Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68140-68148 [2011-28571]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
68140
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Notices
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review. The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the publication date of the final
results of this review. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are
calculating importer- (or customer-)
specific assessment rates for the
merchandise subject to this review. We
calculated importer- (or customer-)
specific ad valorem rates for Yujia by
aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this
amount by the total entered value of the
sales to each importer (or customer).
Where an importer- (or customer-)
specific ad valorem rate is greater than
de minimis, we will apply the
assessment rate to the entered value of
the importers’/customers’ entries during
the period of review, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1).
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
new shipper review for shipments of
subject merchandise from Yujia entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for
subject merchandise exported and
produced by Yujia is zero; therefore no
cash deposit will be required for entries
of subject merchandise exported and
produced by Yujia ; (2) for subject
merchandise exported by Yujia but not
produced by Yujia the cash deposit rate
will continue to be the PRC-wide rate of
216.01 percent; (3) for subject
merchandise produced by Yujia but not
exported by Yujia the cash deposit rate
will be the rate applicable to the
exporter. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
16:50 Nov 02, 2011
Dated: October 27, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–28560 Filed 11–2–11; 8:45 am]
Cash Deposit Requirements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
assessment of double antidumping
duties. This notice also serves as a
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders
(‘‘APOs’’) 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 that is subject to
sanction.
This notice of the final results of this
new shipper review is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(2)(B), 751(a)(2)(C), and 777(i) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Jkt 226001
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–924]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of the 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
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 1, 2009,
through October 31, 2010.
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.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments are
requested to submit with each argument
a summary of the argument. 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: November 3,
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Martin or Jonathan Hill, 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 and (202)
482–3518 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 10, 2008, the
Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on
PET film from the PRC.1 On November
1, 2010, the Department published in
the Federal Register a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on PET film from the PRC for the period
November 1, 2009, through October 31,
2010.2 On November 29, 2010, the
Department received timely requests in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2)
for an administrative review from Fuwei
Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fuwei
Films’’), Shaoxing Xiangyu Green
Packing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Green Packing’’),
and Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Wanhua’’). On November 30, 2010,
the Department also 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, Green Packing, Wanhua, Sichuan
Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Dongfang’’), Shanghai Xishu Electric
Material Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xishu’’), and
Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd. (‘‘Uchem’’).
On December 28, 2010, the Department
1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders:
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 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 67079
(November 1, 2010).
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.3
On December 30, 2010, 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 20, 2011, the Department
exercised its authority to limit the
number of respondents selected for
individual examination pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act.4 The
Department selected the two largest
exporters by volume as our mandatory
respondents for this review, Dongfang
and Wanhua.5
On January 20, 2011, the Department
issued the antidumping questionnaire to
Dongfang and Wanhua. On February 28,
2011, the Department received separate
rate certifications from Fuwei Films,
Green Packing, and Wanhua.6 Between
March 3, 2011 and June 20, 2011,
Dongfang and Wanhua responded to the
Department’s questionnaire and
supplemental questionnaires. In
addition, during March 2011, the
Department received voluntary
questionnaire responses from Fuwei
Films and Green Packing. Between
March and July 2011 Petitioners
provided comments on the mandatory
respondents’ questionnaire responses.
In response to the Department’s April
8, 2011, letter providing parties with an
opportunity to submit comments
regarding surrogate country and
surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) selection,7
Petitioners, the mandatory respondents,
and the separate rate applicants filed
surrogate country and SV comments on
April 22, 2011 and May 6, 2011,
respectively.8 Petitioners, the
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 81565
(December 28, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
4 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 Second
Administrative Review of Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated January 20, 2011
(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’).
5 Dongfang and Wanhua are collectively referred
to as the ‘‘mandatory respondents.’’
6 Fuwei Film and Green Packing are collectively
referred to as ‘‘separate rate applicants.’’
7 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 8, 2011.
8 Bemis Company Inc., an industrial consumer of
the subject merchandise, also submitted SV
comments.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Nov 02, 2011
Jkt 226001
mandatory respondents, and the
separate rate applicants filed rebuttal
surrogate country comments on April
29, 2011.
On July 18, 2011, the Department
extended the time period for completion
of the preliminary results of this review
by 60 days until October 3, 2011.9 On
October 3, 2011, the Department
extended the time period for completion
of the preliminary results of this review
by a further 30 days until October 31,
2011.10
Period of Review
The POR is November 1, 2009 through
October 31, 2010.
Scope of 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.
Verification
Pursuant to Section 782(i) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), between July
27, 2011 and August 4, 2011, the
Department conducted verification of
Dongfang’s and Wanhua’s U.S. sales and
factors of production (‘‘FOP’’)
submissions.11
9 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip From the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 42113 (July 18,
2011).
10 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip From the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 61085 (October
3, 2011).
11 See Memorandum from Thomas Martin,
Jonathan Hill and Whitney Rolig to the File,
‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of
Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd., in
the Second Administrative Review of Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated September 12,
2011 (‘‘Dongfang Report’’); see also Memorandum
from Thomas Martin, Jonathan Hill and Whitney
Rolig to the File, ‘‘Verification of the Sales and
Factors Response of Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. in the
Antidumping Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic
of China,’’ dated September 12, 2011 (‘‘Wanhua
Report’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68141
Non-Market Economy Country Status
The Department has treated the PRC
as a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)
country in all past antidumping duty
investigations and administrative
reviews and continues to do so in this
case.12 The Department has previously
examined the PRC’s market-economy
status and determined that NME status
should continue for the PRC.13 In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority.14 No interested
party to this proceeding has contested
such treatment. Accordingly, we
calculated NV using a FOP methodology
in accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV
on the NME producer’s FOPs. The Act
further instructs that valuation of the
FOPs shall be based on the best
available information from a surrogate
market-economy country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department.15 When valuing the FOPs,
the Department shall utilize, to the
extent possible, the prices or costs of
FOPs in one or more market-economy
countries that are: (1) At a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country; and (2)
significant producers of comparable
merchandise.16 Further, the Department
normally values all FOPs in a single
surrogate country.17 The sources of SVs
are discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’
section below and in the Surrogate
Value Memorandum, which is on file in
the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of
the main Department building.18
12 See section 771(18)(C) of the Act; see, e.g.,
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results
of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 9753 (February 22, 2011)
13 See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to
David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, The People’s Republic of China
(PRC) Status as a Non-Market Economy (NME),
dated May 15, 2006. This document is available
online at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nmestatus/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf.
14 See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
15 See section 773(c)(1) of the Act.
16 See section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
17 See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2).
18 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: Surrogate Value
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
Continued
03NON1
68142
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In examining which country to select
as its primary surrogate country for this
proceeding, the Department first
determined that India, Indonesia, Peru,
the Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine
are countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development.19 On
April 22, 2011, 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 included in
the Policy Memorandum listing
potential surrogate countries; and (2)
Thailand is a significant producer of
merchandise identical to subject
merchandise, PET film.20 On April 29,
2011, the mandatory respondents filed
rebuttal comments arguing that the
Department should select India as the
surrogate country.21
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.22 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.’’ 23 Currently, the record
Memorandum,’’ dated October 27, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate
Value Memorandum’’).
19 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 Duty Order on Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People’s Republic of China’’ (April 7, 2011) (‘‘Policy
Memorandum’’).
20 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 22,
2011).
21 See Letter from Respondents to Secretary of
Commerce, ‘‘Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)
Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic
of China; A–570–924; Rebuttal to the Petitioners’
Comments on Surrogate Country Selection’’ (April
29, 2011).
22 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, from
Jonathan Hill, 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 October
27, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Country Memo’’) at 7–8.
23 See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy
Surrogate Country Selection Process, (March 1,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Nov 02, 2011
Jkt 226001
contains SV information, including
possible surrogate financial statements,
from Thailand and India. The record of
this proceeding contains one Thailand
company financial statement submitted
by Petitioners, that of Polyplex Public
Company Ltd. (‘‘Polyplex (Thailand)’’).
However, the Department has
determined that the financial statement
of Polyplex (Thailand) does not permit
the Department to calculate accurate
surrogate financial ratios, as it does not
contain information upon which to
apply a reasonable methodology to
apportion raw material expenses and
consumable expenses to calculate the
surrogate overhead ratio.24 Further, the
Department finds that treating the entire
sum as raw materials (i.e., placing the
entire sum in the denominator of the
overhead ratio) would be highly
distortive to the overhead ratio.25
Therefore, based on record evidence, 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.26
Accordingly, we have calculated NV
using Indian prices, when available and
appropriate, to value the FOPs of the
mandatory respondents.27 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.28
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
2004) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’) available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov.
24 See Surrogate Country Memo at 9–11.
25 See Surrogate Country Memo at 10.
26 See Surrogate Country Memo at 8–11.
27 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2.
28 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate.29 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 (‘‘ME’’),
then a separate rate analysis is not
necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government
control.30 Fuwei Films is wholly
foreign-owned.31 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.
Dongfang, Green Packing, and
Wanhua reported that they are either
wholly Chinese-owned companies, or
joint ventures between Chinese and
foreign companies.32 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
29 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates
Practice and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries, available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
30 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From
the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104,
71104–05 (December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus,
qualified for a separate rate).
31 See Fuwei Film’s February 28, 2011 Separate
Rate Certification response at page 2.
32 See Dongfang’s March 8, 2011 response to
Section A of the Department’s Antidumping Duty
questionnaire at question 2(a)(i); see also Wanhua’s
March 8, 2011 response to Section A of the
Department’s Antidumping Duty questionnaire at
question 2(a)(i); see also Green Packing’s February
28, 2011 Separate Rate Certification at page 2.
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Notices
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.33
The evidence provided by Dongfang,
Green Packing, and Wanhua supports a
preliminary finding of de jure absence
of government control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with its business
and export licenses, (2) applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of companies, and (3) formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.34
2. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a government 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.35 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.
The evidence provided by Dongfang,
Green Packing, and Wanhua supports a
preliminary finding of de facto absence
of government control based on the
following: (1) The absence of evidence
that the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government
agency, (2) the respondents have
authority to negotiate and sign contracts
and other agreements, (3) the
respondents have autonomy from the
government in making decisions
33 See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
Dongfang’s March 8, 2011 Section A
Questionnaire response at question 2(d) through
2(f); see also Green Packing’s March 12, 2011,
Separate Rate Certification response at questions 10
through 14; see also Wanhua’s March 8, 2011
Section A Questionnaire response at question 2(d)
through 2(f).
35 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; 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, 22545 (May 8,
1995).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
34 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Nov 02, 2011
Jkt 226001
regarding the selection of management,
and (4) the respondents retain the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.36
Calculation of Separate Rate
The statute and our regulations do not
address directly how we should
establish a rate to apply to imports from
companies which we did not select for
individual examination in accordance
with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act in an
administrative review. Generally, we
have used section 735(c)(5) of the Act,
which provides instructions for
calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, as guidance when we
establish the rate for respondents not
examined individually in an
administrative review.37 Section
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that
‘‘the estimated all-others rate shall be an
amount equal to the weighted average of
the estimated weighted-average
dumping margins established for
exporters and producers individually
investigated, * * *’’
Because using the weighted-average
margin based on the calculated net U.S.
sales quantities for Wanhua and
Dongfang would allow these two
respondents to deduce each other’s
business-proprietary information and
thus cause an unwarranted release of
such information, we cannot assign to
the separate rate companies the
weighted-average margin based on the
calculated net U.S. sales values from
these two respondents.
For these preliminary results, we
determine that using the ranged total
sales quantities reported by Wanhua
and Dongfang from the public versions
of their submissions, is more
appropriate than applying a simple
average.38 These publicly available
figures provide the basis on which we
can calculate a margin which is the best
proxy for the weighted-average margin
36 See Dongfang’s March 8, 2011, Section A
Questionnaire response at questions 2(a)(iii)–(v);
2(b)–(c); 2(g)–(q); see also Green Packing’s February
28, 2011 Separate Rate Certification response at
questions 15 through 20; see also Wanhua’s March
8, 2011, Section A Questionnaire response at
questions 2(a)(iii)–(v); 2(b)–(c); 2(g)–(q).
37 See Notice of Final Results and Partial
Rescission Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the People’s Republic of China, 75 FR 49460
(August 13, 2010); Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice
of Final Results of the Twelfth Administrative
Review, 75 FR 6352 (February 9, 2010), and the
accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 2.
38 See Wanhua Supplemental Section A
questionnaire response (Public Version) dated April
11, 2011, at Exhibit SA–1; see also Dongfang
Section A questionnaire response (Public Version)
dated March 8, 2011, at Exhibit A–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68143
based on the calculated net U.S. sales
values of Wanhua and Dongfang. We
find that this approach is more
consistent with the intent of section
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and our use of
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act as
guidance when we establish the rate for
respondents not examined individually
in an administrative review.
Because the calculated net U.S. sales
values for Wanhua and Dongfang are
business-proprietary figures, we find
that 46.66 percent, which we calculated
using the publicly available figures of
U.S. sales quantities for these two firms,
is the best reasonable proxy for the
weighted-average margin based on the
calculated U.S. sales quantities of
Wanhua and Dongfang.39
The PRC-Wide Entity
In addition to the separate-rate
applications discussed above, there are
two companies, Xishu and Uchem, for
which we initiated a review in this
proceeding and which did not
previously have a separate rate. 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.40 Because
these companies did not file a Separate
Rate Application to demonstrate
eligibility for a separate rate in this
administrative review, or certify that
they had no shipments,41 we
preliminarily determine that these
companies are part of the PRC-wide
entity.
Use of Facts Available and Adverse
Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that
the Department shall apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ (‘‘FA’’) if (1)
necessary information is not on the
record, or (2) an interested party or any
other person (A) withholds information
that has been requested, (B) fails to
provide information within the
deadlines established, or in the form
and manner requested by the
Department, subject to subsections (c)(1)
and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding, or
(D) provides information that cannot be
verified as provided by section 782(i) of
the Act.
39 See ‘‘Memorandum to the File from Jonathan
Hill, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
Office 4 Re: Calculation of Separate Rate,’’ dated
concurrently with this notice.
40 See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1405–06 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming the
Department’s presumption of State control over
exporters in non-market economy cases).
41 See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 81566.
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Notices
Wanhua
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68144
production experience.45 Wanhua
provided a worksheet intended to
represent its methodology for deriving
material input calculations as reported
in its questionannire response.
However, using this worksheet, we were
unable to substantiate Wanhua’s
reported figures because the figures in
the worksheet resulted in calculated
consumption rates that were discrepant
with those in its questionnaire
responses. The Department had
previously requested Wanhua to fully
disclose its methodology in its June 27,
2011, supplemental questionnaire
response. However, Wanhua only stated
in its response to the Department that
the methodology involved the
‘‘technical requirements of each product
with specific thickness,’’ which it chose
not to disclose. By failing to disclose the
PET chip proportions required to
perform this methodology in its June 27,
2011, supplemental questionnaire
response, Wanhua deprived both the
Department, and itself, of the
opportunity to correct and support the
results of the methodology at
verification. Consequently, in
accordance with section 776(b) of the
Act, we find that an adverse inference
is warranted because Wanhua did not
act to the best of its ability to provide
the Department with verifiable data
within its exclusive control. Therefore,
for the preliminary results, pursuant to
section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the
Department calculated consumption
rates for bright chip, additive chip, and
reclaimed chip by using the highest
consumption rate in Wanhua’s FOP data
set submitted on June 27, 2011 ‘‘Revised
FOP Computer Data Base—
WANFOP003’’ for each of the three
material inputs. For further details
regarding the Department’s
methodology, see Wanhua Analysis
Memorandum.46
In its June 13, 2011, supplemental
Section D questionnaire, the Department
requested that Wanhua disclose its
methodology for reporting its FOPs on
a product and product thickness
specific basis (i.e., control number
(‘‘CONNUM’’) specific or product name
(‘‘PRODCODU’’) specific).42 On June 27,
2011, Wanhua stated that it ‘‘calculated
its per unit figure of FOPs by the
consumption allocation, based on the
actual consumption of FOPs, actual
production quantity and technical
requirements of each product with
specific thickness.’’ 43 During
verification, Wanhua provided the
Department with a worksheet with
specific information regarding its
methodology for the purpose of
demonstrating how it had calculated the
direct material FOP consumption rates
reported in its FOP database; however,
Wanhua was not able to reproduce the
exact direct material consumption rates
as reported in its FOP database. Thus,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the
Act, Wanhua provided information to
the Department that could not be
verified as provided by section 782(i) of
the Act.
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying FA
when a party has failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with a request for information.
Such an adverse inference may include
reliance on information derived from
the petition, the final determination, a
previous administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
Based on findings at verification, we
are applying partial AFA to Wanhua’s
direct material consumption rates
because the Department finds that the
information necessary to calculate an
accurate and otherwise reliable margin
is not available on the record.
Specifically, the Department could not
verify the exact PET chip consumption
rate specific to each CONNUM that
Wanhua reported.44 At verification,
Wanhua attempted to substantiate its
reported direct material FOP allocations
for each product produced during the
POR using PET chip proportions (i.e.,
the percentage of the finished PET film),
which were machine settings that the
company adjusted yearly based upon its
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of PET
film to the United States by the
mandatory respondents were made at
NV, we compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to
NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’
and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this
notice.
45 See
42 See
Letter from Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Wanhua,
‘‘Third Section D Supplemental Questionnaire’’
(June 13, 2011) at 1.
43 See Wanhua’s supplemental Section D
response dated June 27, 2011, at 2.
44 See Wanhua’s March 28, 2011, response at
Exhibit D–7.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Nov 02, 2011
Jkt 226001
Wanhua Report at 13.
Memorandum from Jonathan Hill,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum for Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd.’’
(October 27, 2011) (‘‘Wanhua Analysis
Memorandum’’).
46 See
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, EP is the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or
agreed to be sold) before the date of
importation by the producer or exporter
of the subject merchandise outside of
the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States, as adjusted under
section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance
with section 772(a) of the Act, we have
used EP for the U.S. sales of the
mandatory respondents because the
subject merchandise was sold directly to
the unaffiliated customers in the United
States prior to importation and because
constructed export price was not
otherwise warranted.
We have based the EP on delivered
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States. In accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we have
made deductions from the starting price
for movement expenses, including
expenses for foreign inland freight from
the plant to the port of exportation,
domestic inland insurance, domestic
brokerage and handling, international
freight, and marine insurance. Dongfang
and Wanhua did not report or claim any
other adjustments to EP.47
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 Department finds that
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 will base NV on FOPs
because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these
economies renders price comparisons
and the calculation of production costs
invalid under our normal
methodologies. This methodology
ensures that the Department’s
calculations are as accurate as
possible.48
47 See Wanhua Analysis Memorandum. See also
Memorandum to the File ‘‘Analysis Memorandum
for the Preliminary Results of the Second
Administrative Review of Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People’s Republic of China: Sichuan Dongfang
Insulating Material Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dongfang’’)’’
(‘‘Dongfang Analysis Memorandum’’), dated
October 27, 2011.
48 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical
Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products From
the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available
information to find an appropriate SV to
value FOPs, but when a producer
sources an input from a market
economy and pays for it in ME
currency, the Department may value the
factor using the actual price paid for the
input.49 Wanhua reported raw material
purchases sourced from ME suppliers
and paid for in a ME currency during
the POR.50 In accordance with our
practice outlined in Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy
Inputs,51 when at least 33 percent of an
input is sourced from ME suppliers and
purchased in a ME currency, the
Department will use actual ME purchase
prices to value these inputs.52
Therefore, the Department has valued
certain inputs using the ME purchase
prices reported by Wanhua, where
appropriate. Dongfang reported that it
did not purchase inputs from ME
suppliers for the production of the
subject merchandise.53
Section 773(c) of the Act provides that
the Department will value the FOP in
NME cases using the best available
information regarding the value of such
factors in a ME country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
administering authority. The Act
requires that when valuing the FOP, the
Department utilize, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of factors of
production in one or more ME countries
that are: (1) At a comparable level of
economic development, and (2)
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. See section 773(c)(4) of
the Act. As stated above, the
Department has preliminarily
determined to select India as the
surrogate country.
We calculated NV based on FOPs in
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(April 17, 2006), unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8,
2006).
49 See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof
Assembly Components, Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc.
v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382–1383 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department’s use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
50 See Wanhua’s March 28, 2011 section D
response at Exhibit D–4.
51 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy
Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments,
71 FR 61716, 61717–19 (October 19, 2006)
(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy
Inputs’’).
52 For a detailed description of all actual values
used for market-economy inputs, see Wanhua
Analysis Memorandum.
53 See Dongfang’s March 28, 2011 section D
response at 8.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Nov 02, 2011
Jkt 226001
(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
The FOPs 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 used FOPs
reported by the mandatory respondents
for materials, energy, labor, by-products,
and packing.
Wanhua stated that it generated two
by-products during the production
process: reclaimed PET chip that cannot
be used for manufacturing PET film, and
PET film scrap.54 Dongfang stated that it
generated one by-product during the
production process, reclaimed PET
chip, that cannot be used for
manufacturing PET film.55 Both
companies requested by-product offsets
to NV for these by-products and
provided record evidence establishing
that these by-products generated during
the course of production have
commercial value.56 The Department
examined and confirmed the
companies’ by-product offsets at
verification.57 Therefore, for these
preliminary results, we have granted
both mandatory respondents a byproduct offset to NV.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, the Department calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by the
mandatory respondents for the POR. To
calculate NV, the Department
multiplied the reported per-unit factor
consumption quantities by publicly
available Indian SVs. In selecting the
SVs, the Department considered the
quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. The
Department adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices, as appropriate.
Specifically, the Department added to
Indian import SVs a surrogate freight
cost using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to
the factory or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory of
production. This adjustment is in
accordance with the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(‘‘CAFC’’) in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all
54 See Wanhua’s March 28, 2011 section D
response at Exhibits D–11 and D–15.
55 See Dongfang’s March 28, 2011 section D
response at Exhibits D–10 and D–13.
56 See Wanhua’s March 28, 2011 section D
response at Exhibit D–12 through D–14; see also
Dongfang’s March 28, 2011 section D response at
Exhibits D–11 and D–12.
57 See Dongfang Report at 16. See Wahua Report
at 19.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68145
SVs used to value the mandatory
respondents’ reported FOPs may be
found in the Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
The Department calculated SVs for
the majority of reported FOPs purchased
from NME sources using the
contemporaneous, weighted-average
unit import value derived from the
Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade
of India, as published by the Directorate
General of Commercial Intelligence and
Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce
and Industry, Government of India in
the Global Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’),
available at https://www.gtis.com/
wta.htm (‘‘GTA Indian Import
Statistics’’).58 GTA Indian Import
Statistics were reported in India Rupees
and are contemporaneous with the POR.
In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs 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.59
In those instances where the
Department could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous
with the POR with which to value FOPs,
the Department adjusted the publicly
available SVs using the Indian
Wholesale Price Index, as published in
the International Financial Statistics of
the International Monetary Fund.60
Furthermore, with regard to Indian
import-based SVs, we have disregarded
prices that we have reason to believe or
suspect may be subsidized, such as
those from Indonesia, South Korea, and
Thailand. We have found in other
proceedings that these countries
maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and,
therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all
exports to all markets from these
countries may be subsidized.61 We are
58 See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
60 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
61 See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant
To Court Remand, dated February 25, 2010, Jinan
Yipin Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d
1183 (CIT 2009). See also Certain Frozen Fish
Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011 (September 13, 2005),
unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
59 See,
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
Continued
03NON1
68146
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
also guided by the statute’s legislative
history that explains that it is not
necessary to conduct a formal
investigation to ensure that such prices
are not subsidized.62 Rather, this
legislative history states that the
Department should base its decision on
information that is available to it at the
time it is making its determination. In
accordance with the foregoing, we have
not used prices from these countries in
calculating the Indian import-based
SVs.
The Department used GTA Indian
Import Statistics to calculate SVs for
raw materials (i.e., PET chips), packing
materials (i.e., pallets, lateral board, PE
foam, paper pipe, stretch film, packing
tape, plastic caps, plastic bags, top
board, and metal clips), and by-products
(i.e., reclaimed PET chips that cannot be
used for manufacturing PET film, and
PET film scrap).
Previously, the Department used
regression-based wages that captured
the worldwide relationship between per
capita Gross National Income (‘‘GNI’’)
and hourly manufacturing wages,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), to
value the respondent’s cost of labor.
However, on May 14, 2010, the CAFC,
in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604
F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(‘‘Dorbest’’), invalidated 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of the
CAFC’s ruling in Dorbest, the
Department no longer relies on the
regression-based wage rate methodology
described in its regulations. On
February 18, 2011, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
request for public comment on the
interim methodology, and the data
sources. See Antidumping
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving
Non-Market Economies: Valuing the
Factor of Production: Labor; Request for
Comment, 76 FR 9544 (Feb. 18, 2011).
On June 21, 2011, the Department
revised its methodology for valuing the
labor input in NME antidumping
proceedings. See Antidumping
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving
Non-Market Economies: Valuing the
Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor
Methodologies’’). In Labor
Methodologies, the Department
determined that the best methodology to
value the labor input is to use industrySocialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the
First Administrative Review, 71 FR 14170 (March
21, 2006); and China Nat’l Mach. Import & Export
Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT
2003), affirmed 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
62 See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep.
No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) at 590,
reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Nov 02, 2011
Jkt 226001
specific labor rates from the primary
surrogate country. Additionally, the
Department determined that the best
data source for industry-specific labor
rates is Chapter 6A: Labor Cost in
Manufacturing, from the International
Labor Organization (ILO) Yearbook of
Labor Statistics (‘‘Yearbook’’).
In these preliminary results, the
Department calculated the labor input
using the wage method described in
Labor Methodologies. To value the
respondent’s labor input, the
Department relied on data reported by
India to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the
Yearbook. The Department further finds
the two-digit description under ISICRevision 3–D (‘‘25 Manufacture of
Rubber and Plastics Products’’) to be the
best available information on the record
because it is specific to the industry
being examined, and is therefore
derived from industries that produce
comparable merchandise. Accordingly,
relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook,
the Department calculated the labor
input using labor data reported by India
to the ILO under Sub-Classification 11
of the ISIC-Revision 3–D standard, in
accordance with Section 773(c)(4) of the
Act. For these preliminary results, the
calculated industry-specific wage rate is
Rs.45.70. A more detailed description of
the wage rate calculation methodology
is provided in the Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
We valued electricity using the
Schedule of Electricity Tariffs, as
published by the Maharashtra Energy
Regulatory Commission, in its
publication dated June 2009.63 These
electricity rates represent actual
publicly-available information on taxexclusive electricity rates. The
Department used the rates for low
tension industrial electricity supply for
a load between 20 and 100 kilowatts.
We did not inflate this value because
utility rates represent current rates.
We valued truck freight expenses
using an Indian per-unit average rate
calculated from data on the following
Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/
logistics/logtruck.htm.64 The logistics
section of this Web site contains inland
freight truck rates between many large
Indian cities. We did not inflate this rate
since it is contemporaneous with the
POR.
We valued brokerage and handling
using a price list of export procedures
necessary to export a standardized cargo
of goods in India. The price list is
compiled based on a survey case study
of the procedural requirements for
trading a standard shipment of goods by
63 See
64 See
PO 00000
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4.
id. at 9.
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ocean transport in India that is
published in Doing Business 2010:
India, published by the World Bank.65
We valued marine insurance using a
price quote retrieved from RJG
Consultants, online at https://www.
rjgconsultants.com/163.html, an ME
provider of marine insurance.66 We did
not inflate this rate since it is
contemporaneous with the POR.
According to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4),
the Department is directed to value
overhead, general, and administrative
expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and profit using
non-proprietary information gathered
from producers of identical or
comparable merchandise in the
surrogate country. As stated above in
the Surrogate Country section of this
notice, in this administrative review,
Petitioners submitted to the record the
financial statements of Polyplex
(Thailand) and Polyplex Corporation
Ltd. (‘‘Polyplex (India)’’) and Wanhua
submitted the financial statement of JBF
Industries Limited (‘‘JBF’’). As stated
above, we have determined not to rely
on the financial statement of Polyplex
(Thailand), because it does not contain
sufficient information for calculating
factory overhead. Regarding the
contemporaneous 2009–2010 financial
statements of Polyplex (India) and JBF,
both show evidence of participation in
the Duty Entitlement Passbook scheme,
which the Department has found by 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. Polyplex (India)
is an Indian producer of PET film, while
JBF produced PET yarn, which the
Department has determined to be
comparable to PET film. 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 2009–2010
financial statement of Polyplex (India) is
the best available information for
calculating surrogate financial ratios,
because it is the only usable financial
statement on the record from a producer
of merchandise identical to the subject
merchandise. 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
65 See
66 See
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
id. at 8.
id. at 8.
03NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Notices
appropriate surrogate financial ratio
data for use in this proceeding.67
For a complete listing of all the inputs
and a detailed discussion about our SV
selections, see the Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, the Department
made currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect as certified by
68147
the Federal Reserve Bank on the date of
the U.S. sale.
Weighted-Average Dumping Margin
The preliminary weighted-average
dumping margin is as follows:
PET FILM FROM THE PRC
Weighted-average
margin
(percentage)
Exporter
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................
Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd .........................................................................................................................
Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd ..............................................................................................................................................
Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd ...............................................................................................................................
PRC-wide Entity 68 .....................................................................................................................................................................
68 Xishu
and Uchem are part of the PRC-wide entity.
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department intends to disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties 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
publication of these preliminary
results.69 If a hearing is requested, the
Department will announce the hearing
schedule at a later date. Interested
parties may submit case briefs and/or
written comments no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of the
preliminary results of review.70 Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, may be filed
no later than five days after the time
limit for filing the case briefs.71 The
Department intends to issue the final
results of this administrative review,
which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in all
comments, and at a hearing, within 120
days of publication of these preliminary
results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Act.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46.79
41.82
46.66
46.66
76.72
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Nov 02, 2011
Jkt 226001
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Wanhua,
Dongfang, Fuwei and Green Packing,
which have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will be that established in
the final results of this review (except,
if the rate is zero or de minimis, zero
cash deposit will be required); (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that received a separate rate in a prior
segment of this proceeding, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate; (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; 72
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 exporter that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for shipments of
the subject merchandise from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice
are in accordance with sections
the Department’s e-filing regulations. See https://
iaaccess.trade.gov/help/
IA%20ACCESS%20User%20Guide.pdf.
71 See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Assessment Rates
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 and 19 CFR
351.212(b). For assessment purposes, we
calculated importer- or customerspecific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review. We
calculated an ad valorem rate for each
importer or customer by dividing the
total dumping margins for reviewed
67 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7 and
Exhibit 7.
69 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
70 See 19 CFR 351.309(c); Parties submitting
written comments must submit them pursuant to
sales to that party by the total entered
value associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, we will direct
CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem
rate against the entered customs values
for the subject merchandise. Where
appropriate, we 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, we 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) in accordance with
the requirement of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),
the Department will instruct CBP to
assess that importer’s or customer’s
entries of subject merchandise without
regard to antidumping duties. We
intend to instruct CBP to liquidate
entries containing subject merchandise
exported by the PRC-wide entity at the
PRC-wide rate we determine 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.
72 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 73 FR 55039, 55041 (September 24, 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
68148
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Notices
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213.
Dated: October 27, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–28571 Filed 11–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–972]
Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening
Agents From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: November 3,
2011.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the ‘‘Department’’) preliminarily
determines that certain stilbenic optical
brightening agents (‘‘OBA’’) from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) is
being, or is likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value
(‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at
LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary
Determination’’ section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shawn Higgins or Maisha Cryor, 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) 482–0679 or (202) 482–
5831, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On March 31, 2011, the Department
received an antidumping duty petition
concerning imports of OBAs from the
PRC and Taiwan filed in proper form by
the Clariant Corporation (‘‘Petitioner’’).1
On April 4, 2011, and April 5, 2011, the
Department issued requests for
information and clarification of certain
areas of the petition, to which Petitioner
timely filed responses on April 7, 2011,
and April 8, 2011.2
1 See Antidumping Duty Petitions on Certain
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the
People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (March 31,
2011).
2 See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents
from the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan;
Amendment to Petitions (April 7, 2011); see also
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Nov 02, 2011
Jkt 226001
The Department initiated an
antidumping duty investigation of OBAs
from the PRC on April 20, 2011.3
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that it intended to
select PRC respondents based on
quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’)
questionnaires.4 On April 21, 2011, the
Department requested Q&V information
from 30 companies identified in the
petition as potential producers and/or
exporters of OBAs from the PRC.5 The
Department received timely responses
to its Q&V questionnaire from two
companies, Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hongda’’) and Zhejiang
Transfar Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Transfar’’).6
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate-rate
status in non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)
investigations. The process requires
exporters and producers to submit a
separate-rate status application
(‘‘SRA’’) 7 and to demonstrate an
absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over their export
activities. The SRA for this investigation
was posted on the Department’s Web
site, https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlightsand-news.html, on April 21, 2011. The
deadline for filing an SRA was June 26,
2011.8
On May 18, 2011, the Department
issued antidumping questionnaires to
Hongda and Transfar. In June and July
2011, Hongda and Transfar submitted
timely responses to sections A, C, and
D of the Department’s antidumping
questionnaire.
The Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to Hongda and Transfar
from June to October 2011. Hongda and
Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from
the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan;
Amendment to Petitions (April 8, 2011).
3 See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents
From the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76
FR 23554 (April 27, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
4 See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 23558.
5 See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to All
Interested Parties, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents
from the People’s Republic of China: Quantity and
Value Questionnaire’’ (April 21, 2011).
6 See the Department’s memorandum entitled,
‘‘Respondent Selection in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical
Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated May 18, 2011 (‘‘Respondent Selection
Memo’’).
7 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice
and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (‘‘Policy
Bulletin 05.1’’), available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
policy/bull05–1.pdf.
8 No party submitted a SRA.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Transfar submitted timely responses to
the Department’s supplemental
questionnaires from July to October
2011. From June to September 2011,
Petitioner submitted comments to the
Department regarding the submissions
and/or responses of Hongda and
Transfar.
On May 27, 2011, the International
Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
preliminarily determined that there is a
reasonable indication that an industry
in the United States is materially
injured by reason of imports of OBAs
from the PRC.9
On June 9, 2011, the Department
issued a letter to all interested parties
inviting comments regarding whether
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings
2921.59.4000 and 2921.59.8090 are
appropriate for inclusion in the scope of
the investigation.10 Petitioner submitted
comments on June 16, 2011.11 No other
party submitted comments. On July 11,
2011, the Department issued a
memorandum detailing its decision to
continue to include HTSUS
subheadings 2921.59.4000 and
2921.59.8090 in the scope of the
investigation.12
On July 29, 2011, Petitioner made a
timely request pursuant to section
733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a 50-day
postponement of the preliminary
determination. On August 10, 2011, the
Department published a postponement
of the preliminary determination on
OBAs from the PRC.13
Postponement of Final Determination
and Extension of Provisional Measures
Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act
provides that a final determination may
be postponed until not later than 135
days after the date of the publication of
the preliminary determination if, in the
event of an affirmative preliminary
determination, a request for such
postponement is made by exporters who
account for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise.
9 See Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1186–1187
(Preliminary), 76 FR 30967 (Int’l Trade Comm’n
May 27, 2011).
10 See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to All
Interested Parties, (June 9, 2011).
11 See Petitioner’s June 16, 2011, submission.
12 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4,
‘‘Certain Harmonized Tariff Schedule Numbers in
the Scope of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening
Agents from the People’s Republic of China and
Taiwan’’ (July 11, 2011).
13 See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening
Agents From the People’s Republic of China, and
Taiwan: Postponement of Preliminary
Determinations of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 76 FR 49443 (August 10, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68140-68148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28571]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-924]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2009-2010
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
1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.
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. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each
argument a summary of the argument. 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: November 3, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or Jonathan Hill, 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 and (202) 482-3518 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 10, 2008, the Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on PET film from the PRC.\1\ On
November 1, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register a
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on PET film from the PRC for the period November
1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.\2\ On November 29, 2010, the
Department received timely requests in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(2) for an administrative review from Fuwei Films (Shandong)
Co., Ltd. (``Fuwei Films''), Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd.
(``Green Packing''), and Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. (``Wanhua''). On
November 30, 2010, the Department also 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, Green Packing, Wanhua, Sichuan Dongfang Insulating
Material Co., Ltd. (``Dongfang''), Shanghai Xishu Electric Material
Co., Ltd. (``Xishu''), and Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd. (``Uchem''). On
December 28, 2010, the Department
[[Page 68141]]
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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: 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 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 75 FR 67079 (November 1, 2010).
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR
81565 (December 28, 2010) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 30, 2010, 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 20, 2011, the
Department exercised its authority to limit the number of respondents
selected for individual examination pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B)
of the Act.\4\ The Department selected the two largest exporters by
volume as our mandatory respondents for this review, Dongfang and
Wanhua.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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 Second Administrative Review of Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of
China,'' dated January 20, 2011 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
\5\ Dongfang and Wanhua are collectively referred to as the
``mandatory respondents.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 20, 2011, the Department issued the antidumping
questionnaire to Dongfang and Wanhua. On February 28, 2011, the
Department received separate rate certifications from Fuwei Films,
Green Packing, and Wanhua.\6\ Between March 3, 2011 and June 20, 2011,
Dongfang and Wanhua responded to the Department's questionnaire and
supplemental questionnaires. In addition, during March 2011, the
Department received voluntary questionnaire responses from Fuwei Films
and Green Packing. Between March and July 2011 Petitioners provided
comments on the mandatory respondents' questionnaire responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Fuwei Film and Green Packing are collectively referred to as
``separate rate applicants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Department's April 8, 2011, letter providing
parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate
country and surrogate value (``SV'') selection,\7\ Petitioners, the
mandatory respondents, and the separate rate applicants filed surrogate
country and SV comments on April 22, 2011 and May 6, 2011,
respectively.\8\ Petitioners, the mandatory respondents, and the
separate rate applicants filed rebuttal surrogate country comments on
April 29, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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
8, 2011.
\8\ Bemis Company Inc., an industrial consumer of the subject
merchandise, also submitted SV comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 18, 2011, the Department extended the time period for
completion of the preliminary results of this review by 60 days until
October 3, 2011.\9\ On October 3, 2011, the Department extended the
time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review by
a further 30 days until October 31, 2011.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From
the People's Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 42113 (July 18, 2011).
\10\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From
the People's Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 61085 (October 3,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010.
Scope of 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.
Verification
Pursuant to Section 782(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv),
between July 27, 2011 and August 4, 2011, the Department conducted
verification of Dongfang's and Wanhua's U.S. sales and factors of
production (``FOP'') submissions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Memorandum from Thomas Martin, Jonathan Hill and
Whitney Rolig to the File, ``Verification of the Sales and Factors
Response of Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd., in the
Second Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China,'' dated
September 12, 2011 (``Dongfang Report''); see also Memorandum from
Thomas Martin, Jonathan Hill and Whitney Rolig to the File,
``Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Tianjin Wanhua
Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China,'' dated
September 12, 2011 (``Wanhua Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country Status
The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy
(``NME'') country in all past antidumping duty investigations and
administrative reviews and continues to do so in this case.\12\ The
Department has previously examined the PRC's market-economy status and
determined that NME status should continue for the PRC.\13\ In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority.\14\ No interested party to this
proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV
using a FOP methodology in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act,
which applies to NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See section 771(18)(C) of the Act; see, e.g., Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 9753 (February 22, 2011)
\13\ See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David M.
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, The People's
Republic of China (PRC) Status as a Non-Market Economy (NME), dated
May 15, 2006. This document is available online at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf.
\14\ See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV on the NME
producer's FOPs. The Act further instructs that valuation of the FOPs
shall be based on the best available information from a surrogate
market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the
Department.\15\ When valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to
the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-
economy countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of
comparable merchandise.\16\ Further, the Department normally values all
FOPs in a single surrogate country.\17\ The sources of SVs are
discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below and in the Surrogate
Value Memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room
7046 of the main Department building.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See section 773(c)(1) of the Act.
\16\ See section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
\17\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2).
\18\ 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: Surrogate Value
Memorandum,'' dated October 27, 2011 (``Surrogate Value
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68142]]
In examining which country to select as its primary surrogate
country for this proceeding, the Department first determined that
India, Indonesia, Peru, the Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine are
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\19\
On April 22, 2011, 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 included in the Policy Memorandum listing potential
surrogate countries; and (2) Thailand is a significant producer of
merchandise identical to subject merchandise, PET film.\20\ On April
29, 2011, the mandatory respondents filed rebuttal comments arguing
that the Department should select India as the surrogate country.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 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 Duty Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip from the People's Republic of China'' (April 7, 2011)
(``Policy Memorandum'').
\20\ 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
22, 2011).
\21\ See Letter from Respondents to Secretary of Commerce,
``Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People's Republic of China; A-570-924; Rebuttal to the Petitioners'
Comments on Surrogate Country Selection'' (April 29, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\22\ Thus, the
Department bases its selection of a surrogate country on the
availability of contemporaneous Indian and Thai data for valuing FOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, from Jonathan Hill, 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 October
27, 2011 (``Surrogate Country Memo'') at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.'' \23\ Currently, the
record contains SV information, including possible surrogate financial
statements, from Thailand and India. The record of this proceeding
contains one Thailand company financial statement submitted by
Petitioners, that of Polyplex Public Company Ltd. (``Polyplex
(Thailand)''). However, the Department has determined that the
financial statement of Polyplex (Thailand) does not permit the
Department to calculate accurate surrogate financial ratios, as it does
not contain information upon which to apply a reasonable methodology to
apportion raw material expenses and consumable expenses to calculate
the surrogate overhead ratio.\24\ Further, the Department finds that
treating the entire sum as raw materials (i.e., placing the entire sum
in the denominator of the overhead ratio) would be highly distortive to
the overhead ratio.\25\ Therefore, based on record evidence, 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.\26\
Accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian prices, when available
and appropriate, to value the FOPs of the mandatory respondents.\27\ 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 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.
\24\ See Surrogate Country Memo at 9-11.
\25\ See Surrogate Country Memo at 10.
\26\ See Surrogate Country Memo at 8-11.
\27\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2.
\28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\29\ 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 (``ME''), then a
separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government control.\30\ Fuwei Films is wholly foreign-
owned.\31\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
\30\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of
China, 64 FR 71104, 71104-05 (December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a
separate rate).
\31\ See Fuwei Film's February 28, 2011 Separate Rate
Certification response at page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongfang, Green Packing, and Wanhua reported that they are either
wholly Chinese-owned companies, or joint ventures between Chinese and
foreign companies.\32\ Therefore, the Department must analyze whether
these respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de
facto governmental control over export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Dongfang's March 8, 2011 response to Section A of the
Department's Antidumping Duty questionnaire at question 2(a)(i); see
also Wanhua's March 8, 2011 response to Section A of the
Department's Antidumping Duty questionnaire at question 2(a)(i); see
also Green Packing's February 28, 2011 Separate Rate Certification
at page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be
[[Page 68143]]
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.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by Dongfang, Green Packing, and Wanhua
supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control
based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations
associated with its business and export licenses, (2) applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies, and (3)
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of
companies.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Dongfang's March 8, 2011 Section A Questionnaire
response at question 2(d) through 2(f); see also Green Packing's
March 12, 2011, Separate Rate Certification response at questions 10
through 14; see also Wanhua's March 8, 2011 Section A Questionnaire
response at question 2(d) through 2(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government 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.\35\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; 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, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by Dongfang, Green Packing, and Wanhua
supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of government
control based on the following: (1) The absence of evidence that the
export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a government
agency, (2) the respondents have authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements, (3) the respondents have autonomy from
the government in making decisions regarding the selection of
management, and (4) the respondents retain the proceeds of its export
sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits
or financing of losses.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Dongfang's March 8, 2011, Section A Questionnaire
response at questions 2(a)(iii)-(v); 2(b)-(c); 2(g)-(q); see also
Green Packing's February 28, 2011 Separate Rate Certification
response at questions 15 through 20; see also Wanhua's March 8,
2011, Section A Questionnaire response at questions 2(a)(iii)-(v);
2(b)-(c); 2(g)-(q).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Separate Rate
The statute and our regulations do not address directly how we
should establish a rate to apply to imports from companies which we did
not select for individual examination in accordance with section
777A(c)(2) of the Act in an administrative review. Generally, we have
used section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for
calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, as guidance when
we establish the rate for respondents not examined individually in an
administrative review.\37\ Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides
that ``the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the
weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins
established for exporters and producers individually investigated, * *
*''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from the People's Republic of China, 75 FR 49460 (August 13,
2010); Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of the
Twelfth Administrative Review, 75 FR 6352 (February 9, 2010), and
the accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because using the weighted-average margin based on the calculated
net U.S. sales quantities for Wanhua and Dongfang would allow these two
respondents to deduce each other's business-proprietary information and
thus cause an unwarranted release of such information, we cannot assign
to the separate rate companies the weighted-average margin based on the
calculated net U.S. sales values from these two respondents.
For these preliminary results, we determine that using the ranged
total sales quantities reported by Wanhua and Dongfang from the public
versions of their submissions, is more appropriate than applying a
simple average.\38\ These publicly available figures provide the basis
on which we can calculate a margin which is the best proxy for the
weighted-average margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales values
of Wanhua and Dongfang. We find that this approach is more consistent
with the intent of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and our use of
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act as guidance when we establish the rate
for respondents not examined individually in an administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Wanhua Supplemental Section A questionnaire response
(Public Version) dated April 11, 2011, at Exhibit SA-1; see also
Dongfang Section A questionnaire response (Public Version) dated
March 8, 2011, at Exhibit A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the calculated net U.S. sales values for Wanhua and
Dongfang are business-proprietary figures, we find that 46.66 percent,
which we calculated using the publicly available figures of U.S. sales
quantities for these two firms, is the best reasonable proxy for the
weighted-average margin based on the calculated U.S. sales quantities
of Wanhua and Dongfang.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See ``Memorandum to the File from Jonathan Hill,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 4 Re: Calculation of
Separate Rate,'' dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity
In addition to the separate-rate applications discussed above,
there are two companies, Xishu and Uchem, for which we initiated a
review in this proceeding and which did not previously have a separate
rate. 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.\40\ Because these
companies did not file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate
eligibility for a separate rate in this administrative review, or
certify that they had no shipments,\41\ we preliminarily determine that
these companies are part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405-06
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming the Department's presumption of State
control over exporters in non-market economy cases).
\41\ See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 81566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply
``facts otherwise available'' (``FA'') if (1) necessary information is
not on the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D)
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section
782(i) of the Act.
[[Page 68144]]
Wanhua
In its June 13, 2011, supplemental Section D questionnaire, the
Department requested that Wanhua disclose its methodology for reporting
its FOPs on a product and product thickness specific basis (i.e.,
control number (``CONNUM'') specific or product name (``PRODCODU'')
specific).\42\ On June 27, 2011, Wanhua stated that it ``calculated its
per unit figure of FOPs by the consumption allocation, based on the
actual consumption of FOPs, actual production quantity and technical
requirements of each product with specific thickness.'' \43\ During
verification, Wanhua provided the Department with a worksheet with
specific information regarding its methodology for the purpose of
demonstrating how it had calculated the direct material FOP consumption
rates reported in its FOP database; however, Wanhua was not able to
reproduce the exact direct material consumption rates as reported in
its FOP database. Thus, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act,
Wanhua provided information to the Department that could not be
verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to Wanhua, ``Third Section D Supplemental
Questionnaire'' (June 13, 2011) at 1.
\43\ See Wanhua's supplemental Section D response dated June 27,
2011, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying FA when a party has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Such an adverse inference may include reliance
on information derived from the petition, the final determination, a
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the
record.
Based on findings at verification, we are applying partial AFA to
Wanhua's direct material consumption rates because the Department finds
that the information necessary to calculate an accurate and otherwise
reliable margin is not available on the record. Specifically, the
Department could not verify the exact PET chip consumption rate
specific to each CONNUM that Wanhua reported.\44\ At verification,
Wanhua attempted to substantiate its reported direct material FOP
allocations for each product produced during the POR using PET chip
proportions (i.e., the percentage of the finished PET film), which were
machine settings that the company adjusted yearly based upon its
production experience.\45\ Wanhua provided a worksheet intended to
represent its methodology for deriving material input calculations as
reported in its questionannire response. However, using this worksheet,
we were unable to substantiate Wanhua's reported figures because the
figures in the worksheet resulted in calculated consumption rates that
were discrepant with those in its questionnaire responses. The
Department had previously requested Wanhua to fully disclose its
methodology in its June 27, 2011, supplemental questionnaire response.
However, Wanhua only stated in its response to the Department that the
methodology involved the ``technical requirements of each product with
specific thickness,'' which it chose not to disclose. By failing to
disclose the PET chip proportions required to perform this methodology
in its June 27, 2011, supplemental questionnaire response, Wanhua
deprived both the Department, and itself, of the opportunity to correct
and support the results of the methodology at verification.
Consequently, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we find
that an adverse inference is warranted because Wanhua did not act to
the best of its ability to provide the Department with verifiable data
within its exclusive control. Therefore, for the preliminary results,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Department calculated
consumption rates for bright chip, additive chip, and reclaimed chip by
using the highest consumption rate in Wanhua's FOP data set submitted
on June 27, 2011 ``Revised FOP Computer Data Base--WANFOP003'' for each
of the three material inputs. For further details regarding the
Department's methodology, see Wanhua Analysis Memorandum.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Wanhua's March 28, 2011, response at Exhibit D-7.
\45\ See Wanhua Report at 13.
\46\ See Memorandum from Jonathan Hill, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File,
``Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd.'' (October 27, 2011) (``Wanhua Analysis
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of PET film to the United States by the
mandatory respondents were made at NV, we compared export price
(``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold)
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of
the Act. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we have used EP
for the U.S. sales of the mandatory respondents because the subject
merchandise was sold directly to the unaffiliated customers in the
United States prior to importation and because constructed export price
was not otherwise warranted.
We have based the EP on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers
in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the
Act, we have made deductions from the starting price for movement
expenses, including expenses for foreign inland freight from the plant
to the port of exportation, domestic inland insurance, domestic
brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine insurance.
Dongfang and Wanhua did not report or claim any other adjustments to
EP.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Wanhua Analysis Memorandum. See also Memorandum to the
File ``Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Second
Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Sichuan Dongfang
Insulating Material Co., Ltd. (``Dongfang'')'' (``Dongfang Analysis
Memorandum''), dated October 27, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Department finds that 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 will
base NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various
aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the
calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies.
This methodology ensures that the Department's calculations are as
accurate as possible.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products
From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 (April 17,
2006), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68145]]
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate SV
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market
economy and pays for it in ME currency, the Department may value the
factor using the actual price paid for the input.\49\ Wanhua reported
raw material purchases sourced from ME suppliers and paid for in a ME
currency during the POR.\50\ In accordance with our practice outlined
in Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,\51\ when at least
33 percent of an input is sourced from ME suppliers and purchased in a
ME currency, the Department will use actual ME purchase prices to value
these inputs.\52\ Therefore, the Department has valued certain inputs
using the ME purchase prices reported by Wanhua, where appropriate.
Dongfang reported that it did not purchase inputs from ME suppliers for
the production of the subject merchandise.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly
Components, Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 268 F.3d
1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
\50\ See Wanhua's March 28, 2011 section D response at Exhibit
D-4.
\51\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-19 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
\52\ For a detailed description of all actual values used for
market-economy inputs, see Wanhua Analysis Memorandum.
\53\ See Dongfang's March 28, 2011 section D response at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 773(c) of the Act provides that the Department will value
the FOP in NME cases using the best available information regarding the
value of such factors in a ME country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the administering authority. The Act requires that when
valuing the FOP, the Department utilize, to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of factors of production in one or more ME countries
that are: (1) At a comparable level of economic development, and (2)
significant producers of comparable merchandise. See section 773(c)(4)
of the Act. As stated above, the Department has preliminarily
determined to select India as the surrogate country.
We calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with sections
773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs 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 used
FOPs reported by the mandatory respondents for materials, energy,
labor, by-products, and packing.
Wanhua stated that it generated two by-products during the
production process: reclaimed PET chip that cannot be used for
manufacturing PET film, and PET film scrap.\54\ Dongfang stated that it
generated one by-product during the production process, reclaimed PET
chip, that cannot be used for manufacturing PET film.\55\ Both
companies requested by-product offsets to NV for these by-products and
provided record evidence establishing that these by-products generated
during the course of production have commercial value.\56\ The
Department examined and confirmed the companies' by-product offsets at
verification.\57\ Therefore, for these preliminary results, we have
granted both mandatory respondents a by-product offset to NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Wanhua's March 28, 2011 section D response at Exhibits
D-11 and D-15.
\55\ See Dongfang's March 28, 2011 section D response at
Exhibits D-10 and D-13.
\56\ See Wanhua's March 28, 2011 section D response at Exhibit
D-12 through D-14; see also Dongfang's March 28, 2011 section D
response at Exhibits D-11 and D-12.
\57\ See Dongfang Report at 16. See Wahua Report at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department
calculated NV based on FOPs reported by the mandatory respondents for
the POR. To calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-
unit factor consumption quantities by publicly available Indian SVs. In
selecting the SVs, the Department considered the quality, specificity,
and contemporaneity of the data. The Department adjusted input prices
by including freight costs to make them delivered prices, as
appropriate. Specifically, the Department added to Indian import SVs a
surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from
the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest
seaport to the factory of production. This adjustment is in accordance
with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(``CAFC'') in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08
(Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all SVs used to value the
mandatory respondents' reported FOPs may be found in the Surrogate
Value Memorandum.
The Department calculated SVs for the majority of reported FOPs
purchased from NME sources using the contemporaneous, weighted-average
unit import value derived from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign
Trade of India, as published by the Directorate General of Commercial
Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India in the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA''), available at
https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm (``GTA Indian Import Statistics'').\58\ GTA
Indian Import Statistics were reported in India Rupees and are
contemporaneous with the POR. In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs 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.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
\59\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In those instances where the Department could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value
FOPs, the Department adjusted the publicly available SVs using the
Indian Wholesale Price Index, as published in the International
Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, with regard to Indian import-based SVs, we have
disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be
subsidized, such as those from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand. We
have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is
reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these
countries may be subsidized.\61\ We are
[[Page 68146]]
also guided by the statute's legislative history that explains that it
is not necessary to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such
prices are not subsidized.\62\ Rather, this legislative history states
that the Department should base its decision on information that is
available to it at the time it is making its determination. In
accordance with the foregoing, we have not used prices from these
countries in calculating the Indian import-based SVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court
Remand, dated February 25, 2010, Jinan Yipin Corp., Ltd. v. United
States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (CIT 2009). See also Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary
Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011 (September 13, 2005),
unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Administrative Review, 71 FR
14170 (March 21, 2006); and China Nat'l Mach. Import & Export Corp.
v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), affirmed 104 Fed.
Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
\62\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf.
Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd
Sess. (1988) at 590, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department used GTA Indian Import Statistics to calculate SVs
for raw materials (i.e., PET chips), packing materials (i.e., pallets,
lateral board, PE foam, paper pipe, stretch film, packing tape, plastic
caps, plastic bags, top board, and metal clips), and by-products (i.e.,
reclaimed PET chips that cannot be used for manufacturing PET film, and
PET film scrap).
Previously, the Department used regression-based wages that
captured the worldwide relationship between per capita Gross National
Income (``GNI'') and hourly manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), to value the respondent's cost of labor. However, on May
14, 2010, the CAFC, in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Dorbest''), invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
As a consequence of the CAFC's ruling in Dorbest, the Department no
longer relies on the regression-based wage rate methodology described
in its regulations. On February 18, 2011, the Department published in
the Federal Register a request for public comment on the interim
methodology, and the data sources. See Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of
Production: Labor; Request for Comment, 76 FR 9544 (Feb. 18, 2011).
On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings. See Antidumping
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: Valuing
the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor
Methodologies''). In Labor Methodologies, the Department determined
that the best methodology to value the labor input is to use industry-
specific labor rates from the primary surrogate country. Additionally,
the Department determined that the best data source for industry-
specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from
the International Labor Organization (ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics
(``Yearbook'').
In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor
input using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To value
the respondent's labor input, the Department relied on data reported by
India to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. The Department further
finds the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3-D (``25
Manufacture of Rubber and Plastics Products'') to be the best available
information on the record because it is specific to the industry being
examined, and is therefore derived from industries that produce
comparable merchandise. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the
Yearbook, the Department calculated the labor input using labor data
reported by India to the ILO under Sub-Classification 11 of the ISIC-
Revision 3-D standard, in accordance with Section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
For these preliminary results, the calculated industry-specific wage
rate is Rs.45.70. A more detailed description of the wage rate
calculation methodology is provided in the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We valued electricity using the Schedule of Electricity Tariffs, as
published by the Maharashtra Energy Regulatory Commission, in its
publication dated June 2009.\63\ These electricity rates represent
actual publicly-available information on tax-exclusive electricity
rates. The Department used the rates for low tension industrial
electricity supply for a load between 20 and 100 kilowatts. We did not
inflate this value because utility rates represent current rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued truck freight expenses using an Indian per-unit average
rate calculated from data on the following Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm.\64\ The logistics section of
this Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large
Indian cities. We did not inflate this rate since it is contemporaneous
with the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India.
The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010:
India, published by the World Bank.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued marine insurance using a price quote retrieved from RJG
Consultants, online at https://www.rjgconsultants.com/163.html, an ME
provider of marine insurance.\66\ We did not inflate this rate since it
is contemporaneous with the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), the Department is directed to
value overhead, general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and
profit using non-proprietary information gathered from producers of
identical or comparable merchandise in the surrogate country. As stated
above in the Surrogate Country section of this notice, in this
administrative review, Petitioners submitted to the record the
financial statements of Polyplex (Thailand) and Polyplex Corporation
Ltd. (``Polyplex (India)'') and Wanhua submitted the financial
statement of JBF Industries Limited (``JBF''). As stated above, we have
determined not to rely on the financial statement of Polyplex
(Thailand), because it does not contain sufficient information for
calculating factory overhead. Regarding the contemporaneous 2009-2010
financial statements of Polyplex (India) and JBF, both show evidence of
participation in the Duty Entitlement Passbook scheme, which the
Department has found by 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. Polyplex (India) is an Indian
producer of PET film, while JBF produced PET yarn, which the Department
has determined to be comparable to PET film. 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 2009-2010 financial statement of
Polyplex (India) is the best available information for calculating
surrogate financial ratios, because it is the only usable financial
statement on the record from a producer of merchandise identical to the
subject merchandise. 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
[[Page 68147]]
appropriate surrogate financial ratio data for use in this
proceeding.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7 and Exhibit 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a complete listing of all the inputs and a detailed discussion
about our SV selections, see the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, the Department made currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank on
the date of the U.S. sale.
Weighted-Average Dumping Margin
The preliminary weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:
PET Film From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter margin (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd............................ 46.79
Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd...... 41.82
Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd.................... 46.66
Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd............ 46.66
PRC-wide Entity \68\............................... 76.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Xishu and Uchem are part of the PRC-wide entity.
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties 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 publication of
these preliminary results.\69\ If a hearing is requested, the
Department will announce the hearing schedule at a later date.
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no
later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary
results of review.\70\ Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be
filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case
briefs.\71\ The Department intends to issue the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in all comments, and at a hearing, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\70\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c); Parties submitting written comments
must submit them pursuant to the Department's e-filing regulations.
See https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/IA%20ACCESS%20User%20Guide.pdf.
\71\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
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 and 19 CFR 351.212(b). For
assessment purposes, we calculated importer- or customer-specific
assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. We calculated
an ad valorem rate for each importer or customer by dividing the total
dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered
value associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad
valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, we 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, we
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) in accordance with the requirement of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),
the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer's or
customer's entries of subject merchandise without regard to antidumping
duties. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing
subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide
rate we determine 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 upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Wanhua, Dongfang,
Fuwei and Green Packing, which have separate rates, the cash deposit
rate will be that established in the final results of this review
(except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, zero cash deposit will be
required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC
exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior
segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the exporter-specific rate; (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; \72\
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 exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55041 (September 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections
[[Page 68148]]
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Dated: October 27, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-28571 Filed 11-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
