Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 49893-49900 [2010-20190]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Circumstances Memorandum) (August
9, 2010) at 2.
With regard to whether imports of
subject merchandise by the ‘‘all other’’
exporters of drill pipe in the PRC were
massive, the Department normally relies
on data sourced from the International
Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) Dataweb,
adjusted to remove shipments by the
respondents participating in the
investigation.7 In this case, however,
use of data from the ITC’s Dataweb is
not meaningful, because when the DP
Master Group’s monthly shipments are
subtracted from the monthly data
generated by the ITC’s Dataweb for the
main HTSUS categories (i.e., 7304.22
and 7304.23),8 the results for a number
of months are a negative amount. See
Critical Circumstances Memorandum at
3. This indicates that some of the DP
Master Group’s shipments entered
under the ‘‘may also enter under’’
HTSUS categories listed in the scope.
We note that those numbers represent
basket categories and, therefore, would
not provide accurate data for use in our
analysis. As such, we are basing our
preliminary finding of critical
circumstances for ‘‘all other’’ exporters
of drill pipe from the PRC on the
shipping experience of the DP Master
Group.
Regarding the preliminary conclusion
to base our finding of critical
circumstances for ‘‘all other’’ exporters
of drill pipe from the PRC on the
shipping experience of the DP Master
Group, we note that the two firms
initially identified by the Department in
the Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) Data Query Memorandum as the
two largest shippers of drill pipe to the
United States during the POI
subsequently claimed that their
shipments do not, in fact, reflect subject
merchandise. Assuming that the non–
shipment claims of these two firms are
valid,9 then the share of the DP Master
7 See, e.g., Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination,
Preliminary Negative Critical Circumstances
Determination, 74 FR 47210,47212 (September 15,
2009), unchanged in Certain Oil Country Tubular
Goods From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:
Final Negative Critical Circumstances
Determination, 74 FR 64045 (December 7, 2009).
8 Query of the 7304.22 and 7304.23 HTSUS
categories is in keeping with the data analysis
conducted for respondent selection where the
Department relied solely on Customs and Border
Protection data of 7304.22 and 7304.23 for selecting
respondents. See Memorandum to the File from
Eric G. Greynolds, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, regarding ‘‘Release of Initial
Customs and Border Protection Data,’’ (January 22,
2010) (CBP Data Query Memorandum).
9 The Department has requested entry documents
from CBP to verify the companies’ claim of nonshipment of subject merchandise.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:51 Aug 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
Group’s exports of drill pipe to the
United States during the POI is larger
than is indicated in the CBP Data Query
Memorandum and, thus, constitutes an
additional basis for the Department to
base its finding of critical circumstances
for ‘‘all other’’ exporters of drill pipe
from the PRC on the shipping
experience of the DP Master Group.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, we
preliminarily determine critical
circumstances exist for imports of drill
pipe from the DP Master Group. We also
preliminary determine, based on the
shipment experience of the DP Master
Group, that critical circumstances exist
as well for imports of drill pipe from ‘‘all
other’’ exporters from the PRC. We will
make a final determination concerning
critical circumstances for drill pipe from
the PRC when we make our final
countervailable subsidy determination
in this investigation.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section
703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we are directing
CBP to suspend liquidation of any
unliquidated entries of subject
merchandise from the PRC entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption, on or after March 13,
2010, which is 90 days prior to the date
of publication of the Preliminary
Determination in the Federal Register.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) of
the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination.
This determination is issued and
published pursuant to sections 703(f)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 9, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–20210 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–924]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49893
In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,
and strip (‘‘PET film’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) is November 6, 2008,
through October 31, 2009. This
administrative review covers two
mandatory respondents, and four
separate rate respondents (i.e., one
separate rate respondent that filed a
separate rate certification, one separate
rate respondent that claimed it did not
ship or sell subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR, and two
separate rate respondents who currently
have a separate rate, but that failed to
either recertify the separate rate, or, in
the alternative, make a claim that they
did not ship or sell subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR).
We have preliminarily determined
that sales have been made below normal
value (‘‘NV’’) by certain companies
subject to this review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of this review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the POR for which
the importer-specific assessment rates
are above de minimis.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results of
review. Parties who submit comments
are requested to submit with each
argument a statement of the issue and a
brief summary of the argument. We
intend to issue the final results of this
review no later than 120 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–3936.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department received a timely request
from DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi
Polyester Film, Inc., SKC, Inc., and
Toray Plastics (America), Inc.
(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’), in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1),
for an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on PET film
from the PRC for six companies: Fuwei
Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fuwei
Films’’), Shaoxing Xiangyu Green
Packing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Green Packing’’),
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wanhua’’),
Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
49894
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dongfang’’), Shanghai Xishu
Electric Material Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xishu’’), and
Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd. (‘‘Uchem’’).1
The Department also received timely
requests in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(2) for an administrative
review from Fuwei Films, Green
Packing, and Wanhua. On December 23,
2009, the Department published a notice
of initiation of an antidumping duty
administrative review on PET film from
the PRC, in which it initiated a review
of Fuwei Films, Green Packing,
Wanhua, Dongfang, Xishu, and Uchem.2
On December 29, 2009, the
Department placed on the record CBP
import data for the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 3920.62.0090.
On January 19, 2010, the Department
selected Fuwei Films and Green Packing
as mandatory respondents.3
On January 20, 2010, the Department
issued the antidumping questionnaire to
Fuwei Films and Green Packing. On
January 22, 2010, Wanhua filed a
separate rate certification, and Dongfang
certified that it had no entries of subject
merchandise during the POR. Between
February 26, 2010 and July 23, 2010,
Fuwei Films and Green Packing
responded to the Department’s
questionnaire and supplemental
questionnaires, and Petitioners
commented on the responses of Fuwei
Films and Green Packing.
In response to the Department’s April
5, 2010, letter providing parties with an
opportunity to submit comments
regarding surrogate country and
surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) selection,4
Petitioners filed surrogate country and
SV comments on April 19, 2010 and
May 3, 2010, respectively. On June 21,
24, and 29, 2010, Petitioners submitted
comments regarding data considerations
for selecting a surrogate country. Fuwei
Films and Green Packing filed surrogate
1 See also Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From Brazil, the People’s Republic
of China and the United Arab Emirates:
Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value for
the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595 (November
10, 2008) (‘‘Orders’’).
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 68229
(December 23, 2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
3 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, from
Thomas Martin, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, ‘‘Respondent
Selection in the First Administrative Review of
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated January
19, 2010 (‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’).
4 See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, Office 4, to All Interested Parties,
‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of PET
film from the People’s Republic of China (PRC),’’
dated April 5, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:51 Aug 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
country and SV rebuttal comments on
June 18, 2010 and July 13, 2010.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are
all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed
PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metalized films
and other finished films that have had
at least one of their surfaces modified by
the application of a performanceenhancing resinous or inorganic layer
more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also
excluded is roller transport cleaning
film which has at least one of its
surfaces modified by application of 0.5
micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and
drafting film is also excluded. PET film
is classifiable under subheading
3920.62.00.90 of the HTSUS. While
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
Intent To Rescind the Administrative
Review, in Part
As noted above, Dongfang reported
that it did not have any entries of
subject merchandise during the POR.5
The Department has not obtained any
evidence contradicting Dongfang’s
claims and, thus, has preliminarily
determined to rescind this
administrative review with respect to
Dongfang pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3).6
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
‘‘Act’’), any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. None of the
parties to this proceeding have
contested such treatment. Accordingly,
the Department calculated NV in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus,
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of subject
5 See Dongfang’s Entry of Appearance and No
Sales Certification, dated January 22, 2010.
6 See Respondent Selection Memo at Attachment
I (CBP import data indicating no shipments by
Dongfang).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
merchandise in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate
this independence through the absence
of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export
activities. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test set out in the
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from
the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR
20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as
further developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).
However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign-owned
or located in a market economy, then a
separate rate analysis is not necessary to
determine whether it is independent
from government control.7 Fuwei Films
submitted information indicating that it
is a wholly foreign-owned enterprise
under Chinese law.8 Therefore, for the
purposes of these preliminary results,
the Department finds that it is not
necessary to perform a separate-rate
analysis with respect to Fuwei Films.
Green Packing and Wanhua reported
that they are either wholly Chineseowned companies, or joint ventures
between Chinese and Foreign
companies.9 Therefore, the Department
must analyze whether these respondents
can demonstrate the absence of both de
jure and de facto governmental control
over export activities.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.10
The evidence provided by Green
Packing and Wanhua supports a
7 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From
the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104,
71104–71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus,
qualified for a separate rate).
8 See Fuwei Films’ March 12, 2010 Section A
Questionnaire response at question 2(a)(i).
9 See Wanhua’s January 22, 2010 Separate Rate
Certification response at question 2; see also Green
Packing’s March 12, 2010, Section A Questionnaire
response at question 2(a)(i).
10 See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Notices
The evidence placed on the record of
this administrative review by Green
Packing and Wanhua demonstrates an
absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to the
companies’ exports of the merchandise
under review, in accordance with the
criteria identified in Sparklers and
Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we have
preliminarily granted Green Packing
and Wanhua separate rate status.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
The Department typically considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
governmental control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a governmental agency; (2) whether
the respondent has authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.12 The Department has
determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining
whether respondents are, in fact, subject
to a degree of governmental control
which would preclude the Department
from assigning separate rates.
We determine that the evidence on
the record supports a preliminary
finding of de facto absence of
governmental control with respect to
Green Packing and Wanhua based on
record statements and supporting
documentation showing that the
companies: (1) Set their own export
prices independent of the government
and without the approval of a
government authority; (2) have the
authority to negotiate and sign contracts
and other agreements; (3) have
autonomy from the government
regarding the selection of management;
and (4) retain the proceeds from their
sales and make independent decisions
regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses.13
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
preliminary finding of de jure absence
of governmental control based on the
following: (1) There is an absence of
restrictive stipulations associated with
the companies’ business and export
licenses; (2) there are applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of PRC companies; and (3) there
are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of PRC
companies.11
Separate Rate Calculation
For exporters subject to
administrative review that were
determined to be eligible for separate
rate status, but were not selected as
mandatory respondents, the Department
generally weight-averages the rates
calculated for the mandatory
respondents, excluding any rates that
are zero, de minimis, or based entirely
on facts available.14 Consequently,
because the Department has calculated
positive margins for both mandatory
respondents, Fuwei Films and Green
Packing, in these preliminary results,
consistent with our practice, we have
preliminarily established a margin for
the separate rate respondent Wanhua
based on the rates we calculated for the
two mandatory respondents. However,
because there are only two respondents
for which a company-specific margin
was calculated in this review, the
Department has calculated a simple
average margin to ensure that the total
import quantity and value for each
company is not inadvertently revealed.
The rate established for the separate rate
respondents is 126.49 percent.
11 See Wanhua’s January 22, 2010 Separate Rate
Certification response at questions 10 through 14;
see also Green Packing’s March 12, 2010, Section
A Questionnaire response at question 2(d) through
2(f).
12 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22544–
22545 (May 8, 1995).
13 See Wanhua’s January 22, 2010 Separate Rate
Certification response at questions 15 through 20;
see also Green Packing’s March 12, 2010, Section
A Questionnaire response at questions 2(a)(iii)–(v);
2(b)–(c); 2(g)–(q).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:51 Aug 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
The PRC-Wide Entity
1. Xishu and Uchem
Xishu and Uchem currently have
separate rates.15 The record of this
review shows that Xishu and Uchem
were named in the Initiation Notice and,
thus, they are subject to this
administrative review. However, Xishu
and Uchem both failed to recertify their
separate rates using the separate rate
certification provided at the
Department’s Web site at https://ia.ita.
doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html, to
demonstrate their continued eligibility
for separate-rate status. Also, Xishu and
14 See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR
8273, 8279 (February 13, 2008), unchanged in
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper
Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008).
15 Xishu currently has a separate rate only as part
of a producer/exporter combination with Uchem.
See Orders, 73 FR at 66596.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49895
Uchem did not make a claim that they
did not ship or sell subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR. As
neither company timely certified that it
had no shipments or demonstrated that
it was entitled to a separate rate, the
Department finds that each company is
properly considered to be part of the
PRC-wide entity for this review. In
accordance with the Department’s
established NME methodology, a party’s
separate rate status must be established
in each segment of the proceeding in
which the party is involved.16 Thus, we
preliminarily determine that Xishu and
Uchem are part of the PRC-wide entity,
because they have not demonstrated
their entitlement to a separate rate or
certified that they had no shipments.
Selection of a Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an
antidumping duty administrative review
of imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the
Department to base NV, in most cases,
on the NME producer’s factors of
production (‘‘FOP’’) valued in a
surrogate market-economy country or
countries considered appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will
value FOP using ‘‘to the extent possible,
the prices or costs of factors of
production in one or more marketeconomy countries that are—(A) at a
level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country,
and (B) significant producers of
comparable merchandise.’’ Further,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the
Department will normally value FOP in
a single country.
In the instant review, the Department
identified India, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Colombia, Thailand, and
Peru as a non-exhaustive list of
countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC
and for which good quality data is most
likely available.17 On April 19, 2010,
Petitioners proposed selecting Thailand
as the surrogate country because (1) the
PRC and Thailand share comparable
levels of economic development, as
evidenced by the fact that Thailand’s
per capita gross national income is the
closest to the PRC among the countries
16 See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1405–06 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming
Department’s presumption of state control over
exporters in non market economy cases).
17 See Memorandum from Carole Showers,
Director, Office of Policy, to Robert Bolling,
Program Manager, Office 4, ‘‘Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Order on Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People’s Republic of China’’ (April 5, 2010) (‘‘Policy
Memorandum’’).
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
49896
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
included in the Policy Memorandum
listing potential surrogate countries, and
(2) Thailand is a significant producer of
merchandise identical to subject
merchandise, PET film.18 On June 18,
2010, Fuwei Films and Green Packing
filed rebuttal comments arguing that the
Department should select India as the
surrogate country.19
The Department finds that both
Thailand and India are at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country and are
significant producers of comparable
merchandise.20 Thus, the Department
bases its selection of a surrogate country
on the availability of contemporaneous
Indian and Thai data for valuing FOP.
With respect to data considerations,
in selecting a surrogate country, Policy
Bulletin 04.1 describes the Department’s
practice. Specifically, ‘‘ * * * if more
than one country has survived the
selection process to this point, the
country with the best factors data is
selected as the primary surrogate
country.’’ 21 Currently, the record
contains SV information, including
possible surrogate financial statements,
from Thailand and India. However, the
Department has determined that the
financial statements from Thailand do
not permit the Department to calculate
accurately surrogate financial ratios.22
Therefore, the Department has
preliminarily determined to select India
as the surrogate country on the basis
that: (1) It is at a comparable level of
economic development to the PRC,
pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is
a significant producer of comparable
merchandise; and (3) we have reliable
data from India that we can use to value
the FOP.23 Accordingly, we have
calculated NV using Indian prices,
when available and appropriate, to
value the FOP of Fuwei Films and
18 See Letter from Petitioners to Secretary of
Commerce, ‘‘Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)
Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic
of China; Choice of Surrogate Country,’’ (April 19,
2010).
19 See Letter from Respondents to Secretary of
Commerce, ‘‘Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)
Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic
of China: Rebuttal Comments to the Petitioners’
April 19, 2010, Surrogate Country Selection
Comments’’ (June 18, 2010).
20 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, from
Thomas Martin, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip from the People’s Republic of China:
Selection of a Surrogate Country,’’ dated August 9,
2010 (‘‘Surrogate Country Memo’’) at 5–7.
21 See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy
Surrogate Country Selection Process, (March 1,
2004) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’) available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov.
22 See Surrogate Country Memo at 8–10.
23 See Surrogate Country Memo.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:51 Aug 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
Green Packing.24 In accordance with 19
CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties
may submit publicly-available
information to value FOP until 20 days
after the date of publication of the
preliminary results.25
Fair Value Comparisons
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)
of the Act, to determine whether Fuwei
Films and Green Packing sold PET film
to the United States at less than NV, we
compared the export prices (‘‘EP’’) and
constructed export prices (‘‘CEP’’) of
individual transactions of the PET film
to the NV of the PET film, as described
in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections of this notice.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, the Department used EP as the
basis for U.S. price for Fuwei Films’ and
Green Packing’s sales where the first
sale to unaffiliated purchasers were
made prior to importation and the use
of CEP was not otherwise warranted. In
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act, the Department calculated EP
for Fuwei Films and Green Packing by
deducting the following expenses from
the starting price (gross unit price)
charged to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States: Foreign
inland freight from the plant to the port
of exportation, domestic inland
insurance, foreign brokerage and
handling, international freight, and
marine insurance. Additionally, the
Department based movement expenses
on SVs where the service was purchased
from a PRC company.26 For details
regarding our EP calculations, see
Memorandum to the File through Robert
24 See Memorandum to the File through Robert
Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, from Thomas Martin, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People’s Republic of China: Selection of Factor
Values,’’ dated August 9, 2010 (‘‘Surrogate Value
Memorandum’’).
25 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for
the final results of this administrative review,
interested parties may submit factual information to
rebut, clarify, or correct factual information
submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for
submission of such factual information. However,
the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1)
permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information placed on the
record. The Department generally will not accept
the submission of additional, previously absentfrom-the-record alternative SV information
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17,
2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
26 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, from Thomas
Martin, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for
the Preliminary Results of the First
Administrative Review of Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from the People’s Republic of China:
Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd.,’’
dated August 9, 2010 (‘‘Fuwei
Calculation Memo’’); see also
Memorandum to the File through Robert
Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, from Thomas
Martin, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for
the Preliminary Results of the First
Administrative Review of Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from the People’s Republic of China:
Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co.,
Ltd.,’’ dated August 9, 2010 (‘‘Green
Packing Calculation Memo’’).
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, the Department used CEP as the
basis for U.S. price for Fuwei Films’
sales where Fuwei Films first sold
subject merchandise to its affiliated
company in the United States, which in
turn sold subject merchandise to
unaffiliated U.S. customers. In
accordance with section 772(b) of the
Act, CEP is 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 such merchandise or by a
seller affiliated with the producer or
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated
with the producer or exporter, as
adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d)
of the Act. The Department calculated
CEP for Fuwei Films based on delivered
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States and made deductions,
where applicable, from the U.S. sales
price for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act. These movement expenses
included foreign inland freight from the
plant to the port of exportation,
domestic inland insurance,
international freight, marine insurance,
U.S. customs duty, U.S. inland freight
from port to the warehouse, and U.S.
inland freight from the warehouse to the
customer. In accordance with section
772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department
deducted credit expenses and indirect
selling expenses from the U.S. price, all
of which relate to commercial activity in
the United States. Finally, the
Department deducted CEP profit, in
accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and
772(f) of the Act. For details regarding
the CEP calculation, see Fuwei
Calculation Memo.
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Notices
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using an FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME
country and the available information
does not permit the calculation of NV
using home-market prices, third-country
prices, or constructed value under
section 773(a) of the Act. When
determining NV in an NME context, the
Department uses an FOP methodology
because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of NMEs
renders price comparisons and the
calculation of production costs invalid
under its normal methodologies.27
Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOP
include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours
of labor required; (2) quantities of raw
materials employed; (3) amounts of
energy and other utilities consumed;
and (4) representative capital costs. The
Department based NV on FOP reported
by the respondents for materials, energy,
labor and packing.
Thus, in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV by
adding together the values of the FOP,
overhead, selling, general and
administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses,
profit, and packing costs.28 We
calculated FOP values by multiplying
the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available
SVs (except as discussed below).
Specifically, we valued material, labor,
energy, and packing by multiplying the
amount of the factor consumed in
producing subject merchandise by the
average unit SV of the factor. In
addition, we added freight costs to the
surrogate costs that we calculated for
material inputs. We calculated freight
costs by multiplying surrogate freight
rates by the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to
the factory that produced the subject
merchandise or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory that
produced the subject merchandise, as
appropriate. This adjustment is in
accordance with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s
decision in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). We calculated surrogate
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
27 See
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to
Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744, 39754 (July 11, 2005),
unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 2003–
2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission
of Review, 71 FR 2517, 2521 (January 17, 2006).
28 We applied SVs to the FOP, as indicated in the
‘‘Selected Surrogate Values’’ section below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:51 Aug 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
overhead expenses, SG&A expenses,
and profit, and added these to the FOP
costs.29
With respect to the application of the
by-product offset to NV, consistent with
the Department’s determination in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May
22, 2006), and accompanying Issues and
Decisions Memorandum at Comment 9,
unchanged in Notice of Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and
Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 35864 (June
22, 2006) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’),
because our surrogate financial
statements contain no references to the
treatment of by-products and because
Fuwei Films and Green Packing
reported that they sold certain byproducts, ‘‘wasted film’’ and PET chip
by-product, we will deduct the SV of
these by-products from NV. This is
consistent with accounting principles
based on a reasonable assumption that
if a company sells a by-product, the byproduct necessarily incurs expenses for
overhead, SG&A, and profit.30
Selected Surrogate Values
In selecting the SVs, we considered
the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.
In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOP in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the
Act, the Department’s practice is to
select, to the extent practicable, SVs
which are non-export average values,
most contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.31
The record shows that the Indian import
statistics represent import data that are
contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.
In past cases, it has been the
Department’s practice to value various
FOP using import statistics of the
primary selected surrogate country from
World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’), as
published by Global Trade Information
Services (‘‘GTIS’’).32 However, in a
29 See Fuwei Calculation Memo at 10; see also
Green Packing Calculation Memo at 7.
30 See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades.
31 See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2007–
2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74
FR 27090, 27094 (June 8, 2009), unchanged in Pure
Magnesium from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 66089 (December 14, 2009).
32 See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49897
recent case, the OCTG Final, the
Department explained, based on
discussions with GTIS, that the Indian
import data obtained from the WTA, as
published by GTIS, began identifying
the original reporting currency for India
as the U.S. Dollar rather than the Indian
rupee, as was previously reported by
GTIS for Indian import data.33 While the
original India import data 34 obtained by
GTIS are denominated and published in
Indian rupees, in the OCTG Final, the
Department noted that GTIS made a
decision to change the original reporting
currency for Indian data from the Indian
Rupee to the U.S. Dollar in order to
reduce the loss of the number of
significant digits when obtaining data
through the WTA software.
Additionally, in the OCTG Final, the
Department also noted that
subsequently, GTIS restored the ability
to view Indian Rupee values in the
WTA software for Indian import data.
However, because these data were twice
converted,35 it was found that these data
would not correspond to the original
India data based on the WTA software’s
capability to only handle a limited
number of significant digits in each
conversion calculation.
Because of conversion and rounding
in the data reported by the WTA, the
Department will now obtain import
statistics from Global Trade Atlas
(‘‘GTA’’), as published by GTIS in
October 2009, for valuing various FOP.
The data reported in the GTA software
reports import statistics, such as from
India, in the original reporting currency
and thus these data correspond to the
original currency value reported by each
country. Additionally, the data reported
in the GTA software are reported to the
nearest digit and thus there is not a loss
of data by rounding, as there is with the
data reported by the WTA software.
Consequently the import statistics we
obtain from GTA have the same level of
accuracy as the original data released.
In accordance with the OTCA 1988
legislative history, the Department
continues to apply its long-standing
50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009), unchanged in
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 (December
10, 2009).
33 See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final
Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335
(April 19, 2010) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (‘‘OCTG
Final’’).
34 GTIS obtains data on imports into India
directly from the Ministry of Commerce,
Government of India.
35 Converted from Indian Rupee to U.S. Dollar,
then converted from U.S. Dollar to Indian Rupee.
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
49898
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
practice of disregarding SVs if it has a
reason to believe or suspect the source
data may be subsidized.36 In this regard,
the Department has previously found
that it is appropriate to disregard such
prices from e.g., Indonesia and South
Korea, because we have determined that
these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry specific export
subsidies.37 Based on the existence of
these subsidy programs that were
generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time
of the POR, the Department finds that it
is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from certain countries may have
benefitted from these subsidies.
Additionally, we excluded from our
calculations imports that were labeled
as originating from an unspecified
country because we could not determine
whether they were from either an NME
country, or from a country with
generally available subsidy programs.
Where we could only obtain SVs that
were not contemporaneous with the
POR, we inflated (or deflated) the SVs
using the Indian Wholesale Price Index
(‘‘WPI’’) as published in the
International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund.38
We valued FOP in the preliminary
results of this review using SVs, as
follows (see Surrogate Value
Memorandum for more specific details).
We valued PET Chips, Paper Core, Iron
Clip, Plywood, Wooden Pallets, Plastic
Cap, Labels, Plastic Packing Band,
Stretch Wrap Film, Plastic Bag, Paper
Plate, PE Foam using November 2008
through October 2009 weighted-average
Indian import values derived from the
GTA. See https://www.gtis.com/gta.htm.
The Indian import statistics that we
obtained from the GTA were published
by the Directorate General of
Commercial Intelligence and Statistics
of the Ministry of Commerce and
Industry, Government of India, and are
contemporaneous with the POR.39
We valued water using the revised
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation water rates available at
36 See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep.
No. 576, 590, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA
1988’’).
37 See e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality
Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8,
2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
17, 19–20.
38 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2 and
Exhibit 2.
39 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3–4 and
Exhibit 1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:51 Aug 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
https://www.midcindia.com/watersupply. The rates were
contemporaneous with the POR.40
We valued steam using an average
unit value obtained from information in
the publicly-available financial
statements of Hindalco Industries
Limited, an Indian producer of
aluminum products that reported its
steam consumption during the fiscal
year April 2007 through March 2008.
We inflated the value for steam using
the POR average WPI rate.41
We valued electricity using rates for
large industries at 33 Kilo Volts, as
published by the Central Electricity
Authority of the Government of India in
‘‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average
Rates of Electricity Supply in India’’,
dated March 2008. These electricity
rates represent actual country-wide,
publicly available information on taxexclusive electricity rates charged to
industries in India. As the rates listed in
this source became effective on a variety
of different dates, we are not adjusting
the average value for inflation.42
We valued natural gas using April
through June 2002 data from the Gas
Authority of India Ltd. Since the rates
are not contemporaneous with the POR,
we inflated the values using the WPI.43
We valued truck freight using a perunit average rate calculated from POR
data on the following Web site: https://
www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm. The logistics section of
this website contains inland freight
truck rates between many large Indian
cities. The rates were contemporaneous
with the POR.44
We valued domestic inland insurance
using information submitted by Agro
Dutch Industries Limited in the sixth
administrative review of the
antidumping proceeding of Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from India, for
the period February 2004 through
January 2005.45 The Department
inflated the domestic inland insurance
value using the appropriate WPI
inflator.46
To value the respondents’
international ocean freight from the PRC
40 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5 and
Exhibit 4.
41 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5 and
Exhibit 5.
42 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4 and
Exhibit 3.
43 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5 and
Exhibit 6.
44 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8 and
Exhibit 12.
45 See Agro Dutch Industries Ltd.’s section A–D
submission, dated May 24, 2005, at Exhibit B–1;
(see also Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006)).
46 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8 and
Exhibit 10.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to the United States on NME carriers in
instances where the exporter was
responsible for these charges, the
Department is using data obtained from
the Descartes Carrier Rate Retrieval
Database (‘‘Descartes’’), which can be
accessed via https://descartes.com/. The
Descartes rates were contemporaneous
with the POR.47
We valued marine insurance using the
price quote retrieved from RJG
Consultants, online at https://www.
rjgconsultants.com/163.html, a marketeconomy provider of marine insurance.
The price quote was contemporaneous
with the POR.48
The Department valued brokerage and
handling using a fee schedule of
brokerage and handling charges for a
standardized cargo of goods in India.
The fee schedule was compiled based
on a survey case study of the procedural
requirements for a standard shipment of
goods by ocean transport in India that
is published in Doing Business 2010:
India, by the World Bank. The price list
data is contemporaneous with the
POR.49
Fuwei Films and Green Packing
claimed by-product offsets since they
produced certain by-products, and were
able to demonstrate a commercial value
for the by-product by having sold a
portion of this production during the
POR. We valued these by-products
using GTA data for entries under
HTSUS number 3915.90.90 (‘‘Waste,
Parings and Scrap, of Plastics; Other’’).50
For direct, indirect, and packing
labor, pursuant to a recent decision by
the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, we revised our calculation of
the hourly wage rate to use in valuing
each respondent’s reported labor input
by averaging earnings and/or wages in
countries that are economically
comparable to the PRC and that are
significant producers of comparable
merchandise.51 Because this wage rate
does not separate the labor rates into
different skill levels or types of labor,
the Department has applied the same
wage rate to all skill levels and types of
labor reported by the respondents.52
47 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8 and
Exhibit 13.
48 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7 and
Exhibit 9.
49 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8 and
Exhibit 11.
50 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4 and
Exhibit 1.
51 See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d
1363, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See also Surrogate
Value Memorandum at 5–7 for a detailed discussion
of the Department’s revised labor wage rate
methodology.
52 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5–7 and
Exhibit 7.
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Notices
Lastly, we valued SG&A expenses,
factory overhead costs, and profit using
the contemporaneous 2008–2009
financial statements of Polyplex
Corporation Ltd., an Indian producer of
PET film.53 As both Petitioners and the
respondents have pointed out, the
2008–2009 financial statement of
Polyplex Corporation Ltd. shows
evidence of participation in the Duty
Entitlement Passbook scheme at page
61, which the Department has found to
be a countervailable subsidy. See
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From
India: Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
33243 (June 11, 2010) and the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at II.A.2. However, since
there are currently no other financial
statements on the record of this
administrative review that the
Department can use to calculate the
surrogate financial ratios, we have
determined that the 2008–2009 financial
statement of Polyplex Corporation Ltd.
is the best available information for
calculating surrogate financial ratios.
See section 773(c)(1) of the Act (‘‘* * *
the valuation of the factors of
production shall be based on the best
available information regarding the
values of such factors in a market
economy country * * *’’). Therefore,
based on the above data considerations,
we consider India to have the most
appropriate surrogate financial ratio
data for use in this proceeding.54
Further, consistent with the
Department’s practice to not rely on
incomplete surrogate financial
statements, we did not use the 2008–
2009 financial statement of Ester
Industries Ltd. placed on the record by
Fuwei Films and Green Packing,
because these respondents’ joint
submission failed to include a
significant portion of the financial
statement.55 See Surrogate Country
Memo at 9.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following dumping margins exist for
Fuwei Films, Green Packing, Wanhua,
and the PRC-Entity, for the period
53 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7 and
Exhibit 8.
54 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7 and
Exhibit 8.
55 See Surrogate Country Memo at 9.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:51 Aug 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
49899
merchandise subject to this review. The
Department calculated a per-unit rate
for each importer (or customer) by
Antidumping
dividing the total dumping margins for
Exporter
duty percent
reviewed sales to that party by the total
margin
sales quantity associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates
Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co.,
Ltd .....................................
122.58 calculated on this basis, the Department
will direct CBP to assess the resulting
Shaoxing Xiangyu Green
Packing Co., Ltd ...............
130.39 per-unit rate against the entered
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd .......
126.49 quantity of the subject merchandise.
PRC-wide Entity 56 ................
76.72 Where an importer- (or customer)
-specific assessment rate is de minimis
Disclosure
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the
Department will instruct CBP to assess
The Department will disclose
that importer’s (or customer’s) entries of
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within subject merchandise without regard to
five days after the date of publication of antidumping duties. The Department
intends to instruct CBP to liquidate
these preliminary results of review in
entries containing subject merchandise
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
exported by the PRC-wide entity at the
Comments
PRC-wide rate in the final results of this
Interested parties may submit written review. The Department intends to issue
comments no later than 30 days after the appropriate assessment instructions
date of publication of these preliminary directly to CBP 15 days after publication
of the final results of this review.
results of review. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal comments
Cash Deposit Requirements
must be limited to the issues raised in
The following cash deposit
the written comments and may be filed
requirements will be effective for
no later than five days after the time
shipments of subject merchandise from
limit for filing the case briefs. See 19
the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting
written comments or rebuttal comments warehouse, for consumption on or after
are requested to provide the Department the publication date of the final results
of the review, as provided by sections
with an additional copy of those
751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
comments on CD–R. Any interested
all respondents receiving a separate rate
party may request a hearing within 30
days of publication of these preliminary in this review, the cash deposit rate will
be that established in the final results of
results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
the review; (2) for previously
hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be
investigated or reviewed PRC and nonheld two days after the scheduled date
PRC exporters not listed above that have
for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19
separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
CFR 351.310(d). Parties should confirm
continue to be the exporter-specific rate
by telephone the date, time, and
published for the most recent period;
location of the hearing two days before
(3) for all PRC exporters of subject
the scheduled date.
merchandise that have not been found
The Department will issue the final
to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash
results of the administrative review,
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate
which will include the results of its
of 76.72 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC
analysis of issues raised in the briefs,
exporters of subject merchandise which
within 120 days of publication of these
have not received their own rate, the
preliminary results, in accordance with
cash deposit rate will be the rate
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless
applicable to the PRC exporters that
the time limit is extended.
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These
Assessment Rates
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the
notice.
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
Notification to Importers
appropriate entries of subject
This notice also serves as a
merchandise in accordance with the
preliminary reminder to importers of
final results of this review. For
their responsibility under 19 CFR
assessment purposes, the Department
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
calculated exporter/importer- (or
the reimbursement of antidumping
customer) -specific assessment rates for
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
56 Shanghai Xishu Electric Material Co., Ltd. and
period. Failure to comply with this
Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd. are part of the PRC-wide
entity.
requirement could result in the
November 6, 2008, through October 31,
2009:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
49900
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Notices
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and
publishing these preliminary results of
administrative review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: August 9, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–20190 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–351–841]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From Brazil:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
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
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,
and strip (PET film) from Brazil. This
administrative review covers one
respondent, Terphane, Inc. (Terphane)
and the period of review (POR) is
November 6, 2008 through October 31,
2009. Given Terphane’s failure to
respond to the Department’s requests for
information, we have assigned Terphane
a margin based on adverse facts
available (AFA). If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results
of this review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject
merchandise during the POR.
Interested parties are invited 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: August 16, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah Scott 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) 482–2657 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:51 Aug 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 10, 2008, the
Department published the antidumping
duty order on PET film from Brazil. See
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip From Brazil, the People’s
Republic of China and the United Arab
Emirates: Antidumping Duty Orders and
Amended Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value for the United
Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595 (November
10, 2008). On November 2, 2009, the
Department published Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 74
FR 56573 (November 2, 2009). On
November 30, 2009, DuPont Teijin
Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc.,
SKC, Inc., and Toray Plastics (America),
Inc. (collectively, petitioners) requested
that the Department conduct an
administrative review of Terphane’s
sales or offers for sales of PET film from
Brazil made during the period
November 6, 2008 through October 31,
2009. On December 23, 2009, the
Department published a notice of
initiation of an administrative review of
PET film from Brazil for Terphane for
the period November 6, 2008 through
October 31, 2009. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 74 FR 68229
(December 23, 2009). On January 12,
2010, the Department issued an
antidumping duty questionnaire to
Terphane. On February 12, 2010,
Terphane submitted a letter to the
Department stating it had only one very
small shipment of subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR and
that it had deposited duties on this
merchandise at the applicable cash
deposit rate. Because the value of the
subject merchandise shipped to the
United States during the POR was small,
Terphane declared it would not be
responding to the Department’s
questionnaire or otherwise participating
in the administrative review.
Period of Review
The POR is November 6, 2008 through
October 31, 2009.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or
primed PET film, whether extruded or
co-extruded. Excluded are metallized
films and other finished films that have
had at least one of their surfaces
modified by the application of a
performance-enhancing resinous or
inorganic layer more than 0.00001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
inches thick. Also excluded is roller
transport cleaning film which has at
least one of its surfaces modified by
application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR
latex. Tracing and drafting film is also
excluded. PET film is classifiable under
subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of these
orders is dispositive.
Application of Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that
the Department shall, subject to section
782(d) of the Act, apply ‘‘the facts
otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary
information is not available on the
record of an antidumping proceeding or
(2) an interested party or any other
person: (A) Withholds information that
has been requested by the administering
authority; (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadlines for the
submission of the information or in the
form and manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding under this title; or (D)
provides such information but the
information cannot be verified as
provided in section 782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so
inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent
practicable, provide that party with an
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act
further provides that if the party
submits further information that is
unsatisfactory or untimely, the
Department may, subject to subsection
(e), disregard all or part of the original
and subsequent responses. Section
782(e) of the Act provides that the
Department shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet
all the applicable requirements
established by the administering
authority if the information is submitted
in a timely manner, can be verified, is
not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and the interested party acted to the best
of its ability in providing the
information. Where all of these
conditions are met, the statute requires
the Department to use the information
supplied if it can do so without undue
difficulties.
In this case, Terphane did not provide
a response to our request for
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49893-49900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20190]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-924]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary
Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (``PET film'') from the People's
Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of review (``POR'') is November
6, 2008, through October 31, 2009. This administrative review covers
two mandatory respondents, and four separate rate respondents (i.e.,
one separate rate respondent that filed a separate rate certification,
one separate rate respondent that claimed it did not ship or sell
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and two
separate rate respondents who currently have a separate rate, but that
failed to either recertify the separate rate, or, in the alternative,
make a claim that they did not ship or sell subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR).
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value (``NV'') by certain companies subject to this review. If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'')
to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during
the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de
minimis.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results of review. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit
with each argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the
argument. We intend to issue the final results of this review no later
than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department received a timely request
from DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., SKC, Inc.,
and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. (collectively, ``Petitioners''), in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), for an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on PET film from the PRC for six companies:
Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. (``Fuwei Films''), Shaoxing Xiangyu
Green Packing Co., Ltd. (``Green Packing''), Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd.
(``Wanhua''), Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material
[[Page 49894]]
Co., Ltd. (``Dongfang''), Shanghai Xishu Electric Material Co., Ltd.
(``Xishu''), and Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd. (``Uchem'').\1\ The
Department also received timely requests in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(2) for an administrative review from Fuwei Films, Green
Packing, and Wanhua. On December 23, 2009, the Department published a
notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review on
PET film from the PRC, in which it initiated a review of Fuwei Films,
Green Packing, Wanhua, Dongfang, Xishu, and Uchem.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
From Brazil, the People's Republic of China and the United Arab
Emirates: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value for the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR
66595 (November 10, 2008) (``Orders'').
\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR
68229 (December 23, 2009) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 29, 2009, the Department placed on the record CBP
import data for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') subheading 3920.62.0090. On January 19, 2010, the
Department selected Fuwei Films and Green Packing as mandatory
respondents.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, from Thomas Martin, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, ``Respondent
Selection in the First Administrative Review of Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of
China,'' dated January 19, 2010 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 20, 2010, the Department issued the antidumping
questionnaire to Fuwei Films and Green Packing. On January 22, 2010,
Wanhua filed a separate rate certification, and Dongfang certified that
it had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Between
February 26, 2010 and July 23, 2010, Fuwei Films and Green Packing
responded to the Department's questionnaire and supplemental
questionnaires, and Petitioners commented on the responses of Fuwei
Films and Green Packing.
In response to the Department's April 5, 2010, letter providing
parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate
country and surrogate value (``SV'') selection,\4\ Petitioners filed
surrogate country and SV comments on April 19, 2010 and May 3, 2010,
respectively. On June 21, 24, and 29, 2010, Petitioners submitted
comments regarding data considerations for selecting a surrogate
country. Fuwei Films and Green Packing filed surrogate country and SV
rebuttal comments on June 18, 2010 and July 13, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, Office 4,
to All Interested Parties, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
of PET film from the People's Republic of China (PRC),'' dated April
5, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-
treated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or co-extruded. Excluded
are metalized films and other finished films that have had at least one
of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-
enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick.
Also excluded is roller transport cleaning film which has at least one
of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR
latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. PET film is
classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Intent To Rescind the Administrative Review, in Part
As noted above, Dongfang reported that it did not have any entries
of subject merchandise during the POR.\5\ The Department has not
obtained any evidence contradicting Dongfang's claims and, thus, has
preliminarily determined to rescind this administrative review with
respect to Dongfang pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Dongfang's Entry of Appearance and No Sales
Certification, dated January 22, 2010.
\6\ See Respondent Selection Memo at Attachment I (CBP import
data indicating no shipments by Dongfang).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the ``Act''), any determination that a foreign country is an
NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering
authority. None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such
treatment. Accordingly, the Department calculated NV in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent
so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test set out in
the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon
Carbide''). However, if the Department determines that a company is
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent
from government control.\7\ Fuwei Films submitted information
indicating that it is a wholly foreign-owned enterprise under Chinese
law.\8\ Therefore, for the purposes of these preliminary results, the
Department finds that it is not necessary to perform a separate-rate
analysis with respect to Fuwei Films.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China, 64
FR 71104, 71104-71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was
wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a separate rate).
\8\ See Fuwei Films' March 12, 2010 Section A Questionnaire
response at question 2(a)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Packing and Wanhua reported that they are either wholly
Chinese-owned companies, or joint ventures between Chinese and Foreign
companies.\9\ Therefore, the Department must analyze whether these
respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Wanhua's January 22, 2010 Separate Rate Certification
response at question 2; see also Green Packing's March 12, 2010,
Section A Questionnaire response at question 2(a)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by Green Packing and Wanhua supports a
[[Page 49895]]
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on
the following: (1) There is an absence of restrictive stipulations
associated with the companies' business and export licenses; (2) there
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of PRC
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of PRC companies.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Wanhua's January 22, 2010 Separate Rate Certification
response at questions 10 through 14; see also Green Packing's March
12, 2010, Section A Questionnaire response at question 2(d) through
2(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Absence of De Facto Control
The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses.\12\ The Department has determined that an analysis
of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22544-
22545 (May 8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We determine that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary
finding of de facto absence of governmental control with respect to
Green Packing and Wanhua based on record statements and supporting
documentation showing that the companies: (1) Set their own export
prices independent of the government and without the approval of a
government authority; (2) have the authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements; (3) have autonomy from the government
regarding the selection of management; and (4) retain the proceeds from
their sales and make independent decisions regarding disposition of
profits or financing of losses.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Wanhua's January 22, 2010 Separate Rate Certification
response at questions 15 through 20; see also Green Packing's March
12, 2010, Section A Questionnaire response at questions 2(a)(iii)-
(v); 2(b)-(c); 2(g)-(q).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence placed on the record of this administrative review by
Green Packing and Wanhua demonstrates an absence of de jure and de
facto government control with respect to the companies' exports of the
merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we have preliminarily granted
Green Packing and Wanhua separate rate status.
Separate Rate Calculation
For exporters subject to administrative review that were determined
to be eligible for separate rate status, but were not selected as
mandatory respondents, the Department generally weight-averages the
rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates
that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.\14\
Consequently, because the Department has calculated positive margins
for both mandatory respondents, Fuwei Films and Green Packing, in these
preliminary results, consistent with our practice, we have
preliminarily established a margin for the separate rate respondent
Wanhua based on the rates we calculated for the two mandatory
respondents. However, because there are only two respondents for which
a company-specific margin was calculated in this review, the Department
has calculated a simple average margin to ensure that the total import
quantity and value for each company is not inadvertently revealed. The
rate established for the separate rate respondents is 126.49 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273, 8279
(February 13, 2008), unchanged in Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August
20, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity
1. Xishu and Uchem
Xishu and Uchem currently have separate rates.\15\ The record of
this review shows that Xishu and Uchem were named in the Initiation
Notice and, thus, they are subject to this administrative review.
However, Xishu and Uchem both failed to recertify their separate rates
using the separate rate certification provided at the Department's Web
site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html, to demonstrate
their continued eligibility for separate-rate status. Also, Xishu and
Uchem did not make a claim that they did not ship or sell subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR. As neither company
timely certified that it had no shipments or demonstrated that it was
entitled to a separate rate, the Department finds that each company is
properly considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity for this review.
In accordance with the Department's established NME methodology, a
party's separate rate status must be established in each segment of the
proceeding in which the party is involved.\16\ Thus, we preliminarily
determine that Xishu and Uchem are part of the PRC-wide entity, because
they have not demonstrated their entitlement to a separate rate or
certified that they had no shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Xishu currently has a separate rate only as part of a
producer/exporter combination with Uchem. See Orders, 73 FR at
66596.
\16\ See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405-06
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming Department's presumption of state
control over exporters in non market economy cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of a Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an antidumping duty administrative
review of imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act
directs the Department to base NV, in most cases, on the NME producer's
factors of production (``FOP'') valued in a surrogate market-economy
country or countries considered appropriate by the Department. In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will value
FOP using ``to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of
production in one or more market-economy countries that are--(A) at a
level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country,
and (B) significant producers of comparable merchandise.'' Further,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally value
FOP in a single country.
In the instant review, the Department identified India, Indonesia,
the Philippines, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru as a non-exhaustive list
of countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to
the PRC and for which good quality data is most likely available.\17\
On April 19, 2010, Petitioners proposed selecting Thailand as the
surrogate country because (1) the PRC and Thailand share comparable
levels of economic development, as evidenced by the fact that
Thailand's per capita gross national income is the closest to the PRC
among the countries
[[Page 49896]]
included in the Policy Memorandum listing potential surrogate
countries, and (2) Thailand is a significant producer of merchandise
identical to subject merchandise, PET film.\18\ On June 18, 2010, Fuwei
Films and Green Packing filed rebuttal comments arguing that the
Department should select India as the surrogate country.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of
Policy, to Robert Bolling, Program Manager, Office 4, ``Request for
a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from the People's Republic of China'' (April 5, 2010)
(``Policy Memorandum'').
\18\ See Letter from Petitioners to Secretary of Commerce,
``Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People's Republic of China; Choice of Surrogate Country,'' (April
19, 2010).
\19\ See Letter from Respondents to Secretary of Commerce,
``Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Comments to the Petitioners'
April 19, 2010, Surrogate Country Selection Comments'' (June 18,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that both Thailand and India are at a level of
economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are
significant producers of comparable merchandise.\20\ Thus, the
Department bases its selection of a surrogate country on the
availability of contemporaneous Indian and Thai data for valuing FOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, from Thomas Martin, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's
Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,'' dated August
9, 2010 (``Surrogate Country Memo'') at 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to data considerations, in selecting a surrogate
country, Policy Bulletin 04.1 describes the Department's practice.
Specifically, `` * * * if more than one country has survived the
selection process to this point, the country with the best factors data
is selected as the primary surrogate country.'' \21\ Currently, the
record contains SV information, including possible surrogate financial
statements, from Thailand and India. However, the Department has
determined that the financial statements from Thailand do not permit
the Department to calculate accurately surrogate financial ratios.\22\
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined to select India
as the surrogate country on the basis that: (1) It is at a comparable
level of economic development to the PRC, pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the
Act; (2) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and
(3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the
FOP.\23\ Accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian prices, when
available and appropriate, to value the FOP of Fuwei Films and Green
Packing.\24\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested
parties may submit publicly-available information to value FOP until 20
days after the date of publication of the preliminary results.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate
Country Selection Process, (March 1, 2004) (``Policy Bulletin
04.1'') available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov.
\22\ See Surrogate Country Memo at 8-10.
\23\ See Surrogate Country Memo.
\24\ See Memorandum to the File through Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, from Thomas Martin,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, ``Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Factor
Values,'' dated August 9, 2010 (``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
\25\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information placed on the record. The
Department generally will not accept the submission of additional,
previously absent-from-the-record alternative SV information
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17,
2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, to determine
whether Fuwei Films and Green Packing sold PET film to the United
States at less than NV, we compared the export prices (``EP'') and
constructed export prices (``CEP'') of individual transactions of the
PET film to the NV of the PET film, as described in the ``U.S. Price,''
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department used
EP as the basis for U.S. price for Fuwei Films' and Green Packing's
sales where the first sale to unaffiliated purchasers were made prior
to importation and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. In
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department
calculated EP for Fuwei Films and Green Packing by deducting the
following expenses from the starting price (gross unit price) charged
to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States: Foreign inland
freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic inland
insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, and
marine insurance. Additionally, the Department based movement expenses
on SVs where the service was purchased from a PRC company.\26\ For
details regarding our EP calculations, see Memorandum to the File
through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4,
from Thomas Martin, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
``Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the First
Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co.,
Ltd.,'' dated August 9, 2010 (``Fuwei Calculation Memo''); see also
Memorandum to the File through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, from Thomas Martin, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, ``Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results of the First Administrative Review of Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of
China: Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd.,'' dated August 9, 2010
(``Green Packing Calculation Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, the Department used
CEP as the basis for U.S. price for Fuwei Films' sales where Fuwei
Films first sold subject merchandise to its affiliated company in the
United States, which in turn sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated
U.S. customers. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is
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 such merchandise
or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser
not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under
sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. The Department calculated CEP for
Fuwei Films based on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States and made deductions, where applicable, from the U.S.
sales price for movement expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These movement expenses included foreign
inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic
inland insurance, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs
duty, U.S. inland freight from port to the warehouse, and U.S. inland
freight from the warehouse to the customer. In accordance with section
772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted credit expenses and
indirect selling expenses from the U.S. price, all of which relate to
commercial activity in the United States. Finally, the Department
deducted CEP profit, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f)
of the Act. For details regarding the CEP calculation, see Fuwei
Calculation Memo.
[[Page 49897]]
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported
from an NME country and the available information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV
in an NME context, the Department uses an FOP methodology because the
presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders
price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under
its normal methodologies.\27\ Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOP
include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2)
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. The
Department based NV on FOP reported by the respondents for materials,
energy, labor and packing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to
Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744, 39754 (July 11, 2005), unchanged in
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-2004
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517,
2521 (January 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated
NV by adding together the values of the FOP, overhead, selling, general
and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, profit, and packing costs.\28\
We calculated FOP values by multiplying the reported per-unit factor-
consumption rates by publicly available SVs (except as discussed
below). Specifically, we valued material, labor, energy, and packing by
multiplying the amount of the factor consumed in producing subject
merchandise by the average unit SV of the factor. In addition, we added
freight costs to the surrogate costs that we calculated for material
inputs. We calculated freight costs by multiplying surrogate freight
rates by the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic
supplier to the factory that produced the subject merchandise or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the factory that produced the
subject merchandise, as appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We calculated surrogate overhead expenses, SG&A expenses, and profit,
and added these to the FOP costs.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ We applied SVs to the FOP, as indicated in the ``Selected
Surrogate Values'' section below.
\29\ See Fuwei Calculation Memo at 10; see also Green Packing
Calculation Memo at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the application of the by-product offset to NV,
consistent with the Department's determination in Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22,
2006), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 9,
unchanged in Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 35864 (June 22, 2006) (``Diamond Sawblades''),
because our surrogate financial statements contain no references to the
treatment of by-products and because Fuwei Films and Green Packing
reported that they sold certain by-products, ``wasted film'' and PET
chip by-product, we will deduct the SV of these by-products from NV.
This is consistent with accounting principles based on a reasonable
assumption that if a company sells a by-product, the by-product
necessarily incurs expenses for overhead, SG&A, and profit.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected Surrogate Values
In selecting the SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.
In selecting the best available information for valuing FOP in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice
is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are non-export
average values, most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific,
and tax-exclusive.\31\ The record shows that the Indian import
statistics represent import data that are contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of 2007-2008 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 27090, 27094 (June 8, 2009), unchanged
in Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 66089 (December 14,
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In past cases, it has been the Department's practice to value
various FOP using import statistics of the primary selected surrogate
country from World Trade Atlas (``WTA''), as published by Global Trade
Information Services (``GTIS'').\32\ However, in a recent case, the
OCTG Final, the Department explained, based on discussions with GTIS,
that the Indian import data obtained from the WTA, as published by
GTIS, began identifying the original reporting currency for India as
the U.S. Dollar rather than the Indian rupee, as was previously
reported by GTIS for Indian import data.\33\ While the original India
import data \34\ obtained by GTIS are denominated and published in
Indian rupees, in the OCTG Final, the Department noted that GTIS made a
decision to change the original reporting currency for Indian data from
the Indian Rupee to the U.S. Dollar in order to reduce the loss of the
number of significant digits when obtaining data through the WTA
software. Additionally, in the OCTG Final, the Department also noted
that subsequently, GTIS restored the ability to view Indian Rupee
values in the WTA software for Indian import data. However, because
these data were twice converted,\35\ it was found that these data would
not correspond to the original India data based on the WTA software's
capability to only handle a limited number of significant digits in
each conversion calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009), unchanged in
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520
(December 10, 2009).
\33\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances and
Final Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19,
2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4
(``OCTG Final'').
\34\ GTIS obtains data on imports into India directly from the
Ministry of Commerce, Government of India.
\35\ Converted from Indian Rupee to U.S. Dollar, then converted
from U.S. Dollar to Indian Rupee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of conversion and rounding in the data reported by the WTA,
the Department will now obtain import statistics from Global Trade
Atlas (``GTA''), as published by GTIS in October 2009, for valuing
various FOP. The data reported in the GTA software reports import
statistics, such as from India, in the original reporting currency and
thus these data correspond to the original currency value reported by
each country. Additionally, the data reported in the GTA software are
reported to the nearest digit and thus there is not a loss of data by
rounding, as there is with the data reported by the WTA software.
Consequently the import statistics we obtain from GTA have the same
level of accuracy as the original data released.
In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the
Department continues to apply its long-standing
[[Page 49898]]
practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or suspect
the source data may be subsidized.\36\ In this regard, the Department
has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices
from e.g., Indonesia and South Korea, because we have determined that
these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific
export subsidies.\37\ Based on the existence of these subsidy programs
that were generally available to all exporters and producers in these
countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it is
reasonable to infer that all exporters from certain countries may have
benefitted from these subsidies. Additionally, we excluded from our
calculations imports that were labeled as originating from an
unspecified country because we could not determine whether they were
from either an NME country, or from a country with generally available
subsidy programs. Where we could only obtain SVs that were not
contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated (or deflated) the SVs using
the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in the
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary
Fund.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf.
Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 590, 100th Cong., 2nd
Sess. (1988) (``OTCA 1988'').
\37\ See e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate
from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR
45692 (August 8, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19-20.
\38\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2 and Exhibit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued FOP in the preliminary results of this review using SVs,
as follows (see Surrogate Value Memorandum for more specific details).
We valued PET Chips, Paper Core, Iron Clip, Plywood, Wooden Pallets,
Plastic Cap, Labels, Plastic Packing Band, Stretch Wrap Film, Plastic
Bag, Paper Plate, PE Foam using November 2008 through October 2009
weighted-average Indian import values derived from the GTA. See https://www.gtis.com/gta.htm. The Indian import statistics that we obtained
from the GTA were published by the Directorate General of Commercial
Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India, and are contemporaneous with the POR.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3-4 and Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued water using the revised Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation water rates available at https://www.midcindia.com/water-supply. The rates were contemporaneous with the
POR.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5 and Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued steam using an average unit value obtained from
information in the publicly-available financial statements of Hindalco
Industries Limited, an Indian producer of aluminum products that
reported its steam consumption during the fiscal year April 2007
through March 2008. We inflated the value for steam using the POR
average WPI rate.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5 and Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued electricity using rates for large industries at 33 Kilo
Volts, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the
Government of India in ``Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of
Electricity Supply in India'', dated March 2008. These electricity
rates represent actual country-wide, publicly available information on
tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to industries in India. As the
rates listed in this source became effective on a variety of different
dates, we are not adjusting the average value for inflation.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4 and Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued natural gas using April through June 2002 data from the
Gas Authority of India Ltd. Since the rates are not contemporaneous
with the POR, we inflated the values using the WPI.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5 and Exhibit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued truck freight using a per-unit average rate calculated
from POR data on the following Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this website contains
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. The rates
were contemporaneous with the POR.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8 and Exhibit 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued domestic inland insurance using information submitted by
Agro Dutch Industries Limited in the sixth administrative review of the
antidumping proceeding of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India, for
the period February 2004 through January 2005.\45\ The Department
inflated the domestic inland insurance value using the appropriate WPI
inflator.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Agro Dutch Industries Ltd.'s section A-D submission,
dated May 24, 2005, at Exhibit B-1; (see also Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006)).
\46\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8 and Exhibit 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value the respondents' international ocean freight from the PRC
to the United States on NME carriers in instances where the exporter
was responsible for these charges, the Department is using data
obtained from the Descartes Carrier Rate Retrieval Database
(``Descartes''), which can be accessed via https://descartes.com/. The
Descartes rates were contemporaneous with the POR.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8 and Exhibit 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued marine insurance using the price quote retrieved from RJG
Consultants, online at https://www.rjgconsultants.com/163.html, a
market-economy provider of marine insurance. The price quote was
contemporaneous with the POR.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7 and Exhibit 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department valued brokerage and handling using a fee schedule
of brokerage and handling charges for a standardized cargo of goods in
India. The fee schedule was compiled based on a survey case study of
the procedural requirements for a standard shipment of goods by ocean
transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: India, by
the World Bank. The price list data is contemporaneous with the
POR.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8 and Exhibit 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuwei Films and Green Packing claimed by-product offsets since they
produced certain by-products, and were able to demonstrate a commercial
value for the by-product by having sold a portion of this production
during the POR. We valued these by-products using GTA data for entries
under HTSUS number 3915.90.90 (``Waste, Parings and Scrap, of Plastics;
Other'').\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4 and Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct, indirect, and packing labor, pursuant to a recent
decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we revised
our calculation of the hourly wage rate to use in valuing each
respondent's reported labor input by averaging earnings and/or wages in
countries that are economically comparable to the PRC and that are
significant producers of comparable merchandise.\51\ Because this wage
rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or
types of labor, the Department has applied the same wage rate to all
skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondents.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372-73
(Fed. Cir. 2010). See also Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5-7 for a
detailed discussion of the Department's revised labor wage rate
methodology.
\52\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5-7 and Exhibit 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49899]]
Lastly, we valued SG&A expenses, factory overhead costs, and profit
using the contemporaneous 2008-2009 financial statements of Polyplex
Corporation Ltd., an Indian producer of PET film.\53\ As both
Petitioners and the respondents have pointed out, the 2008-2009
financial statement of Polyplex Corporation Ltd. shows evidence of
participation in the Duty Entitlement Passbook scheme at page 61, which
the Department has found to be a countervailable subsidy. See Carbazole
Violet Pigment 23 From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 33243 (June 11, 2010) and the accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at II.A.2. However, since there are
currently no other financial statements on the record of this
administrative review that the Department can use to calculate the
surrogate financial ratios, we have determined that the 2008-2009
financial statement of Polyplex Corporation Ltd. is the best available
information for calculating surrogate financial ratios. See section
773(c)(1) of the Act (``* * * the valuation of the factors of
production shall be based on the best available information regarding
the values of such factors in a market economy country * * *'').
Therefore, based on the above data considerations, we consider India to
have the most appropriate surrogate financial ratio data for use in
this proceeding.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7 and Exhibit 8.
\54\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7 and Exhibit 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, consistent with the Department's practice to not rely on
incomplete surrogate financial statements, we did not use the 2008-2009
financial statement of Ester Industries Ltd. placed on the record by
Fuwei Films and Green Packing, because these respondents' joint
submission failed to include a significant portion of the financial
statement.\55\ See Surrogate Country Memo at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See Surrogate Country Memo at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist
for Fuwei Films, Green Packing, Wanhua, and the PRC-Entity, for the
period November 6, 2008, through October 31, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antidumping
Exporter duty percent
margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd......................... 122.58
Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd................. 130.39
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd................................. 126.49
PRC-wide Entity \56\.................................... 76.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within five days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results of review in accordance with
19 CFR 351.224(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Shanghai Xishu Electric Material Co., Ltd. and Shanghai
Uchem Co., Ltd. are part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal comments must be limited
to the issues raised in the written comments and may be filed no later
than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. See 19
CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting written comments or rebuttal
comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional
copy of those comments on CD-R. Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See
19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held
two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs.
See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties should confirm by telephone the date,
time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
The Department will issue the final results of the administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary
results, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless the
time limit is extended.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For
assessment purposes, the Department calculated exporter/importer- (or
customer) -specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this
review. The Department calculated a per-unit rate for each importer (or
customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to
that party by the total sales quantity associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, the
Department will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate
against the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an
importer- (or customer) -specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e.,
less than 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess
that importer's (or customer's) entries of subject merchandise without
regard to antidumping duties. The Department intends to instruct CBP to
liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-
wide entity at the PRC-wide rate in the final results of this review.
The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this
review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for
shipments of subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of the review, as provided by sections 751(a)(1) and
(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For all respondents receiving a separate rate
in this review, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the
final results of the review; (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 that have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 76.72
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 non-PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
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
[[Page 49900]]
Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results
of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: August 9, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-20190 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
