Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 9753-9755 [2011-3909]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9753-9755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3909]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-924]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 16, 2010, the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') published the Preliminary Results of the first 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene 
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (``PET film'') from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ We gave interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our 
analysis of the comments and information received, we made changes to 
the margin calculation for the final results. We find that the 
participating respondents in this review, the two mandatory respondents 
Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. (``Fuwei Films''), Shaoxing Xiangyu 
Green Packing Co., Ltd. (``Green Packing''), and Tianjin Wanhua Co., 
Ltd. (``Wanhua'') (collectively, ``Respondents''), sold subject 
merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review 
(``POR''), November 6, 2008, through October 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 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, 75 
FR 49893 (August 16, 2010) (``Preliminary Results'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: February 22, 2011.


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: 

Background

    As noted above, on August 16, 2010, the Department published the 
Preliminary Results of this administrative review. Between September 
28, 2010 and October 5, 2010, we received case and rebuttal briefs from 
Petitioners \2\ and Respondents. On September 28, 2010, we also 
received written arguments from Bemis Company, Inc., an industrial user 
of PET film. On October 18, 2010, the Department placed a revised wage 
rate calculation on the record for comment. Between October 26, 2010 
and November 1, 2010, we received comments and rebuttal comments from 
Petitioners and Respondents regarding the revised wage rate 
calculation. On November 15, 2010, the Department published a notice 
extending the time period for issuing the final results by 60 days to 
February 14, 2011.\3\ On November 22, 2010, the Department held a 
public hearing of the arguments presented in the interested parties' 
submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., SKC, 
Inc., and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. (collectively, 
``Petitioners'').
    \3\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From 
the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the 
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
69629 (November 15, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties are addressed in 
the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China,'' which is 
dated concurrently with this notice (``I&D Memo''). A list of the 
issues which parties raised, and to which we respond in the I&D Memo, 
is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The I&D Memo is a public 
document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Main 
Commerce Building, Room 7046, and is accessible on the Department's Web 
site at https://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version 
of the memorandum are identical in content.

Final Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded 
the administrative review with respect to Sichuan Dongfang Insulating 
Material Co., Ltd. (``Dongfang''). Dongfang reported that it had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR.\4\ As we stated in the Preliminary Results, our examination of 
shipment data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') for 
Dongfang confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise 
from Dongfang during the POR. \5\ We also received no comments or 
information to change our preliminary rescission. Therefore, we are 
rescinding this administrative review with respect to Dongfang.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 49894.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record, as well as comments received from 
parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made revisions to 
Respondents' margin calculations for the final results.\6\ Pursuant to 
a recent decision

[[Page 9754]]

by the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit \7\, subsequent to the 
Preliminary Results, we calculated a revised hourly wage rate to use in 
valuing Respondents' reported labor.\8\ Additionally, we have: (1) 
Revised the calculated surrogate overhead, selling, general and 
administrative expenses, and profit applicable to Respondents using 
information from the financial statements of JBF Industries Limited, a 
manufacturer in India of merchandise comparable to subject merchandise; 
\9\ (2) revised the surrogate value for bright polyester chips and 
master batch chips by using the simple-average of the two weighted 
average surrogate values for merchandise of Indian Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule subheadings 3907.60.10 and 3907.6020; \10\ (3) revised the 
surrogate value for steam by using information more contemporaneous 
with the POR; \11\ and (4) recalculated Fuwei Films' indirect selling 
expenses pursuant to the Department's established policy and 
practice.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the Preliminary Results, the Department stated that it 
had ``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.'' See Preliminary 
Results, 75 FR at 49898. This statement in the Federal Register 
notice was an error, as the Department had actually averaged all 
tax-exclusive rates for electricity for small, medium, and large 
industries as published in the above-mentioned report. 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, at 4. No parties commented on this error, but the Department 
notes that there is no change with respect to the calculation of the 
surrogate value for electricity between the Preliminary Results and 
these final results of review.
    \7\ See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 
2010).
    \8\ See Memorandum from Thomas Martin to The File, ``First 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of 
China: Industry-Specific Wage Rate Selection,'' dated October 18, 
2010.
    \9\ See I&D Memo at Comment 2; see also Memorandum to the File 
through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
4, from Thomas Martin, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 
``Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the 
People's Republic of China: Changes to Surrogate Values for the 
Final Results of Review,'' dated February 14, 2011 (``Final 
Surrogate Values Memorandum'') at 2.
    \10\ See I&D Memo at Comment 3.
    \11\ See I&D Memo at Comment 4; see also Final Surrogate Values 
Memorandum at 3.
    \12\ See I&D Memo at Comment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 the order is dispositive.

Non-Market Economy Treatment

    The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy 
(``NME'') country.\13\ 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. No party has challenged the designation 
of the PRC as an NME country in this review. Therefore, the Department 
continues to treat the PRC as an NME country for purposes of these 
final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free 
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic 
of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department stated that it selected 
India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this 
administrative review for the following reasons: (1) It is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a similar 
level of economic development pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; 
and (3) the Department has reliable data from India that it can use to 
value the factors of production.\14\ While the Department received 
comments on the surrogate country issue after the Preliminary Results, 
the Department has not made changes to its findings with respect to the 
selection of a surrogate country for the final results.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 49896.
    \15\  See I&D Memo at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department holds 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 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), 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that the two 
mandatory respondents and Wanhua demonstrated eligibility for separate-
rate status.\17\ Since the publication of the Preliminary Results, no 
party has commented on the eligibility of the two mandatory respondents 
and Wanhua for separate-rate status. For the final results, the 
Department continues to find that the evidence placed on the record of 
this administrative review by the two mandatory respondents and Wanhua 
demonstrates both de jure and de facto absence of government control 
with respect to each company's respective exports of the subject 
merchandise. Thus, the Department continues to find that the two 
mandatory respondents and Wanhua are eligible for separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 49895.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The separate rate is determined based on the estimated weighted-
average dumping margins established for exporters and producers 
individually investigated, excluding zero and de minimis margins or 
margins based entirely on adverse facts available (``AFA'').\18\ In 
this administrative review both mandatory respondents, Fuwei Films and 
Green Packing, have estimated weighted-average dumping margins which 
are above de minimis and which are not based on total AFA. Therefore, 
because there are only two relevant weighted-average dumping margins 
for these final results and because using a weighted-average risks 
disclosure of business proprietary information, the separate rate is a 
simple-average of these two values, which is 36.93 percent.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.
    \19\ See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 
FR 47587, 47591 (August 14, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRC-Wide Entity

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that certain 
PRC exporters 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, Shanghai Xishu 
Electric Material Co., Ltd. (``Xishu'') and Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd. 
(``Uchem'') did not make a claim that they did not ship or sell subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR.\20\ Thus, the 
Department treated

[[Page 9755]]

these PRC exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity. The Department also 
found that the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for 
information.\21\ No additional information was placed on the record 
with respect to any of these companies after the Preliminary Results. 
Since the PRC-wide entity did not provide the Department with requested 
information, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the 
Department continues to find it appropriate to base the PRC-wide rate 
on facts available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 49895.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Department begins with the presumption that all 
companies within an NME country are subject to government control, and 
because only the mandatory respondents and Wanhua have overcome that 
presumption, the Department is applying a single antidumping rate 
(i.e., the PRC-wide entity rate) to all other exporters of subject 
merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate 
entitlement to a separate rate.\22\ The PRC-wide entity rate applies to 
all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from the two 
mandatory respondents and Wanhua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of 
China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of Review

    The dumping margins for the POR are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Antidumping
                        Exporter                           duty percent
                                                              margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd.........................           30.91
Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd.................           42.94
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd.................................           36.93
PRC-wide Entity \23\....................................           76.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Xishu and Uchem are part of the PRC-wide entity.

Assessment

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the date of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or 
customer) ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the 
total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales 
to the total entered value of those same sales. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate, without regard to 
antidumping duties, all entries of subject merchandise during the POR 
for which the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in 
these final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be 
required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed 
PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 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.

Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: February 14, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--Issues & Decision Memorandum

Issue 1: Selection of Surrogate Financial Statements.
Issue 2: Whether the Department should select Thailand as the 
surrogate country rather than India.
Issue 3: Whether the Department should continue to use Indian 
imports of Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') classification 
3907.60.20 to value Bright Polyester Chip and Master Batch Chip.
Issue 4: Whether the Department should revise the surrogate value 
for steam.
Issue 5: Whether Fuwei Films correctly reported PET film additives 
in its factors of production (``FOPs'').
Issue 6: Whether Fuwei Films reported all suppliers of FOPs, and all 
raw materials that it purchased from suppliers and consumed during 
the POR.
Issue 7: Whether the Department should revise its CONNUM methodology 
based on Fuwei Films' FOPs allocation methodology.
Issue 8: Whether the Department should make further revisions to its 
labor rate methodology revised after the Preliminary Results.
Issue 9: Whether the Department should revise Fuwei Films' 
methodology for calculating indirect selling expenses.
Issue 10: Whether the Department should have selected Wanhua as a 
mandatory respondent.
Issue 11: Whether the Department should revise its methodology for 
calculating the separate rate for respondents not specifically 
reviewed.

[FR Doc. 2011-3909 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P