, the highest
estimated dumping margin set forth in the notice of initiation. See
Initiation Notice at 60806.
All-Others Rate:
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act provides that, where the
estimated weighted-averaged dumping margins established for all
exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de
minimis or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Tariff Act,
the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated
all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually
investigated. Our recent practice under these circumstances has been to
assign as the all-others rate the simple average of the margins in the
petition. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Glycine from Japan, 72 FR 67271, 67272 (November 28,
2007). See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia, 69 FR
34128, 34129 (June 18, 2004). Consistent with our practice we used the
rates in the petition that were considered in the Department's
initiation to calculate a simple average to be assigned as the all-
others rate. That simple average, 28.72 percent, is derived from the
following petition rates: 13.08 (price to price margin) and 44.36
percent (price to CV margin). This 28.72 percent rate will be applied
to all Brazilian producers and exporters of PET film other than
Terphane.
Preliminary Determination:
We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping
margins exist for the period April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terphane............................................ 44.36
All Others.......................................... 28.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspension of Liquidation:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we are
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend
liquidation of all entries of PET film from Brazil that are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct
CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the
weighted-average margins, as indicated in the chart above, as follows:
(1) the rate for Terphane will be the rate we have determined in this
preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified
in this investigation, but the producer is, the rate will be the rate
established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate
for all other producers or exporters will be 28.72 percent. These
suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until
further notice.
Commission Notification:
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Tariff Act, we have
notified the Commission of the Department's preliminary affirmative
determination. If the Department's final determination is affirmative,
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination
whether imports of PET film from Brazil are materially injuring, or
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment:
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the
Department no later than fifty days after the date of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, limited to
the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days
from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(d)(1) and (2). A list of authorities used, a table of contents,
and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs
submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to
five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties
submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a
copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette.
In accordance with section 774 of the Tariff Act, the Department
will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties
an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal
briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested
party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the
hearing will be scheduled two days after the deadline for submitting
rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room
to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time,
and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in
a hearing if one is
[[Page 24565]]
requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, APO/Dockets, Room
1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should
contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed.
See 19 CFR 351.310(c). At the hearing oral presentations will be
limited to issues raised in the briefs.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: April 25, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-9846 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S