Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 49902-49907 [2010-20212]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49902-49907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20212]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-837]


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

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an

[[Page 49903]]

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene 
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from Taiwan. This 
review covers respondents, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd., (Nan Ya), 
as well as Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation (SSFC) and Shinkong 
Materials Technology Co. Ltd. (SMTC) (collectively, Shinkong), 
producers and exporters of PET Film from Taiwan.
    The Department preliminarily determines that sales of PET Film from 
Taiwan have been made below normal value during the period of review. 
The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled 
``Preliminary Results of Review.'' Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: August 16, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert, Martha Douthit, or Jun 
Jack Zhao, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 428-3586, (202) 482-5050, or (202) 482-1396, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on PET Film from Taiwan. See Amended Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip (PET Film) from Taiwan, 67 FR 46566 (July 1, 2002).
    On July 1, 2009, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 31406 (July 1, 
2009). In response, on July 30, 2009, the domestic interested parties 
DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, SKC, Inc., 
and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. requested that the Department 
conduct an administrative review of Nan Ya and Shinkong's sales of PET 
Film in the U.S. market.
    On August 25, 2009, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of Nan Ya and Shinkong. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in 
Part, 74 FR 42873 (August 25, 2009). On September 23, 2009, the 
Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to the respondents. 
During April and May 2010, the Department issued two supplemental 
questionnaires to Nan Ya and one to Shinkong regarding their sales 
information. Separately, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to both respondents from May through July regarding 
their reported cost information. All responses were submitted on a 
timely basis.
    On March 25, 2010 the Department extended the time period for 
issuing the preliminary results of the administrative review.\1\ See 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from Taiwan: Extension 
of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 14423 (March 25, 2010). The revised 
deadline fell on Saturday, August 7, 2010. It is the Department's long-
standing practice, however, to issue a determination the next business 
day when the statutory deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday, or 
any other day when the Department is closed. See Notice of 
Clarification: Application of ``Next Business Day'' Rule for 
Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 
1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Accordingly, the deadline 
for the completion of these preliminary results was revised to August 
9, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department had previously exercised its discretion to 
toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from February 5 through February 12, 2010. Thus, all 
deadlines in this segment of the proceeding, including these 
preliminary results, had already been extended by seven days. See 
Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 
Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a 
Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' 
dated February 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 29, 2010, and August 4, 2010, we received comments from 
Petitioners offering suggestions for these preliminary results of 
review for Nan Ya and Shinkong, respectively. The Department did not 
have adequate time to consider these comments in their entirety for 
these preliminary results. We will, however, consider them for any 
upcoming supplemental questionnaires, for verification, if conducted, 
and for the final results of review.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered 
are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate 
film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and 
other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces 
modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or 
inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET Film are 
currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description 
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009.

Collapsing of SSFC and SMTC

    The Department preliminarily determines that SSFC and SMTC should 
be treated as a single entity (i.e., Shinkong) for purposes of 
calculating an antidumping margin pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). SMTC 
was established in October 2004 and it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of 
SSFC. SSFC and SMTC produce similar or identical merchandise. During 
the POR, all of the subject merchandise under review produced by SMTC 
was sold to SSFC for SSFC's re-sale in the home market, U.S. market and 
third countries. The level of common ownership between SSFC and SMTC 
creates a significant potential for manipulation of price or 
production.

Affiliation of Nan Ya With U.S. Customers

    In the less-than-fair-value investigation, and in the first 
administrative review, the Department determined that Nan Ya, through a 
family grouping, was in a position of legal and operational control of 
three U.S. customers, in accordance with section 771(33)(F) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from Taiwan, Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 67 FR 35474, May 
20, 2002. See also, ``Affiliation of Nan Ya Plastic Corporation, Ltd., 
with Certain U.S. Customers,'' dated April 1, 2004. Members of a family 
involved in the ownership and management of Nan Ya also shared 
ownership and management of these three U.S. companies with potential 
to act in concert or act out of common interest to exert restraint or 
direction over a company's activities.
    On April 6, 2010, and May 27, 2010, the Department requested that 
Nan Ya provide additional information regarding Nan Ya's relationship 
with the U.S. customers. In this review period, Nan Ya sold the subject 
merchandise to these same U.S. companies. However, Nan Ya states that 
the family links are no longer present due to the passing of

[[Page 49904]]

Nan Ya's late chairman in October 2008. Yet, the passing of a single 
member does not establish that Nan Ya and the three U.S. companies are 
no longer directly or indirectly, legally and operationally controlled 
by, or under common control, control of the family grouping.
    Based on Nan Ya's responses to the Department's questionnaires 
regarding ownership and management of the three U.S. companies, in 
addition to evidence placed on the record resulting from the 
Department's independent research regarding the relationship between 
Nan Ya and these U.S. customers, the Department preliminarily 
determines that Nan Ya continues to be affiliated with these U.S. 
customers through a family grouping. See Memorandum to Barbara E. 
Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, ``Affiliation of Nan Ya 
Plastics Corporation, Ltd. (Nan Ya) with Certain U.S. Customers,'' 
dated August 9, 2010.\2\ The family grouping still has the potential to 
act in concert or act out of common interest, to exert restraint or 
direction over the companies' activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We have also placed on the record our Nan Ya affiliations 
analysis from the most-recent administrative review. See Memorandum 
to the File, ``Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd. Affiliations 
Analysis for the Period December 21, 2001 through June 30, 2003,'' 
dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of PET Film were made at less than 
normal value (NV), we compared the respondents' export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) sales made in the United States to 
unaffiliated customers to NV, as described below in the ``United States 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP and CEP of 
individual transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs.

Product Comparisons

    Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, we determined that products 
sold by the respondents, as described in the ``Scope of the Order'' 
section, above, and sold in Taiwan during the POR, to be foreign like 
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales. We have relied on four criteria to match U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise to comparison-market sales: specification, 
thickness, thickness category, and surface treatment. Where there were 
no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product 
on the basis of the characteristics listed above.
    Nan Ya reported additional internal codes and product model 
matching characteristics to indicate the special features of certain 
subject merchandise types. However, we have determined not to include 
these additional product model matching characteristics for the purpose 
of these preliminary results. Interested parties will have the 
opportunity to comment on the use of these additional product model 
matching characteristics in their case briefs.

Level of Trade

    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
(LOT) than U.S. sales, we examine selling functions along the chain of 
distribution between the respondent and the unaffiliated customer for 
EP sales and between the respondent and the affiliated U.S. importer 
for CEP sales. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, 
and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a 
pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV 
is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export 
transaction, we make a LOT adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) 
of the Act.
    In implementing these principles, we examined information provided 
by Nan Ya regarding the selling functions involved in its home market 
and U.S. sales, including a description of these selling functions, 
listed in Exhibit SE A-5 of Nan Ya's May 5, 2010 submission. Based on 
our analysis, we have preliminarily determined that Nan Ya sold at one 
LOT in the home market and one LOT in the United States (including both 
EP and CEP sales), as claimed by Nan Ya in its questionnaire responses. 
We have also preliminarily determined that the home market and U.S. 
LOTs are the same, and that, therefore, a LOT adjustment is not 
warranted. We note that Nan Ya did not request a LOT adjustment.

Quarterly COP and CV

    While we have analyzed the quarterly cost of production (COP) and 
constructed value (CV) information from both Nan Ya and Shinkong, we 
note that we have issued additional supplemental questions on this 
issue. We intend to fully examine all of the quarterly COP and CV 
information after the preliminary results and determine whether it is 
appropriate to use shorter cost averaging periods for COP and CV in a 
post-preliminary analysis memorandum.

Arm's-Length Test

    The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated 
party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is 
comparable to the prices at which sales are made to parties not 
affiliated with the exporter or producer; i.e., sales to home market 
affiliates must be at arm's-length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Sales to 
affiliated customers for consumption in the home market that are 
determined not to be at arm's-length are excluded from our analysis. To 
test whether sales are made at arm's-length prices, the Department 
compares the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling 
expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c), and in accordance 
with the Department's practice, when the prices charged to an 
affiliated party are, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the 
prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to 
that sold to the affiliated party, we determine that the sales to the 
affiliated party are at arm's-length. See Antidumping Proceedings: 
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 
69187 (November 15, 2002).
    In this proceeding, Nan Ya did not have sales to affiliates in the 
home market. Shinkong reported sales of the foreign like product to 
affiliated customers who consumed the purchased material. Shinkong's 
sales to these affiliated home market customers did not pass the arm's-
length test, and were therefore excluded from our analysis. See section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.

Nan Ya Margin Calculation

Export Price and Constructed Export Price
    In calculating the antidumping duty margins for Nan Ya, we used EP, 
as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, for all sales that Nan Ya made 
directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers. As discussed above, however, 
we have preliminarily determined that certain U.S. customers were 
affiliated with Nan Ya during the POR. Thus, for such sales, we used 
CEP in our margin calculations, as defined in section 772(b) of the 
Act.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PET 
Film in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
normal value, we compared the volume of respondent's

[[Page 49905]]

home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of their 
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the 
Act, and 19 CFR 351.404(b), because Nan Ya's aggregate volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent 
of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we 
have determined that the home market was viable for comparison 
purposes.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    Pursuant to 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, because the Department had 
disregarded certain of Nan Ya's sales in the most recently completed 
review of this order, the Department had reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that Nan Ya made home market sales at prices below COP in 
this review. As a result, the Department was directed under section 
773(b) of the Act to determine whether Nan Ya made home market sales 
during the POR at prices below COP.

C. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Nan Ya's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and 
administrative expenses (SG&A), interest expenses and home market 
packing costs. See Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 
Accounting, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Nan Ya Plastics Corporation,'' 
dated August 9, 2010. We applied the major input rule under section 
773(f)(3) of the Act to Nan Ya's purchases of purified terephthalic 
acid (PTA) from an affiliated supplier and adjusted Nan Ya's reported 
cost of manufacturing to reflect the higher of transfer price, market 
price or COP. We eliminated the inter-divisional profit arising from 
ethylene glycol transactions between Nan Ya's Polyester Fiber division 
and one of its petrochemicals divisions. In addition, we adjusted Nan 
Ya's reported cost of manufacturing to include excluded pension costs 
and surplus fixed costs. Finally, we adjusted Nan Ya's reported total 
general and administrative expense to include the cost of temporary 
plant shutdowns. These calculations include revisions by the Department 
to the COP information reported by Nan Ya.

D. COP Test

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the revised COP figures to 
home market prices net of applicable billing adjustments, discounts and 
rebates, movement charges, selling expenses, and packing to determine 
whether home market sales had been made at prices below COP. In 
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below 
COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of 
the Act, whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were 
made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at 
prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. In accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a 
given product was sold at prices less than COP, we did not disregard 
any below-cost sales of that product, because the below-cost sales were 
not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
given product was sold at prices less than COP, we disregarded the 
below cost sales because: (1) They were made within an extended period 
of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and, (2) based on our comparison of 
prices to weighted-average COP figures for the POR, they were made at 
prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act. Based on this analysis, we found that Nan Ya did have below 
cost sales that must be disregarded. We used the remaining home market 
sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.

E. Constructed Value

    After disregarding certain sales as below cost, as described above, 
home market sales of contemporaneous identical and similar products 
existed that allowed for price-to-price comparisons for all margin 
calculations. Therefore, the Department did not need to rely on 
constructed value for any calculations for this preliminary 
determination.

F. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers 
in the home market. We used Nan Ya's adjustments and deductions as 
reported. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland 
freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, for 
comparisons involving similar merchandise, we made adjustments for cost 
differences attributable to the physical differences between the 
products compared, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments for imputed credit expenses. Finally, we deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Shinkong's Margin Calculation

Export Price
    In calculating the antidumping duty margins for Shinkong, we used 
EP, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PET 
Film in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
normal value, we compared the volume of respondent's home market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of their U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. 
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
351.404(b), because Shinkong's aggregate volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we have determined 
that the home market was viable for comparison purposes.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    Pursuant to 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, because the Department had 
disregarded certain of Shinkong's sales in the most recently completed 
review of this order, the Department had reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that Shinkong made home market sales at prices below COP in 
this review. As a result, the Department was directed under section 
773(b) of the Act to determine whether Shinkong made home market sales 
during the POR at prices below COP.

C. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Shinkong's cost of materials and fabrication for 
the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A, interest expenses and 
home market packing costs. These calculations include revisions by the 
Department to the COP information reported by Shinkong. We adjusted 
SSFC's total general and administrative expenses to include the cost of 
temporary plant shut-downs for both SSFC and its

[[Page 49906]]

affiliated producer of merchandise under consideration, SMTC. See 
Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results--Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation,'' dated 
August 9, 2010.

D. COP Test

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the revised COP figures to 
home market prices net of applicable billing adjustments, discounts and 
rebates, movement charges, selling expenses, and packing to determine 
whether home market sales had been made at prices below COP. In 
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below 
COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of 
the Act, whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were 
made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at 
prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. In accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a 
given product was sold at prices less than COP, we did not disregard 
any below-cost sales of that product, because the below-cost sales were 
not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
given product was sold at prices less than COP, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales because: (1) They were made within an extended period 
of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and, (2) based on our comparison of 
prices to weighted-average COP figures for the POR, they were made at 
prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act. Based on this analysis, we found that Shinkong did have below-
cost sales that must be disregarded. We used the remaining home market 
sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.

E. Constructed Value

    After disregarding certain sales as below cost, as described above, 
home market sales of contemporaneous identical and similar products 
existed that allowed for price-to-price comparisons for all margin 
calculations. Therefore, the Department did not need to rely on 
constructed value for any calculations for this preliminary 
determination.

F. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers 
in the home market.\3\ We used Shinkong's adjustments and deductions as 
reported. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland 
freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, for 
comparisons involving similar merchandise, we made adjustments for cost 
differences attributable to the physical differences between the 
products compared, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in COS in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses. Finally, 
we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Shinkong sold a small amount of foreign like product to its 
affiliates in the home market for consumption during the POR. These 
sales have failed the arm's-length test and therefore have been 
excluded from the calculation of NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currency Conversions

    Pursuant to section 773(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we made 
currency conversions for Nan Ya's and Shinkong's sales based on the 
daily exchange rates in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales 
as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2008, 
through June 30, 2009.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Manufacturer/exporter                  margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd....................               19.78
Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation...............                5.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comment

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this review within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.310. If a hearing is requested, 
the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. Interested parties must submit case briefs 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must 
be filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case 
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d) (for a further discussion of case 
briefs and rebuttal briefs, respectively). Parties who submit case 
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with 
each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the 
argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Executive summaries should be 
limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
    We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written 
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results 
in the Federal Register. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise 
produced and/or exported by Nan Ya and Shinkong. The Department intends 
to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of 
publication of the final results of review. For assessment purposes, 
where possible, we calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific) 
ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of 
the dumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of those same sales. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). However, 
where the respondents did not report the entered value for their sales, 
we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) per unit 
duty assessment rates. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of PET Film from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final 
results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies under 
review will be the rate established in the final results of this review 
(except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 
percent, no

[[Page 49907]]

cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and, 
(4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in 
this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the all 
others rate for this proceeding, 2.40 percent. 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.

    Dated: August 9, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-20212 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P