Amended Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy, 54557-54560 [E8-22108]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–475–703]
Amended Notice of Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From
Italy
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 22, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yasmin Nair or Alicia Winston, at (202)
482–3813 or (202) 482–1785,
respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street & Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is conducting an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on
granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin
from Italy, covering the period August 1,
2006, through July 31, 2007. We
preliminarily determine that sales of
subject merchandise by Solvay Solexis,
Inc. and Solvay Solexis S.p.A. have
been made below normal value. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to assess
antidumping duties on appropriate
entries. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We released the preliminary results to
the parties on Wednesday, September 3,
2008. However, that version
inadvertently included business
proprietary information, so this
amended preliminary determination
corrects that error. The error was
discovered prior to publication in the
Federal Register, consequently this
amended notice is being published in its
place.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Background
On August 30, 1988, The Department
of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on granular
polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE)
from Italy. See Antidumping Duty
Order; Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene
Resin from Italy, 53 FR 33163 (August
30, 1988). On August 2, 2007, the
Department issued a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of this order. See Antidumping
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,
or Suspended Investigation;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:11 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 72 FR 42383 (August 2, 2007).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b),
Solvay requested an administrative
review. On September 25, 2007, the
Department published the notice of
initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review, covering the
period August 1, 2006, through July 31,
2007 (the period of review, or POR). See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 72 FR 54428 (September 25, 2007).
On October 12, 2007, the Department
issued its antidumping questionnaire to
Solvay Solexis, Inc. and Solvay Solexis
S.p.A (collectively, Solvay). The
Department received timely responses
to Sections A–E of the initial
antidumping questionnaire and
associated supplemental questionnaires.
On April 9, 2008, the Department
published a notice of a 120-day
extension of the preliminary results of
this administrative review. See Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy:
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
19193. This notice extended the
deadline for the preliminary results to
September 2, 2008.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
granular PTFE resin, filled or unfilled.
This order also covers PTFE wet raw
polymer exported from Italy to the
United States. See Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy;
Final Affirmative Determination of
Circumvention of Antidumping Duty
Order, 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993).
This order excludes PTFE dispersions in
water and fine powders. During the
period covered by this review, such
merchandise was classified under item
number 3904.61.00 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). We are providing this HTSUS
number for convenience and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
purposes only. The written description
of the scope remains dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
We compared the constructed export
price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as
described in the Constructed Export
Price and Normal Value sections of this
notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), we compared the CEPs of
individual transactions to
contemporaneous monthly weighted–
average prices of sales of the foreign like
product.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54557
Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act,
we first attempted to compare
contemporaneous sales of products sold
in the United States and the comparison
market that were identical with respect
to the following characteristics: type,
filler, percentage of filler, and grade.
Where we were unable to compare sales
of identical merchandise, we compared
U.S. sales with comparison market sales
of the most similar merchandise. Where
there were no sales of identical or
similar merchandise made in the
ordinary course of trade in the
comparison market, we compared U.S.
sales to constructed value (CV).
Date of Sale
Normally, the Department employs
invoice date as the date of sale.
However, if the Department determines
that another date reflects the date on
which the exporter or producer
establishes the material terms of sale,
the Department may use this date. See
19 CFR 351.401(i). Solvay reported that
its terms of sale in the home market are
subject to change until shipment. For
virtually all of its home market sales,
shipment date precedes the invoice
date. When shipment date precedes
invoice date, it is the Department’s
practice to use shipment date as the date
of sale. See Certain Cold Rolled and
Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Korea: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13172 73
(Mar.18, 1998). Therefore, we have
relied upon Solvay’s reported date of
sale for home market transactions. For
U.S. market sales, Solvay reported that
the invoice date is the date on which the
material terms of sale were established.
Therefore, we are preliminarily using
the date of invoice as the date of sale for
Solvay’s U.S. market sales.
Constructed Export Price
For all sales to the United States, we
calculated CEP, as defined in section
772(b) of the Act, because all sales to
unaffiliated parties were made after
importation of the subject merchandise
into the United States through the
respondent’s affiliate, Solvay Solexis,
Inc. We based CEP on the packed,
delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States, net of
billing adjustments. We adjusted these
prices for movement expenses,
including international freight, marine
insurance, brokerage and handling in
the United States, U.S. other transport
expense, U.S. inland freight, U.S.
warehousing, and U.S. customs duties,
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A)
of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM
22SEN1
54558
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices
In accordance with section 772(d)(1)
of the Act, we deducted selling
expenses incurred by the affiliated
reseller. These expenses include credit,
inventory carrying costs, and indirect
selling expenses incurred by Solvay
Solexis, Inc. See Memorandum from
Alicia Winston, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, to The File, Re:
Preliminary Results Calculation
Memorandum, dated September 2, 2008
(Analysis Memo).
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
In order to determine whether there
was a sufficient volume of sales of
granular PTFE resin in the home market
to serve as a viable basis for calculating
NV, we compared Solvay’s volume of
home market sales of the foreign like
product to the volume of U.S. sales of
the subject merchandise, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Because the aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product
was greater than five percent of the
respective aggregate volume of U.S.
sales for the subject merchandise, we
determined that the home market
provided a viable basis for calculating
NV. Therefore, in accordance with
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we
based NV on the prices at which the
foreign like product was first sold for
consumption in the exporting country,
in the usual commercial quantities and
in the ordinary course of trade.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded below–cost
sales in the calculation of the final
results of the 2004–2005 administrative
review, the most recently completed
review of PTFE at the time of initiation
of this review, with respect to Solvay,
we had reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that home market sales of the
foreign like product by Solvay had been
made at prices below the cost of
production (COP) during the period of
this review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated
a COP investigation regarding home
market sales. Solvay calculated its
model–specific costs of production on a
POR basis.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated COP based on
the sum of Solvay’s cost of materials
and fabrication for the foreign like
product, plus amounts for general and
administrative expenses (G&A), and
interest expenses.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:11 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
We compared the weighted–average
COP to the home market sales of the
foreign like product, as required under
section 773(b) of the Act, in order to
determine whether these sales had been
made at prices below the COP within an
extended period of time (i.e., a period of
one year) in substantial quantities and
whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time.
On a model–specific basis, we
compared the COP to home market
prices, less any rebates, discounts,
applicable movement charges, and
direct and indirect selling expenses.
3. Adjustments to Respondent’s Data
We relied on the COP information
provided by Solvay except in the
following instances. We adjusted the
transfer prices for certain inputs
purchased by Solvay from affiliated
suppliers in accordance with the major
input rule of section 773(f)(3) of the Act.
Specifically, we increased the reported
cost of manufacturing where we found
that the transfer price for the inputs was
below the reported costs of the affiliated
suppliers of that input. Also, Solvay
excluded certain expenses from the
G&A expenses. Therefore, we adjusted
the respondent’s G&A expense ratio to
include expenses that appear to relate to
the general operations of the company
and for which Solvay failed to provide
an explanation for excluding these
items. Finally, Solvay did not exclude
packing costs from the cost of goods
sold denominators used to calculate the
G&A and financial expense ratios.
Therefore, for the ratios to be applied on
the same basis as they were calculated,
we applied the G&A and financial
expense ratios to the total cost of
manufacturing including the packing
costs. See Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results
Solvay Solexis S.p.A. (Cost Calc Memo).
4. Results of the COP Test
We disregarded below–cost sales
where: (1) 20 percent or more of
Solvay’s sales of a given product during
the POR were made at prices below the
COP, because such sales were made
within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities in accordance
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Act; and (2) based on comparisons of
price to weighted–average COPs for the
POR, we determined that the below–
cost sales of the product were at prices
which would not permit recovery of all
costs within a reasonable time period, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Act. We found that Solvay made
sales below cost, and we disregarded
such sales where appropriate pursuant
to section 773(b) of the Act.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Comparison–Market Prices
We determined home market prices
net of price adjustments (e.g., other
discounts and rebates). Where
applicable, we made adjustments for
packing and movement expenses, in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and (B) of the Act. In order to adjust for
differences in packing between the two
markets, we deducted home market
packing costs from NV and added U.S.
packing costs. We also made
adjustments for differences in costs
attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise,
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of
the Act, and for other differences in the
circumstances of sale (COS) in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)
of the Act (i.e., differences in credit
expenses). Finally, we made a CEP–
offset adjustment to the NV for indirect
selling expenses pursuant to section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, as discussed in
the Level of Trade/CEP Offset section
below.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Constructed Value
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides
that where NV cannot be based on
comparison–market sales, NV may be
based on CV. Accordingly, for PTFE for
which we could not determine the NV
based on comparison market sales,
either because there were no useable
sales of a comparable product or all
sales of the comparable products failed
the COP test, we based NV on the CV.
Section 773(e) of the Act provides that
the CV shall be based on the sum of the
cost of materials and fabrication for the
imported merchandise, plus amounts
for selling, general and administrative
(SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S.
packing costs. We calculated the cost of
materials and fabrication based on the
methodology described in the Cost of
Production Analysis section, above. We
based SG&A and profit on the actual
amounts incurred and realized by
Solvay in connection with the
production and sale of the foreign like
product in the ordinary course of trade
for consumption in the comparison
market, in accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We used U.S.
packing costs as described in the
Constructed Export Price section, above.
We made adjustments to CV for
differences in COS in accordance with
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. For comparisons to CEP, we
E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM
22SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
made COS adjustments by deducting
from CV direct selling expenses
incurred on home–market sales (i.e.,
credit expense and warranty expense).
E. Level of Trade/CEP Offset
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on
sales at the same level of trade in the
comparison market as the level of trade
of the U.S. sales. The comparison
market level of trade is that of the
starting–price sales in the comparison
market. For CEP sales, such as those
made by Solvay in this review, the U.S.
level of trade is the level of the
constructed sale from the exporter to the
importer.
To determine whether comparison
market sales are at a different level of
trade than that of the U.S. sales, we
examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of
distribution between the producer and
the unaffiliated customer. If the
comparison–market sales are at a
different level of trade and the
difference affects price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent
price differences between the sales on
which NV is based and comparison–
market sales at the level of trade of the
export transaction, we make a level–oftrade adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the
NV level is more remote from the
factory than the CEP level and there is
no basis for determining whether the
difference in the levels between NV and
CEP affects price comparability, we
adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act (the CEP–offset provision). See,
e.g., Industrial Nitrocellulose from the
United Kingdom; Notice of Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 65 FR 6148, 6151 (February 8,
2000) (Industrial Nitrocellulose).
For this review, we obtained
information from Solvay about the
marketing involved in the reported U.S.
sales and in the home market sales,
including a description of the selling
activities performed by Solvay for each
channel of distribution. In identifying
levels of trade for CEP and for home
market sales, we considered the selling
functions reflected in the CEP, after the
deduction of expenses and profit under
section 772(d) of the Act, and those
reflected in the home market starting
price before making any adjustments.
We expect that, if claimed levels of
trade are the same, the functions and
activities of the seller should be similar.
Conversely, if a party claims that levels
of trade are different for different groups
of sales, the functions and activities of
the seller should be dissimilar.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:11 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
The record evidence in this review
indicates that the home market and the
CEP levels of trade for Solvay have not
changed from the 2005–2006 review,1
the most recently completed review in
this case. As explained below, we
preliminarily determine in this review,
as in the 2005–2006 administrative
review, that there was one home market
level of trade and one U.S. level of trade
(i.e., the CEP level of trade).
In the home market, Solvay sold
directly to fabricators. These sales
primarily entailed selling activities such
as technical assistance, engineering
services, research and development,
technical programs, and delivery
services. Given this fact pattern, we
found that all home market sales were
made at a single level of trade. In
determining the level of trade for the
U.S. sales, we considered only the
selling activities reflected in the price
after making the appropriate
adjustments under section 772(d) of the
Act. See, e.g., Industrial Nitrocellulose,
65 FR at 6150. The CEP level of trade
involves minimal selling functions such
as invoicing and the occasional
exchange of personnel between Solvay
and its U.S. affiliate. Given this fact
pattern, we found that all U.S. sales
were made at a single level of trade.
Based on a comparison of the home
market level of trade and this CEP level
of trade, we find the home market sales
to be at a different level of trade from,
and more remote from the factory than,
the CEP sales. Section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act directs us to make an
adjustment for difference in levels of
trade where such differences affect price
comparability. However, we were
unable to quantify such price
differences from information on the
record. Because we have determined
that the home–market level of trade is
more remote from the factory than the
CEP level of trade, and because the data
necessary to calculate a level–of-trade
adjustment are unavailable, we made a
CEP–offset adjustment to NV pursuant
to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars in accordance with section
773A of the Act, based on exchange
rates in effect on the date of the U.S.
sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve
Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we
preliminarily determine that the
1 See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy, 72 FR
65939 (November 26, 2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54559
following weighted–average margin
exists for the period August 1, 2006,
through July 31, 2007:
Producer
Solvay Solexis, Inc. and
Solvay Solexis S.p.A
(collectively, Solvay)
Weighted–Average
Margin (Percentage)
95.24
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b), the Department will disclose
its weighted average antidumping
margin calculations within 5 days of the
date of publication of these preliminary
results. An interested party may request
a hearing within 30 days of publication
of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 44 days after the date of
publication, or the first working day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit
case briefs and/or written comments no
later than 30 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs
and rebuttals to written comments,
limited to issues raised in such briefs or
comments, may be filed no later than 37
days after the date of publication. See 19
CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with
the argument: (1) a statement of the
issue; (2) a brief summary of the
argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
Further, the parties submitting written
comments should provide the
Department with an additional copy of
the public version of any such
comments on diskette.
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such
comments, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment
Upon completion of this
administrative review, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b), the Department will
calculate an assessment rate on all
appropriate entries. We will calculate
importer–specific duty assessment rates
based on the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the
examined sales to the total quantity of
the sales for that importer. Where the
assessment rate is above de minimis, we
will instruct CBP to assess duties on all
entries of subject merchandise by that
importer.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM
22SEN1
54560
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices
Dated: September 16, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–22108 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am]
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this administrative review for
all shipments of PTFE from Italy
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit
rate listed above for Solvay will be the
rate established in the final results of
this review, except if a rate is less than
0.5 percent, and therefore de minimis,
the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
company–specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, a prior
review, or the less–than-fair–value
(LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous review
conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 46.46 percent, the
‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin
from Italy, 53 FR 26096 (July 11, 1988).
These cash deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the
POR produced by the company
included in these preliminary results for
which the reviewed company did not
know their merchandise was destined
for the United States. In such instances,
we will instruct CBP to liquidate
unreviewed entries at the all–others rate
if there is no rate for the intermediate
company or companies involved in the
transaction.
Applications for Duty–Free Entry of
Scientific Instruments
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entities during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:11 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
Exemption of Foreign Air Carriers
From Excise Taxes; Review of Finding
of Reciprocity (Dominican Republic),
26 U.S.C. 4221
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AGENCY:
International Trade Administration
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.
L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–
36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we
invite comments on the question of
whether instruments of equivalent
scientific value, for the purposes for
which the instruments shown below are
intended to be used, are being
manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR
301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and
be postmarked on or before October 14,
2008. Address written comments to
Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room
2104, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. 20230. Applications
may be examined between 8:30 A.M.
and 5:00 P.M. at the U.S. Department of
Commerce in Room 2104.
Docket Number: 08–047. Applicant:
Stanford University, Department of
Structural Biology, D100 Fairchild
Building, 299 Campus Drive West,
Stanford, CA 94305–5126. Instrument:
Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2
F20 TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company,
the Netherlands. Intended Use: The
instrument is intended to be used to
study purified proteins from yeast
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, also known
as baker’s yeast, which are involved in
transcription. Researchers plan to
employ single particle analysis to study
the protein complexes involved in
transcription, the synthesis on RNA
from a DNA template. Application
accepted by Commissioner of Customs
and Border Protection: August 25, 2008.
Dated: September 16, 2008.
Faye Robinson,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. E8–22107 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Solicitation of public comments
concerning a review of the existing
exemption for aircraft registered in the
Dominican Republic from certain
internal revenue taxes on the purchase
of supplies in the United States for such
aircraft in connection with their
international commercial operations.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the Department of Commerce is
conducting a review to determine,
pursuant to Section 4221 of the Internal
Revenue Code, as amended (26 U.S.C.
4221), whether the Government of the
Dominican Republic has discontinued
allowing substantially reciprocal tax
exemptions to aircraft of U.S. registry in
connection with international
commercial operations similar to those
exemptions currently granted to aircraft
of Dominican Republic registry by the
United States under the aforementioned
statute.
The above-cited statute provides
exemptions for aircraft of foreign
registry from payment of certain internal
revenue taxes on the purchase of
supplies in the United States for such
aircraft in connection with their
international commercial operations.
These exemptions apply upon a finding
by the Secretary of Commerce, or his
designee, and communicated to the
Department of the Treasury, that such
country allows, or will allow,
‘‘substantially reciprocal privileges’’ to
aircraft of U.S. registry with respect to
purchases of such supplies in that
country. If a foreign country
discontinues the allowance of such
substantially reciprocal exemption, the
exemption allowed by the United States
will not apply after the Secretary of the
Treasury is notified by the Secretary of
Commerce, or his designee, of the
discontinuance.
Interested parties are invited to
submit their views, comments and
supporting documentation in writing
concerning this matter to Mr. Mark
Brady, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Services, Room 1128, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.
Submissions should be sent
electronically to
Airservices@ita.doc.gov. All
E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM
22SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 184 (Monday, September 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54557-54560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22108]
[[Page 54557]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-703]
Amended Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From
Italy
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 22, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Nair or Alicia Winston, at
(202) 482-3813 or (202) 482-1785, respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on granular
polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy, covering the period August 1,
2006, through July 31, 2007. We preliminarily determine that sales of
subject merchandise by Solvay Solexis, Inc. and Solvay Solexis S.p.A.
have been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
We released the preliminary results to the parties on Wednesday,
September 3, 2008. However, that version inadvertently included
business proprietary information, so this amended preliminary
determination corrects that error. The error was discovered prior to
publication in the Federal Register, consequently this amended notice
is being published in its place.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 30, 1988, The Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on
granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE) from Italy. See
Antidumping Duty Order; Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from
Italy, 53 FR 33163 (August 30, 1988). On August 2, 2007, the Department
issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of
this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,
72 FR 42383 (August 2, 2007). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b),
Solvay requested an administrative review. On September 25, 2007, the
Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review, covering the period August 1, 2006, through July
31, 2007 (the period of review, or POR). See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for
Revocation in Part, 72 FR 54428 (September 25, 2007).
On October 12, 2007, the Department issued its antidumping
questionnaire to Solvay Solexis, Inc. and Solvay Solexis S.p.A
(collectively, Solvay). The Department received timely responses to
Sections A-E of the initial antidumping questionnaire and associated
supplemental questionnaires.
On April 9, 2008, the Department published a notice of a 120-day
extension of the preliminary results of this administrative review. See
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy: Notice of Extension
of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 19193. This notice extended the deadline
for the preliminary results to September 2, 2008.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is granular PTFE resin, filled or
unfilled. This order also covers PTFE wet raw polymer exported from
Italy to the United States. See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin
from Italy; Final Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of
Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993). This order
excludes PTFE dispersions in water and fine powders. During the period
covered by this review, such merchandise was classified under item
number 3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS). We are providing this HTSUS number for convenience and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) purposes only. The written
description of the scope remains dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
We compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value
(NV), as described in the Constructed Export Price and Normal Value
sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we compared the CEPs of individual
transactions to contemporaneous monthly weighted-average prices of
sales of the foreign like product.
Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to
compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and
the comparison market that were identical with respect to the following
characteristics: type, filler, percentage of filler, and grade. Where
we were unable to compare sales of identical merchandise, we compared
U.S. sales with comparison market sales of the most similar
merchandise. Where there were no sales of identical or similar
merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade in the comparison
market, we compared U.S. sales to constructed value (CV).
Date of Sale
Normally, the Department employs invoice date as the date of sale.
However, if the Department determines that another date reflects the
date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms
of sale, the Department may use this date. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
Solvay reported that its terms of sale in the home market are subject
to change until shipment. For virtually all of its home market sales,
shipment date precedes the invoice date. When shipment date precedes
invoice date, it is the Department's practice to use shipment date as
the date of sale. See Certain Cold Rolled and Corrosion Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13172 73 (Mar.18, 1998).
Therefore, we have relied upon Solvay's reported date of sale for home
market transactions. For U.S. market sales, Solvay reported that the
invoice date is the date on which the material terms of sale were
established. Therefore, we are preliminarily using the date of invoice
as the date of sale for Solvay's U.S. market sales.
Constructed Export Price
For all sales to the United States, we calculated CEP, as defined
in section 772(b) of the Act, because all sales to unaffiliated parties
were made after importation of the subject merchandise into the United
States through the respondent's affiliate, Solvay Solexis, Inc. We
based CEP on the packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in
the United States, net of billing adjustments. We adjusted these prices
for movement expenses, including international freight, marine
insurance, brokerage and handling in the United States, U.S. other
transport expense, U.S. inland freight, U.S. warehousing, and U.S.
customs duties, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
[[Page 54558]]
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted
selling expenses incurred by the affiliated reseller. These expenses
include credit, inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses
incurred by Solvay Solexis, Inc. See Memorandum from Alicia Winston,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, to The File, Re: Preliminary
Results Calculation Memorandum, dated September 2, 2008 (Analysis
Memo).
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales of granular PTFE resin in the home market to serve as a viable
basis for calculating NV, we compared Solvay's volume of home market
sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the
Act. Because the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign
like product was greater than five percent of the respective aggregate
volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that
the home market provided a viable basis for calculating NV. Therefore,
in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on
the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for
consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the calculation of the
final results of the 2004-2005 administrative review, the most recently
completed review of PTFE at the time of initiation of this review, with
respect to Solvay, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that
home market sales of the foreign like product by Solvay had been made
at prices below the cost of production (COP) during the period of this
review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation
regarding home market sales. Solvay calculated its model-specific costs
of production on a POR basis.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of Solvay's cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative
expenses (G&A), and interest expenses.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
We compared the weighted-average COP to the home market sales of
the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act,
in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below
the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a period of one year)
in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market
prices, less any rebates, discounts, applicable movement charges, and
direct and indirect selling expenses.
3. Adjustments to Respondent's Data
We relied on the COP information provided by Solvay except in the
following instances. We adjusted the transfer prices for certain inputs
purchased by Solvay from affiliated suppliers in accordance with the
major input rule of section 773(f)(3) of the Act. Specifically, we
increased the reported cost of manufacturing where we found that the
transfer price for the inputs was below the reported costs of the
affiliated suppliers of that input. Also, Solvay excluded certain
expenses from the G&A expenses. Therefore, we adjusted the respondent's
G&A expense ratio to include expenses that appear to relate to the
general operations of the company and for which Solvay failed to
provide an explanation for excluding these items. Finally, Solvay did
not exclude packing costs from the cost of goods sold denominators used
to calculate the G&A and financial expense ratios. Therefore, for the
ratios to be applied on the same basis as they were calculated, we
applied the G&A and financial expense ratios to the total cost of
manufacturing including the packing costs. See Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results
Solvay Solexis S.p.A. (Cost Calc Memo).
4. Results of the COP Test
We disregarded below-cost sales where: (1) 20 percent or more of
Solvay's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices
below the COP, because such sales were made within an extended period
of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on comparisons of price
to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost
sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of
all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that Solvay made sales below cost,
and we disregarded such sales where appropriate pursuant to section
773(b) of the Act.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices
We determined home market prices net of price adjustments (e.g.,
other discounts and rebates). Where applicable, we made adjustments for
packing and movement expenses, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and (B) of the Act. In order to adjust for differences in packing
between the two markets, we deducted home market packing costs from NV
and added U.S. packing costs. We also made adjustments for differences
in costs attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the
merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, and for
other differences in the circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act (i.e., differences in credit
expenses). Finally, we made a CEP-offset adjustment to the NV for
indirect selling expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act,
as discussed in the Level of Trade/CEP Offset section below.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for
PTFE for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison market
sales, either because there were no useable sales of a comparable
product or all sales of the comparable products failed the COP test, we
based NV on the CV.
Section 773(e) of the Act provides that the CV shall be based on
the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported
merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative
(SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost
of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the
Cost of Production Analysis section, above. We based SG&A and profit on
the actual amounts incurred and realized by Solvay in connection with
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary
course of trade for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance
with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We used U.S. packing costs as
described in the Constructed Export Price section, above.
We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to
CEP, we
[[Page 54559]]
made COS adjustments by deducting from CV direct selling expenses
incurred on home-market sales (i.e., credit expense and warranty
expense).
E. Level of Trade/CEP Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales at the same level of trade
in the comparison market as the level of trade of the U.S. sales. The
comparison market level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in
the comparison market. For CEP sales, such as those made by Solvay in
this review, the U.S. level of trade is the level of the constructed
sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether comparison market sales are at a different
level of trade than that of the U.S. sales, we examine stages in the
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution
between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-
market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference
affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent
price differences between the sales on which NV is based and
comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export
transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the NV level is more remote from
the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining
whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the
CEP-offset provision). See, e.g., Industrial Nitrocellulose from the
United Kingdom; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 65 FR 6148, 6151 (February 8, 2000) (Industrial
Nitrocellulose).
For this review, we obtained information from Solvay about the
marketing involved in the reported U.S. sales and in the home market
sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by
Solvay for each channel of distribution. In identifying levels of trade
for CEP and for home market sales, we considered the selling functions
reflected in the CEP, after the deduction of expenses and profit under
section 772(d) of the Act, and those reflected in the home market
starting price before making any adjustments. We expect that, if
claimed levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of
the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels
of trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and
activities of the seller should be dissimilar.
The record evidence in this review indicates that the home market
and the CEP levels of trade for Solvay have not changed from the 2005-
2006 review,\1\ the most recently completed review in this case. As
explained below, we preliminarily determine in this review, as in the
2005-2006 administrative review, that there was one home market level
of trade and one U.S. level of trade (i.e., the CEP level of trade).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from
Italy, 72 FR 65939 (November 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the home market, Solvay sold directly to fabricators. These
sales primarily entailed selling activities such as technical
assistance, engineering services, research and development, technical
programs, and delivery services. Given this fact pattern, we found that
all home market sales were made at a single level of trade. In
determining the level of trade for the U.S. sales, we considered only
the selling activities reflected in the price after making the
appropriate adjustments under section 772(d) of the Act. See, e.g.,
Industrial Nitrocellulose, 65 FR at 6150. The CEP level of trade
involves minimal selling functions such as invoicing and the occasional
exchange of personnel between Solvay and its U.S. affiliate. Given this
fact pattern, we found that all U.S. sales were made at a single level
of trade.
Based on a comparison of the home market level of trade and this
CEP level of trade, we find the home market sales to be at a different
level of trade from, and more remote from the factory than, the CEP
sales. Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act directs us to make an adjustment
for difference in levels of trade where such differences affect price
comparability. However, we were unable to quantify such price
differences from information on the record. Because we have determined
that the home-market level of trade is more remote from the factory
than the CEP level of trade, and because the data necessary to
calculate a level-of-trade adjustment are unavailable, we made a CEP-
offset adjustment to NV pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date
of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average margin exists for the period August 1, 2006,
through July 31, 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Producer Margin
(Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvay Solexis, Inc. and Solvay Solexis S.p.A 95.24
(collectively, Solvay).............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose
its weighted average antidumping margin calculations within 5 days of
the date of publication of these preliminary results. An interested
party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first
working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/
or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication
of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs
and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such
briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date
of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are
requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue;
(2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
Further, the parties submitting written comments should provide the
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such
comments on diskette.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results.
Assessment
Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all
appropriate entries. We will calculate importer-specific duty
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of the
sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis,
we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject
merchandise by that importer.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
[[Page 54560]]
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by the company included in these preliminary results
for which the reviewed company did not know their merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no
rate for the intermediate company or companies involved in the
transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
PTFE from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of
the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate listed above for Solvay will be the
rate established in the final results of this review, except if a rate
is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore de minimis, the cash deposit
rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or
the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous
review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 46.46
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy, 53 FR 26096 (July 11, 1988).
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entities during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 16, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-22108 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
