Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71601-71603 [E8-28018]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 25, 2008 / Notices direction for management of the area. Circumstances affecting National Forest System lands in the Rattlesnake Project Area have changed substantially since 2004. (1) The Phase II Amendment to the Forest Plan was approved on October 31, 2005. This amendment altered management direction for the Black Hills National Forest, including the Rattlesnake Project area, by adding broad-scale objectives increasing management emphasis on hazardous fuels, forest structural diversity, and habitat for rare species. These changes directly affect the type and extent of vegetation management actions the Forest Service takes in the Black Hills. (2) The Cement Fire of July 2005 burned 2,079 acres of National Forest System land in the Rattlesnake Project area. Approximately 77 percent of this area burned at moderate or high intensity, resulting in the mortality of an estimated 1,925,300 cubic feet of sawtimber. (3) Population adjacent to the Rattlesnake Project Area has increased in the last four years with subdivision of the Red Canyon Ranch. These developments could be affected by hazardous fuel conditions in the project area. (4) Mountain pine beetle populations have increased dramatically in an area about five miles south of the Rattlesnake Project area, causing high levels of pine mortality on several hundred acres. This infestation has the potential to spread to the Rattlesnake area. (5) The Forest Service has issued new regulations implementing the National Forest Management Act. These new regulations replace earlier direction under which the Cement Project decision was analyzed and approved. The new planning regulations make it clear that they have minimal application at the project level. This project would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the new regulations. Responsible Official Steve Kozel, District Ranger, Bearlodge Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, 101 South 21st Street, PO Box 680, Sundance, Wyoming 82729. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Nature of Decision To Be Made The decision to be made is whether to approve the proposed action or alternatives at this time. No Forest Plan amendments are proposed. Scoping Process Comments and input regarding the proposed action are being requested from the public and other interested parties in conjunction with this notice of intent. The comment period will be open for thirty days, beginning on the VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:01 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 217001 date of publication of this notice of intent. Response to the draft EIS will be sought from the interested public beginning approximately in March 2009. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides development of the environmental impact statement. It is our desire to involve interested parties in identifying the issues related to proposed activities. Comments will assist in identification of key issues and opportunities to develop project alternatives and mitigation measures. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: A draft EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft EIS will extend 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register. This notice is expected to appear in February 2009. The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft EISs must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer’s position and contentions (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts (City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft EIS. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 71601 the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21) Dated: November 17, 2008. Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8–27840 Filed 11–24–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–533–824 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 6, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register, the preliminary results of this administrative review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film). See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Preliminary Results of and Partial Recession the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 45699 (August 6, 2008) (Preliminary Results). The review covers one respondent, Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. We invited interested parties to submit comments on our Preliminary Results. Based on our analysis of the comment received, we have made a change to our calculations with respect to the treatment of duty drawback. For the final dumping margins see the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5050. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM 25NON1 71602 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 25, 2008 / Notices Background Since the publication of the Preliminary Results, the following event has occurred. On August 25, 2008, Jindal timely submitted a case brief commenting on the calculations with respect to duty drawback. Petitioners, Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film Of America, Toray Plastics (America), Inc., and SKC America, Inc. did not file a case or rebuttal brief. Scope of the Order The products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance–enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the antidumping duty order is dispositive. On August 25, 2003, the Department determined, in a scope ruling, that tracing and drafting film is outside of the scope of the order. See Notice of Scope Ruling, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Analysis of Comment Received The sole issue raised in the case brief by a party to this proceeding is addressed in the Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Issue and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on PET Film from India, (Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The sole issue raised concerns the treatment of duty drawback. Parties can find a complete discussion of this issue in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and the electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:01 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 217001 Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on the comment received from Jindal, we have made a change to the margin calculations used in the Preliminary Results. The adjustment is discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum. if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, 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 Final Results of Review review, or the original LTFV We determine that the following investigation, but the manufacturer is, weighted average antidumping margin the cash deposit rate will be the rate exists for the period July 1, 2006, established for the most recent period through June 30, 2007. for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the Weighted– exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm Manufacturer/Exporter Average covered in this or any previous review Margin conducted by the Department, the cash Jindal Poly Films Limited deposit rate will continue to be the ‘‘All (Jindal) .................................. 0.00 percent Others’’ rate established in the original (de minimis) LTFV investigation, adjusted for the export subsidy rate found in the Assessment companion countervailing duty The Department shall determine, and investigation, which results in a rate of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 5.71 percent. See Certain Polyethylene (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties Terephthalte Film, Sheet, and Strip on all appropriate entries pursuant to from India: Final Results of section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of Antidumping Duty Administrative 1930, as amended (the Act). Pursuant to Review, 70 FR 8072 (February 17, 2005). 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct These cash deposit requirements, when CBP to liquidate without regard to imposed, shall remain in effect until antidumping duties any entries for further notice. which the assessment rate is de minimis Notification to Importers (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to issue assessment This notice also serves as the final instructions directly to CBP 15 days reminder to importers of their after the date of publication of these responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) final results of review. to file a certificate regarding the The Department clarified its reimbursement of antidumping duties ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on prior to liquidation of the relevant May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). See entries during this review period. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Failure to comply with this requirement Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May could result in the Secretary’s 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the entries of subject merchandise during subsequent assessment of double the POR produced by any of the antidumping duties. companies for which we are rescinding this review, and for which each no– Notification Regarding Administrative shipment respondent did not know its Protective Order merchandise would be exported by another company to the United States. This notice also serves as the only In such instances, we will instruct CBP reminder to parties subject to to liquidate unreviewed entries at the administrative protective order (APO) of all–others rate if there is no rate for the their responsibility concerning the intermediate company(ies) involved in disposition of proprietary information the transaction. disclosed under APO as explained in the APO itself. See 19 CFR Cash Deposit Requirements 351.305(a)(3). Timely written The following cash deposit notification of the return/destruction of requirements will be effective upon APO materials or conversion to judicial publication of the final results of this protective order is hereby requested. administrative review for all shipments Failure to comply with the regulations of the subject merchandise entered, or and terms of the APO is a sanctionable withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication violation. This notice is issued and published in date, consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and deposit rate will be zero for Jindal; (2) 777(i)(1) of the Act. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM 25NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 25, 2008 / Notices Dated: November 17, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8–28018 Filed 11–24–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–823–808] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine; Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review of the Suspension Agreement Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Full Sunset Review of the Suspension Agreement on Certain Cutto-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine. AGENCY: SUMMARY: On August 1, 2008, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated a sunset review of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL plate’’) from Ukraine pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 73 FR 44968 (August 1, 2008) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On the basis of notices of intent to participate filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting a full (240day) review. As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that termination of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on CTL plate from Ukraine would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: November 25, 2008. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Rudman or Jay Carreiro, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–0192 or (202) 482– 3674. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History of the Suspension Agreement On December 3, 1996, the Department initiated an antidumping duty VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:01 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 217001 investigation under section 732 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL plate’’) from Ukraine. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, and the Republic of South Africa, 61 FR 64051 (December 3, 1996). On June 11, 1997, the Department preliminarily determined that CTL plate from Ukraine was being, or was likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine, 62 FR 31958 (June 11, 1997). The Department suspended the antidumping duty investigation on October 24, 1997, on the basis of an agreement by the Government of Ukraine to restrict the volume of direct and indirect exports of CTL plate to the United States in order to prevent the suppression or undercutting of price levels of U.S. domestic like products. See Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 61766 (November 19, 1997). Thereafter, the Department completed its investigation and published in the Federal Register its final determination of sales at less than fair market value. In the final determination, the Department calculated weighted-average dumping margins of 81.43 percent for JSC Azovstal Iron & Steel Works (‘‘Azovstal’’), 155.00 percent for JSC Ilyich Iron & Steel Works (‘‘Ilyich’’), and 237.91 for ‘‘all other’’ Ukrainian manufacturers, producers, and exporters of the subject merchandise. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 61754 (November 19, 1997). A Suspension Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) remains in effect for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters of CTL plate from Ukraine.1 Background On August 1, 2008, the Department initiated a sunset review of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on CTL plate from Ukraine, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation Notice, 73 FR 1 On September 29, 2008, a revised Suspension Agreement was signed by representatives of Ukrainian CTL plate producers. This agreement became effective November 1, 2008, and replaces the previous non-market economy agreement, and amendments to it, that have been in effect since 1997. For more information, see https:// www.trade.gov/press/press_releases/2008/ ukraine_092908.asp. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 71603 44968. The Department received notices of intent to participate on behalf of ArcelorMittal USA, SSAB North America Division, Evraz S.A. Oregon Steel Mills and Evraz S.A. Claymont, and Nucor Corporation (collectively, ‘‘domestic interested parties’’), within the applicable deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s regulations. See Notices of Intent to Participate for ArcelorMittal USA, Inc. (August 18, 2008) and SSAB North America Division; Evraz S.A. Oregon Steel Mills; and Evraz S.A. Claymont (August 15, 2008). Domestic interested parties claimed interestedparty status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as producers of the domestic like products. In addition, domestic interested parties assert that they are not related to a foreign producer/exporter and are not importers, or related to importers, of the subject merchandise. The Department also received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in the Department’s regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). See Collective Substantive Response for ArcelorMittal USA, SSAB North America Division, Evraz S.A. Oregon Steel Mills and Evraz S.A. Claymont, and Nucor Corporation (August 29, 2008). On September 2, 2008, the Department received a complete substantive response from Azovstal Iron & Steel Works (‘‘Azovstal’’) and Ilyich Iron & Steel Works (‘‘Ilyich’’) (collectively, ‘‘respondent interested parties’’). See Substantive Response for Azovstal and Ilyich (September 2, 2008). Respondent interested parties assert that they participated fully in the original investigation and have exported CTL plate from Ukraine in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Respondent interested parties claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(A) of the Act as foreign manufacturers, producers, and exporters of CTL plate from Ukraine. Domestic interested parties did not submit rebuttal responses. After examining the substantive responses from all parties, on September 22, 2008, the Department determined that the domestic interested parties’ and respondent interested parties’ responses were adequate, consistent with the requirements of 19 CFR 351.218(e). See Letter from Edward C. Yang, Director, AD/CVD Operations, China/NME Group, Import Administration, to Robert Carpenter, Director, Office of Investigations, International Trade Commission (September 22, 2008). Because the responses of both domestic and respondent interested parties E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM 25NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71601-71603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28018]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-533-824


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 6, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register, the preliminary results of this 
administrative review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip (PET Film). See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
from India: Preliminary Results of and Partial Recession the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 45699 (August 6, 2008) 
(Preliminary Results). The review covers one respondent, Jindal Poly 
Films Limited (Jindal). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2006, 
through June 30, 2007. We invited interested parties to submit comments 
on our Preliminary Results. Based on our analysis of the comment 
received, we have made a change to our calculations with respect to the 
treatment of duty drawback. For the final dumping margins see the 
``Final Results of Review'' section below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 25, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5050.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 71602]]

Background

    Since the publication of the Preliminary Results, the following 
event has occurred. On August 25, 2008, Jindal timely submitted a case 
brief commenting on the calculations with respect to duty drawback. 
Petitioners, Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film Of America, 
Toray Plastics (America), Inc., and SKC America, Inc. did not file a 
case or rebuttal brief.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges 
of raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. 
Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at 
least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a 
performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 
inches thick. Imports of PET film are currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the 
antidumping duty order is dispositive.
    On August 25, 2003, the Department determined, in a scope ruling, 
that tracing and drafting film is outside of the scope of the order. 
See Notice of Scope Ruling, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

Analysis of Comment Received

    The sole issue raised in the case brief by a party to this 
proceeding is addressed in the Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. 
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Issue and 
Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Administrative Review of 
the Antidumping Duty Order on PET Film from India, (Decision 
Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby 
adopted by this notice. The sole issue raised concerns the treatment of 
duty drawback. Parties can find a complete discussion of this issue in 
this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, 
room 1117 of the Department of Commerce building. In addition, a 
complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on 
the Internet at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and the 
electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the comment received from Jindal, we have made a change to 
the margin calculations used in the Preliminary Results. The adjustment 
is discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted average antidumping margin 
exists for the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                 Manufacturer/Exporter                    Average Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal).....................   0.00 percent
                                                          (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct 
CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for 
which the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). 
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 
15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 
2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise 
during the POR produced by any of the companies for which we are 
rescinding this review, and for which each no-shipment respondent did 
not know its merchandise would be exported by another company to 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(ies) involved in the transaction.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, consistent 
with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate will be 
zero for Jindal; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less than 
fair value (LTFV) investigation, 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 original 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 continue 
to be the ``All Others'' rate established in the original LTFV 
investigation, adjusted for the export subsidy rate found in the 
companion countervailing duty investigation, which results in a rate of 
5.71 percent. See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalte Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 8072 (February 17, 2005). These cash deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as the final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries 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.

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO as explained in the APO itself. See 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 
written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and terms of the APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 71603]]


    Dated: November 17, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-28018 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.