Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 40784-40788 [2010-17170]

Download as PDF 40784 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where an importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected for individual review, the assessment rate will be based on the rate from the investigation or, if appropriate, a simple average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 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publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 44.3 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Notification to Importers This notice also 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 entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:07 Jul 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 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 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: July 7, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2010–17180 Filed 7–13–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 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 June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009. We preliminarily determine that Kolon has not made sales below normal value (NV). 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 this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 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 14, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke 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) 482–5604 or (202) 482– 0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 1, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of the antidumping duty order on PET film PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 from Korea. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 26202 (June 1, 2009). 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, 2009, Kolon requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea. On June 30, 2009, 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 29, 2009, the Department initiated an administrative review for Kolon covering the period June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Review, 74 FR 37690 (July 29, 2009). On August 6, 2009, we issued our antidumping questionnaire to Kolon. We received Kolon’s response to our questionnaire on September 16, 2009 (Section A) and October 13, 2009 (Sections B, C, and D). On February 1, 2010, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Kolon which covered sections A through D. Kolon responded to this supplemental questionnaire on March 1, 2010. Then, on June 15, 2010 we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Kolon which covered sections B through D. Kolon filed its response to this questionnaire on June 29, 2010. On March 3, 2010, we extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this review until no later than July 7, 2010. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 9579 (March 3, 2010). Scope of the Order Imports covered by this order 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 more than 0.00001 inches (0.254 micrometers) thick. PET film is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3920.62.00. The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and for E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM 14JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage. Period of Review The period of review (POR) is June 1, 2008, to May 31, 2009. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of PET film from Korea to the United States were made at less than normal value (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. emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Product Comparisons 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 the 2007– 2008 administrative review of this order, and in the less than fair value (LTFV) 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 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 31922, 31923 (July 6, 2009) (unchanged in final results.) 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:07 Jul 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 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 on CV, as the sales from which selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit are derived. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1). 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 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(ii) 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., 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: 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 40785 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 LOTs among each channel of distribution and customer category for both markets. See Kolon’s September 16, 2009, questionnaire response at Exhibit 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 a single 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 Kolon performed on its home market sales. Based on the foregoing, we determine 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 sales to unaffiliated home market customers are either performed at a higher degree of intensity or are greater in number than the selling functions performed for sales to Kolon USA. For example, in E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM 14JYN1 40786 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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). 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 in the United States or 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:07 Jul 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 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 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 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, bank charges and ocean freight. 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’s October 13, 2009, Section C response at C–34 to C–35 and Exhibit C– 16. 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 expenses associated with economic activity in the United States including PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 direct selling expenses (i.e., commissions, 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’s October 13, 2009, Section C response at C–34 to C–35 and Exhibit C– 16. 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 16, 2009, questionnaire response at Exhibit 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 Polyethlylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Reinstatement of the Antidumping Duty Order 73 FR 18259 (April 3, 2008) (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 E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM 14JYN1 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices 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 normally disregard 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:07 Jul 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 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. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 40787 Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine the following weighted–average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009: Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percentage) Kolon Industries, Inc ..... 0.30% (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 (or customer–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). However, where Kolon did not report the entered value E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM 14JYN1 40788 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices for its sales, we will calculate importer– specific (or customer–specific) per unit duty assessment rates. 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 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 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 21.50 percent from the LTFV investigation. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of Korea; Notice of Final Court Decision and Amended Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 62 FR 50557 (September 26, 1997). emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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. [FR Doc. 2010–17170 Filed 7–13–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:07 Jul 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs (‘‘FMTCs’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the period June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009, and a deferred administrative review for Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd. and Feili Furniture Development Limited Quanzhou City (collectively, ‘‘Feili’’) 1 covering the period June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008. The 2008–2009 administrative review covers Feili and New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (‘‘NewTec’’) and the 2007–2008 deferred administrative review covers Feili. We have preliminarily determined that Feili and New-Tec did not make sales in the United States at prices below normal value (‘‘NV’’) during the periods of review (‘‘POR’’) pertinent to each company. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to liquidate entries of merchandise exported by Feili and New-Tec during the PORs without regard to antidumping duties. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). DATES: Effective Date: July 14, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6412 and (202) 482–0650, respectively. Background On June 27, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty order on FMTCs from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 43277 (June 27, 2002). On July 30, 2008, the Department granted Feili’s request for deferral of the June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008 review, to which no parties objected.2 On June 1, 2009, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the June 1, 2008, through, May 31, 2009 POR. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 26202 (June 1, 2009). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), interested parties made the following requests for review: (1) On June 23, 2009, New-Tec, a producer and exporter of subject merchandise to the United States, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales; (2) on June 25, 2009, Cosco Home & Office Products (‘‘Cosco’’), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of Feili and New-Tec for the 2008–2009 POR . On July 29, 2009, the Department initiated the 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 reviews for Feili, and the 2008–2009 review for New-Tec.3 The Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Feili and New-Tec on August 7, 2009. On September 1, 2009 and September 10, 2009, New-Tec and Feili, respectively, submitted a section A questionnaire response (‘‘AQR’’), and on September 15, 2009 and September 25, 2009, New-Tec and Feili, respectively, submitted section C and D questionnaire responses (‘‘CQR’’ and ‘‘DQR,’’ respectively). On January 5, 2010, the Department requested the Office of Policy to provide a list of surrogate countries for this review. See Memorandum to Carole Showers, Director, Office of Policy, ‘‘2007–2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of China: Request for Surrogate Country Selection’’ (January 5, 2010) and Memorandum to Carole 1 The Department initiated both reviews for Feili using the following names: Feili Furniture Development Ltd. Quanzhou City, Feili Furniture Development Co., Ltd., Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd., and Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd. However, Feili has informed the Department that its name includes only Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd. and Feili Furniture Development Limited Quanzhou City. Cash Deposit Requirements Dated: July 7, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 2 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). 3 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Review, 74 FR 37690 (July 29, 2009). International Trade Administration [A–570–868] Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM 14JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40784-40788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17170]


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

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 June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009. We preliminarily determine 
that Kolon has not made sales below normal value (NV). 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 this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, 
where applicable.
    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 14, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke 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-
5604 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 1, 2009, 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, 74 FR 26202 (June 1, 
2009).
    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, 2009, Kolon requested 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from 
Korea. On June 30, 2009, 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 29, 2009, the Department initiated an administrative review 
for Kolon covering the period June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Review, 74 FR 37690 (July 29, 
2009).
    On August 6, 2009, we issued our antidumping questionnaire to 
Kolon. We received Kolon's response to our questionnaire on September 
16, 2009 (Section A) and October 13, 2009 (Sections B, C, and D). On 
February 1, 2010, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Kolon which 
covered sections A through D. Kolon responded to this supplemental 
questionnaire on March 1, 2010. Then, on June 15, 2010 we issued a 
second supplemental questionnaire to Kolon which covered sections B 
through D. Kolon filed its response to this questionnaire on June 29, 
2010.
    On March 3, 2010, we extended the deadline for the preliminary 
results of this review until no later than July 7, 2010. See 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of 
Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 9579 (March 3, 2010).

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by this order 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 more than 0.00001 
inches (0.254 micrometers) thick.
    PET film is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3920.62.00. The HTSUS 
subheading is provided for convenience and for

[[Page 40785]]

customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to the 
scope of the product coverage.

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is June 1, 2008, to May 31, 2009.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of PET film from Korea to the United 
States were made at less than normal value (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.

Product Comparisons

    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 the 2007-2008 
administrative review of this order, and in the less than fair value 
(LTFV) 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 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 31922, 31923 (July 6, 2009) 
(unchanged in final results.) 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 on CV, as the sales from which selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit are derived. See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(1). 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 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(1)(ii) 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., 
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: 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 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 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 
LOTs among each channel of distribution and customer category for both 
markets. See Kolon's September 16, 2009, questionnaire response at 
Exhibit 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 a single 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 Kolon performed on its home market sales. 
Based on the foregoing, we determine 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 sales to 
unaffiliated home market customers are either performed at a higher 
degree of intensity or are greater in number than the selling functions 
performed for sales to Kolon USA. For example, in

[[Page 40786]]

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). 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 
in the United States or 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 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 
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, bank charges and ocean freight. 
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's October 13, 2009, Section C 
response at C-34 to C-35 and Exhibit C-16.

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 expenses 
associated with economic activity in the United States including direct 
selling expenses (i.e., commissions, 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's 
October 13, 2009, Section C response at C-34 to C-35 and Exhibit C-16.

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 16, 2009, questionnaire response at Exhibit 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 Polyethlylene Terephthalate 
Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Reinstatement of the 
Antidumping Duty Order 73 FR 18259 (April 3, 2008) (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

[[Page 40787]]

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 normally disregard 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 June 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted Average
               Manufacturer / Exporter                      Margin
                                                         (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kolon Industries, Inc...............................  0.30% (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 (or customer-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). However, where Kolon 
did not report the entered value

[[Page 40788]]

for its sales, we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-
specific) per unit duty assessment rates. 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.

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 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 21.50 percent from the LTFV investigation. See Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of Korea; Notice 
of Final Court Decision and Amended Final Determination of Antidumping 
Duty Investigation, 62 FR 50557 (September 26, 1997).

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: July 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-17170 Filed 7-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S