Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 31922-31926 [E9-15961]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31922-31926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15961]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-807]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the 
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate 
film, sheet and strip (PET film) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). 
This review covers one company, Kolon Industries Inc. (Kolon) and the 
period October 2, 2007, through May 31, 2008. We preliminarily 
determine that Kolon has not made sales below normal value (NV). If 
these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, 
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: July 6, 2009.

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 June 9, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 32557 (June 9, 
2008).
    In accordance with Section 751 (a)(1) of the Tariff Act, as amended 
(the Act) and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on June 30, 2008, Kolon requested 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from 
Korea. On June 30, 2008, DuPont Teijin Films (DuPont), Mitsubishi 
Polyester Film, Inc. (Mitsubishi), and Toray Plastics America Inc. 
(Toray) (collectively ``Petitioners''), also requested a review of 
Kolon.
    On July 30, 2008, the Department initiated an administrative review 
for Kolon covering the period October 2, 2007, through May 31, 2008. 
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008).
    On June 30, 2008, we issued our antidumping questionnaire to Kolon. 
We received Kolon's response to our questionnaire on September 10, 2008 
(Section A) and October 3, 2008 (Sections B, C, and D). During the 
period December 18, 2008, through April 1, 2009, we issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Kolon. We received responses to those questionnaires 
from January 23, 2009, through April 24, 2009.
    On February 23, 2009, we extended the deadline for the preliminary 
results of this review until no later than June 30, 2009. See 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of 
Korea: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2007/
2008 Administrative Review, 74 FR 8054 (February 23, 2009).
    On May 26, 2009, Petitioners submitted comments concerning the 
profitability of Kolon's home market and U.S. sales and the model match 
methodology that should be employed in this review. On June 9, 2009, 
Kolon submitted rebuttal comments to Petitioner's May 26, 2009 letter. 
See the ``Product Comparisons'' section of this Notice, infra, for a 
discussion of the Model match methodology that we have employed in this 
review.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of all gauges of raw, 
pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 
strip, whether extruded or coextruded. The films excluded from this 
review are metallized films and other finished films that have had at 
least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a 
performance enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 
inches (0.254 micrometers) thick.
    PET film is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00. The HTS subheading is provided for 
convenience and for customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.

Period of Review

    On August 20, 2008, Kolon requested that the Department amend the 
time frame covered by the review to the period April 3, 2008, to May 
31, 2008. See Kolon's August 20, 2008, letter. Kolon noted that April 
3, 2008, is the date that the Department published its final results of 
the changed circumstances review in which Kolon was formally reinstated 
within the order. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review and Reinstatement of the Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 18259 
(April 3, 2008) (Final Results of CC Review). Kolon asserted the 
Department has no basis to review transactions prior to the date Kolon 
was formally reinstated into the order.
    On August 27, 2008, Petitioners filed a rebuttal to Kolon's August 
20, 2008 letter. See Petitioners' August 27, 2008, letter. Petitioners 
noted the Department ordered CBP to suspend liquidation of Kolon's 
entries on October 2, 2007, which is the date the Department issued its 
Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances Review. 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 Duty Order, 72 
FR 56048 (October 2, 2007). Petitioners assert that because the 
Department ordered suspension of liquidation with respect to Kolon's 
entries effective October 2, 2007, that date is the proper date for the 
beginning of the review period.

[[Page 31923]]

    We have preliminarily defined the period covered by this review as 
October 2, 2007, through May 31, 2008. In our Preliminary Results of CC 
Review, we indicated the effective date for suspension of liquidation 
would be the date of the publication of the Preliminary Results of CC 
Review. See Preliminary Results of CC Review at 56048. Furthermore, 
Kolon was aware of the possibility of reinstatement into the order at 
the initiation of the changed circumstances review, and the potential 
imposition of antidumping duties if the Department found that Kolon had 
resumed dumping. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review: Polyethylene Terpthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
from Korea, 72 FR 527 (January 5, 2007). In order to provide for the 
imposition of duties at a later point, the Department suspended 
liquidation of entries on the date of publication of the Preliminary 
Results of CC Review. This is consistent with our practice in changed 
circumstances reviews. See, e.g., Sebacic Acid from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review and Reinstatement of the Antidumping Order, 70 FR 
16218 (March 30, 2005) and Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review and Reinstatement in the Antidumping Order, 74 FR 
22885 (May 15, 2009).
    In addition, 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i) states that in considering 
whether to revoke an antidumping order, the Secretary will, inter alia, 
consider whether the respondent has agreed in writing to an immediate 
reinstatement into the order if the Secretary concludes that the 
respondent sold merchandise at less than fair value. In determining to 
revoke the order as to Kolon, the Department noted that Kolon provided 
a statement agreeing to the immediate reinstatement of the order if the 
Department determines that Kolon sold merchandise at less than fair 
value. See Polyethylene Terpthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the 
Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Notice of Revocation in Part, 61 FR 58374, 58375 (November 
14, 1996). Therefore, Kolon was aware of the potential for 
``immediate'' reinstatement in the order if dumping resumed and the 
necessity of suspending liquidation in order to impose duties at a 
later point. The inclusion in the period of review of Kolon's U.S. 
sales made beginning October 2, 2007, through May 31, 2008, is 
therefore reasonable. This is also in keeping with our practice in 
other contexts, in which the period of review covers entries, exports 
and sales during the period beginning with the date of suspension of 
liquidation. See 19 CFR 351.213(e)(1)(ii). Based on the foregoing, we 
have included in this review all of Kolon's U.S. sales made during the 
period October 2, 2007, through May 31, 2008.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of PET film from Korea to the United 
States were made at less than NV, we compared Kolon's constructed 
export price (CEP) or export price (EP) sales made in the United States 
to unaffiliated purchasers, to NV, as described in the ``United States 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEP and 
EP of individual transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs.
    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act we considered all 
products produced by Kolon covered by the description in the ``Scope of 
the Order'' section, above, and sold in the home market during the POR, 
to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. We first attempted to compare 
contemporaneous U.S. and comparison-market sales of products that are 
identical with respect to the following characteristics: (1) 
Specification; (2) thickness; (3) surface treatment; and (4) grade. 
Consistent with the methodology employed in Final Results of CC Review, 
and in the recent investigation of PET film from Thailand, we used the 
actual thicknesses of the film rather than a range of thicknesses for 
product comparison purposes. See Final Results of CC Review and 
Accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. See also, 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair 
Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Thailand 
73 FR 24565, 24567 (May 5, 2008) (unchanged in final determination). 
Where we were unable to compare sales of identical merchandise, we 
compared U.S. sales to home market sales of the most similar 
merchandise based on the above characteristics. Where there were no 
sales of the foreign like product of the identical merchandise in the 
ordinary course of trade in the home market to compare to a U.S. sale, 
we compared the price of the U.S. sale to constructed value (CV).

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we base NV on sales made in the home market at the same 
level of trade (LOT) as the CEP or EP sales in the U.S. market. The NV 
LOT is defined as the starting-price sales in the home market or, when 
NV is based CV, as the sales from which selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit are derived. See 19 CFR 
351.412(b)(2)(c). The EP LOT is defined as the starting price in the 
United States to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. With respect to CEP 
transactions in the U.S. market, the CEP LOT is defined as the level of 
the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. See 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the home-market 
sales are at different LOTs, 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 LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, 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., 
Preliminary CC Review at 56050; see also Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 
Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 
2005); unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality 
Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005). For CEP 
sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price 
after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of 
the Tariff Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 
1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that if the LOTs claimed by 
the respondent are the same, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that the LOTs are 
different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities 
of the seller should be

[[Page 31924]]

dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results 
of Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying 
Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 6.
    We obtained information from Kolon regarding the marketing stages 
involved in making its reported foreign market and U.S. sales to 
unaffiliated customers. Kolon provided a description of all selling 
activities performed, along with a flowchart and tables comparing the 
levels of trade among each channel of distribution and customer 
category for both markets. See Kolon's September 10, 2008, 
questionnaire response at A-12.
    For the home market, Kolon identified two channels of distribution 
described as follows: (1) Direct shipments (i.e., products produced to 
order); and (2) warehouse shipments from inventory. Id. Within each of 
these two channels of distribution, Kolon made sales to unaffiliated 
customers. Id. We reviewed the level at which Kolon performed each of 
these selling functions with respect to each claimed channel of 
distribution and customer category. For all of the activities listed 
(which included sales forecasting, strategic and economic planning, 
sales promotion, order processing, and technical assistance), the level 
of performance for both direct shipments and warehouse shipments was 
identical across all types of customers. Based on our analysis of all 
of Kolon's home market selling functions, we find all home market sales 
were made at the same LOT, the NV LOT. We also found that Kolon 
provided a similar level of selling functions on all of its EP sales, 
and that the level of these EP selling functions was comparable to the 
level of selling functions that Kolon performed on its home market 
sales. Id. Based on the foregoing, we determine that there is one level 
of trade for Kolon's EP sales and that the EP LOT is comparable to the 
home market LOT.
    Kolon also indicated it made CEP sales through its U.S. affiliate, 
Kolon USA. Id. We then compared the CEP LOT to the NV LOT. The CEP LOT 
is based on the selling activities associated with the transaction 
between Kolon and its affiliated importer, Kolon USA, whereas the NV 
LOT is based on the selling activities associated with the transactions 
between Kolon and unaffiliated customers in the home market. Our 
analysis indicates the selling functions performed for unaffiliated 
home market customers are either performed at a higher degree of 
intensity or are greater in number than the selling functions performed 
for Kolon USA. For example, in comparing Kolon's selling activities, we 
find there are more functions performed in the home market which are 
not a part of CEP transactions (e.g., sales promotion, inventory 
maintenance, sales and marketing support). For selling activities 
performed for both home market sales and CEP sales (e.g., processing 
customer orders, freight and delivery arrangements), we find Kolon 
actually performed each activity at a higher level of intensity in the 
home market. We note that CEP sales from Kolon to Kolon USA generally 
occur at the beginning of the distribution chain, representing 
essentially a logistical transfer of inventory that resembles ex-
factory sales. In contrast, all sales in the home market occur closer 
to the end of the distribution chain and involve smaller volumes and 
more customer interaction which, in turn, require the performance of 
more selling functions. Id. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that 
the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage than the CEP LOT. Because we 
found the home market and U.S. sales were made at different LOTs, we 
examined whether a LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may be appropriate in 
this review. As we found only one LOT in the home market, it was not 
possible to make a LOT adjustment to home market prices, because such 
an adjustment is dependent on our ability to identify a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the home market sales on which NV 
is based and home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction. 
See 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, we have no other information 
that provides an appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment. 
Because the data available do not form an appropriate basis for making 
a LOT adjustment, and because the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP offset to NV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

United States Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ``the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the 
date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject 
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser * 
* * for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection 
(c) of this section.'' Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as ``the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 
sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by 
or for the account of the producer or exporter of the subject 
merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to 
a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted 
under subsections (c) and (d).'' For purposes of this administrative 
review, Kolon classified all of its U.S. sales shipped directly from 
Korea to the United States as EP sales. Kolon reported all sales that 
were invoiced through its U.S. subsidiary Kolon USA as CEP 
transactions. For these preliminary results, we have accepted these 
classifications. The merchandise shipped directly to unaffiliated 
customers in the U.S. market was not sold through an affiliated U.S. 
importer, and we find no other grounds for treating these transactions 
as CEP sales. We, therefore, preliminarily determine that these 
transactions were EP sales. We have classified as CEP transactions the 
merchandise that was invoiced through Kolon USA because these sales 
were ``sold in the United States'' within the meaning of 772(b) of the 
Act.

Export Price

    We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We 
based EP on packed prices to customers in the United States. We made 
deductions for billing adjustments and early payment discounts. We also 
made adjustments for the following movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight, foreign 
brokerage and handling charges, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties. 
Finally, we made an addition to U.S. price for duty drawback in 
accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act based upon Kolon's 
demonstration that it received duty drawback on imported materials used 
in the production of PET film. See Kolon October 3, 2008, Section C 
response at C-31.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, for those sales to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser that took place after importation into 
the United States, we calculated CEP. We based CEP on packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments for 
billing adjustments and early payment discounts. We made deductions for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; 
these included foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling 
charges, U.S. brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, 
U.S. inland freight, and U.S. customs duties. As further directed by 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling

[[Page 31925]]

expenses associated with economic activity in the United States 
including direct selling expenses (i.e., commissions, warranties, 
warehousing, and U.S. credit expenses), inventory carrying costs, and 
other U.S. indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for 
profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Finally, we 
made an addition to U.S. price for duty drawback in accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act based upon Kolon's demonstration that 
it received duty drawback on imported materials used in the production 
of PET film. See Kolon October 3, 2008, Section C response at C-31.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is 
greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared Kolon's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because Kolon's 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for 
subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. See 
Kolon's September 10, 2008, questionnaire response at Appendix A-1.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    Pursuant to 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, because the Department had 
disregarded certain of Kolon's sales in the Final Results of CC Review 
(the most recently completed review in which Kolon participated), the 
Department had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Kolon made 
home market sales at prices below Kolon's costs of production (COP) in 
this review. As a result, the Department was directed under section 
773(b) of the Act to determine whether Kolon made home market sales 
during the POR at prices below its COP.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Kolon's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and 
administrative expenses (SG&A), interest expenses, and home market 
packing costs. We relied on the COP information provided by Kolon.
    To determine whether Kolon's home market sales had been made at 
prices below the COP, we computed weighted-average COPs during the POR, 
and compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales 
prices of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of 
the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home 
market prices net of billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, any 
applicable movement charges, selling expenses, and packing expenses.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether, within an extended period of 
time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such 
sales were made at prices which did not permit the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. 
Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a 
given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any 
below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-
cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in 
``substantial quantities.'' See section 773(b)(2)(c) of the Act. Where 
20 percent or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given 
model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost 
sales because: (1) They 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 our comparison of prices to the 
weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    Our cost test for Kolon revealed that, for home market sales of 
certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were 
at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sales in our 
analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test 
also indicated that for home market sales of other models, more than 20 
percent were sold at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from 
our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for 
determining NV.

C. Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of Kolon's material and fabrication costs, SG&A 
expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost of 
materials for CV as described above in the ``Cost of Production 
Analysis'' section of this notice. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the 
amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.

D. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers in 
Korea. We used Kolon's adjustments and deductions as reported. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons involving 
similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost 
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise compared pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments for imputed credit expenses. As noted above in the ``Level 
of Trade'' section of this notice, we also made an adjustment for the 
CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Finally, 
we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

E. Price-to-CV Comparisons

    If we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based 
NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance 
with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the 
Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping 
margin exists for the period October 2, 2007 through May 31, 2008:

[[Page 31926]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Weighted average margin
        Manufacturer/exporter                     (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kolon Industries, Inc................  0.15% (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit case briefs not later 
than 30 days after the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later 
than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who 
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief 
summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
    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, Room 1870, within 30 days of the 
date of 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). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the case briefs. The Department will issue the final results 
of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of 
issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the 
publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

Assessment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and 
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The 
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this 
review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated 
importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for PET film from Korea 
based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. 
See 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the 
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by 
the final results of these reviews and for future deposits of estimated 
duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Kolon will be 
the rate established in the final results of review (except, if the 
rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash 
deposit will be required for Kolon); (2) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this 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 (3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate 
will be the all-others rate of 4.82 percent from the LTFV 
investigation. See Antidumping Duty Order and Amendment to Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea, 56 FR 
25669 (June 5, 1991).

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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. These preliminary results of 
administrative review are issued and this notice is published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 30, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-15961 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P