Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76365-76368 [2011-31428]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
rates were de minimis, in accordance
with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importerspecific ad valorem rates based on the
estimated entered value. Where the
assessment rate is above de minimis, we
will instruct CBP to assess duties on all
entries of subject merchandise by that
importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to
liquidate without regard to antidumping
duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent). The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after publication
of the final results of this review.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
produced by the respondent subject to
this review for which the reviewed
company did not know that the
merchandise which it sold to an
intermediary (e.g. a reseller, trading
company, or exporter) was destined for
the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate
unreviewed entries at the all-others rate
if there is no rate for the intermediary
involved in the transaction. For a full
discussion of this clarification, see id.
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for
Koehler, we divided its total dumping
margin by the total net value of its sales
during the review period. The following
deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of lightweight thermal paper from
Germany entered, or withdrawn from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 companies subject
to this review will be the rate
established in the final results of this
review, except if the rate is less than 0.5
percent and, therefore, de minimis, no
cash deposit will be required; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the
most recent final results for a review in
which that manufacturer or exporter
participated; (3) if the exporter is not a
firm covered in this review, a prior
review, or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Dec 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
recent final results for the manufacturer
of the merchandise; and (4) if neither
the exporter nor the manufacturer is a
firm covered in this review, the cash
deposit rate will be 6.50 percent, the allothers rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Antidumping Duty
Orders: Lightweight Thermal Paper from
Germany and the People’s Republic of
China, 73 FR 70959 (November 24,
2008). These cash deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of
administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: November 30, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–31440 Filed 12–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–520–803]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab
Emirates: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,
and strip (PET Film) from the United
Arab Emirates (UAE). This review
covers the respondent, JBF RAK LLC
(JBF), a producer and exporter of PET
Film from the UAE. The Department
preliminarily determines that sales of
PET Film from the UAE have been made
below normal value (NV) during the
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76365
November 1, 2009, through October 31,
2010, period of review. The preliminary
results are listed below in the section
titled ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review.’’
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: December 7, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Huston, or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4261 or (202) 482–
1396, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 10, 2008, the
Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on
PET Film from the UAE. See
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip From Brazil, the People’s
Republic of China and the United Arab
Emirates: Antidumping Duty Orders and
Amended Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value for the United
Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595 (November
10, 2008) (Order). On November 1, 2010,
the Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the Order. See Antidumping
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,
or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 75 FR 67079 (November 1,
2010). In response, on November 29,
2010, JBF requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of its
sales of PET Film in the U.S. market.
On December 28, 2010, the
Department initiated an administrative
review of JBF. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 75 FR 81565, 81570
(December 28, 2010). On January 27,
2011, the Department issued an
antidumping duty questionnaire to JBF.
On April 6, 2011, JBF requested a 10
day extension to submit reconciliation
information required by Sections B, C,
and D of the initial questionnaire, which
the Department approved by letter on
the same date. JBF timely submitted its
response to Section A of the
questionnaire on March 10, 2011, its
response to Sections B, C, and D on
April 11, 2011, and the reconciliation
information on April 21, 2011. On May
20, 2011, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to JBF, to
which JBF timely responded on June 3,
2011.
On June 20, 2011, JBF submitted
information requested by the
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
76366
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Notices
Department regarding its submissions to
United States Customs and Border
Protection (CBP). On July 22, 2011, the
Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire. JBF
submitted its timely response to the
second supplemental questionnaire on
August 22, 2011. On July 29, 2011, the
Department extended the time period
for issuing the preliminary results of
this administrative review. See
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet
and Strip From the United Arab
Emirates: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
45508 (July 29, 2011). On September 23,
2011, the Department issued a third
supplemental questionnaire, to which
JBF submitted its timely response on
October 11, 2011.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are
all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed
polyethylene terephthalate film,
whether extruded or co-extruded.
Excluded are metallized films and other
finished films that have had at least one
of their surfaces modified by the
application of a performance-enhancing
resinous or inorganic layer more than
0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is
roller transport cleaning film which has
at least one of its surfaces modified by
application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR
latex. Tracing and drafting film is also
excluded. PET Film is classifiable under
subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is
November 1, 2009, through October 31,
2010.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of PET
Film were made at less than NV, we
compared JBF’s sales, which were all
export price (EP) sales, made to
unaffiliated customers in the United
States to NV, as described below in the
‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this notice.
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)
of the Act, we compared the EP of
individual transactions to monthly
weighted-average NVs.
Product Comparisons
Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act,
we determined products sold by JBF, as
described in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’
section, above, and sold in the UAE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Dec 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
during the POR, to be foreign like
products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. We have relied on five
criteria to match U.S. sales of subject
merchandise to comparison-market
sales: Grade, specification, thickness,
thickness category, and surface
treatment. Where there were no sales of
identical merchandise in the home
market to compare to U.S. sales, we
compared U.S. sales to the most similar
foreign like product on the basis of the
characteristics listed above.
In its first questionnaire response, JBF
recommended two changes to our model
matching criteria based on surface
treatment. First, JBF proposed that the
ranking values for surface treatment
should be weighted to ensure that
certain surface treatments are matched.
We have not adopted this suggestion in
the preliminary results. As a result of
surface treatment being the least
important characteristic in the ranking,
the proposed change makes no
difference in the matching, given that
the preceding four factors (grade,
specification, thickness, and thickness
category) determine all matches. The
Department, therefore, will not adopt
this change, which would contradict the
matching methodology used in the
investigation, the previous review, and
other PET Film cases. If JBF can
demonstrate, subsequent to these
preliminary results, that this change is
justified based on the physical
properties of surface treatments and that
it would also affect matching, we will
reexamine the suggested change to
model matching criteria in the final
results. We note in this regard that even
if JBF’s proposed change affected our
calculations, the current basis for its
proposal is not detailed and relies only
on a few brief assertions. Second, JBF
recommended changing the ranking of
values for surface treatment to account
for a new surface treatment which was
not listed in the original questionnaire.
JBF suggested this surface treatment be
ranked between two existing categories
with which it is most physically similar.
Based on our analysis of the similarity
of surface treatments, we have adopted
JBF’s suggestion to change the ranking
of surface treatment values so that this
new type of surface treatment will be
matched to products with the most
similar surface treatment, if identical
matches are not available. See
Memorandum to Mark Hoadley,
‘‘Preliminary Analysis for JBF RAK
LLC,’’ dated November 30, 2011, (JBF
Analysis Memo) and attached SAS
programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Arm’s-Length Test
In this proceeding, JBF did not report
sales to affiliates in the home market;
therefore the arms length test was not
necessary.
Level of Trade
To determine whether NV sales are at
a different level of trade (LOT) than U.S.
sales, we examine selling functions
along the chain of distribution between
the respondent and the unaffiliated
customer for EP sales and between the
respondent and the affiliated U.S.
importer for CEP sales. If the
comparison market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference affects
price comparability, as manifested in a
pattern of consistent price differences
between the sales on which NV is based
and comparison market sales at the LOT
of the export transaction, we make an
LOT adjustment pursuant to section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
In implementing these principles, we
examined information provided by JBF
regarding the selling functions involved
in its home market and U.S. sales,
including a description of these selling
functions, listed in Exhibit A–5 of JBF’s
March 10, 2011 submission. Our
analysis revealed that there were not
any significant differences in selling
functions between different channels of
distribution or customer types in either
the home or U.S. markets. Therefore, we
preliminarily determine that JBF made
all home-market sales at one level of
trade. Moreover, we preliminarily
determine that all home-market sales by
JBF were made at the same level of trade
as its U.S. sales. Accordingly, a LOT
adjustment is not warranted.
Date of Sale
The Department will normally use
invoice date, as recorded in the
exporter’s or producer’s records kept in
the ordinary course of business, as the
date of sale, but may use a date other
than the invoice date if it better reflects
the date on which the material terms of
sale are established. See 19 CFR
351.401(i). For JBF, we preliminarily
determine that no departure from our
standard practice is warranted. JBF
reported invoice date as date of sale,
and the record does not indicate that
material terms of sale are established at
a later date or earlier date in the sales
process.
Margin Calculation
Export Price
The Department based the price of all
U.S. sales of subject merchandise by JBF
on EP as defined in section 772(a) of the
Act because the merchandise was sold
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Notices
by JBF to an unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States before importation.
We calculated EP based on the packed
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States. See section 772(c) of the
Act. We made adjustments to price for
billing adjustments, where applicable,
and deducted all movement expenses
reported by JBF.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there was a
sufficient volume of sales of PET Film
in the home market to serve as a viable
basis for calculating NV, we compared
the volume of respondent’s home
market sales of the foreign like product
to the volume of its U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. In
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of
the Act, and 19 CFR 351.404(b), because
JBF’s aggregate volume of home market
sales of the foreign like product was
greater than five percent of its aggregate
volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, we find that the home
market was viable for comparison
purposes.
B. Calculation of Cost of Production
(COP)
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated COP based on
the sum of JBF’s cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product,
plus amounts for selling, general and
administrative expenses, interest
expenses, and home market packing
costs. Details regarding calculation of
COP, as well as other calculation detail
can be found in the JBF Analysis Memo,
and attached SAS programs.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
C. Cost of Production Test
On a product-specific basis, we
compared the revised COP figures to
home market prices, net of applicable
billing adjustments, discounts and
rebates, movement charges, selling
expenses, and packing, to determine
whether home market sales had been
made at prices below COP. In
determining whether to disregard home
market sales made at prices below COP,
we examined, in accordance with
sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act,
whether, within an extended period of
time, such sales were made in
substantial quantities, and whether such
sales were made at prices which did not
permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time in the
normal course of trade.
In accordance with section 773(b) of
the Act, where less than 20 percent of
a given product was sold at prices less
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Dec 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
than COP, we did not disregard any
below-cost sales of that product,
because the below-cost sales were not
made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’
However, we disregarded the below-cost
sales that: (1) Have been made within an
extended period of time (within six
months to one year) in substantial
quantities (20 percent or more), as
defined by section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C)
of the Act; and (2) were not made at
prices which permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time, as
prescribed by section 773(b)(2)(D) of the
Act. Accordingly, we determined to
disregard certain of JBF’s sales in the
determination of NV because (1) 20
percent or more of a given product was
sold at prices less than COP and (2)
based on our comparison of prices to
weighted-average COP figured for the
POR, they were made at prices that
would not permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time. We
used the remaining home market sales
as the basis for determining NV, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the
Act.
D. Constructed Value
After disregarding certain sales as
below cost, as described above, home
market sales of contemporaneous
identical and similar products existed
that allowed for price-to-price
comparisons for all margin calculations.
Therefore, the Department did not need
to rely on constructed value for any
calculations for these preliminary
results.
E. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on packed
prices to unaffiliated customers in the
home market. We used JBF’s
adjustments and deductions as reported.
We made deductions, where
appropriate, for foreign inland freight
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the
Act. We also made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale
(COS) in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. In so doing, we made COS
adjustments for the cost of providing
samples to customers. Finally, we added
U.S. packing costs and deducted home
market packing costs, in accordance
with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the
Act, respectively.
Currency Conversions
Pursuant to section 773(A) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.415, we made currency
conversions for JBF’s sales based on the
daily exchange rates in effect on the
dates of the relevant U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76367
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily determine the following
weighted-average dumping margin
exists for the period November 1, 2009,
through October 31, 2010.
Manufacturer/exporter
JBF RAK LLC ...................
Weightedaverage margin
(percent)
3.46
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of
review. For assessment purposes, where
JBF reported the entered value for its
sales, we calculated importer-specific
(or customer-specific) ad valorem
assessment rates based on the ratio of
the total amount of the antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales
to the total entered value of those same
sales. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). However,
where JBF did not report the entered
value for its sales, we will calculate
importer-specific (or customer-specific)
per unit duty assessment rates.1 We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered
by this review if any assessment rate
calculated in the final results of this
review is above de minimis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective for all shipments of
PET Film from the UAE entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this
administrative review, as provided for
by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
The cash deposit rate for the company
under review will be the rate
established in the final results of this
review (except, if the rate is zero or de
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no
cash deposit will be required); (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash
1 JBF notified CBP in a ‘‘prior disclosure’’ letter
that some entries of subject merchandise were
misidentified as ‘‘free and dutiable’’ entries at the
time of entry. These entries were not corrected by
CBP as they had already been liquidated. JBF states
in its letter to CBP that it will pay the entire amount
of antidumping duties due on both correctly and
incorrectly classified entries at the time the
Department issues its liquidation instructions. A
‘‘prior disclosure’’ letter is provided for in CBP’s
regulations (19 CFR 162.74). The letter allows
importers to correct mistakes made during the entry
process on their initiative, thus avoiding possible
sanctions or penalties.
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
76368
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Notices
deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, a prior
review, or the less-than-fair-value
investigation, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the
merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous review,
the cash deposit rate will be the all
others rate for this proceeding, 4.05
percent.2 These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Disclosure and Public Comment
We will disclose the calculations used
in our analysis to parties in this review
within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested
party may request a hearing within 30
days of the publication of this notice in
the Federal Register.3 If a hearing is
requested, the Department will notify
interested parties of the hearing
schedule.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary results of
this review. Unless extended by the
Department, interested parties must
submit case briefs within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited
to issues raised in the case briefs, must
be filed not later than five days after the
time limit for filing case briefs. See 19
CFR 351.309(c) and (d) (additional
discussion on case briefs and rebuttal
briefs, respectively). Parties who submit
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
review are requested to submit with
each argument: (1) A statement of the
issue, (2) a brief summary of the
argument, and (3) a table of authorities.
Executive summaries should be limited
to five pages total, including footnotes.
We intend to issue the final results of
this administrative review, including
the results of our analysis of issues
raised in the written comments, within
120 days of publication of these
preliminary results in the Federal
Register, unless otherwise extended.
See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
2 See
Order, 73 FR at 66597.
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.
3 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Dec 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Department’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of doubled antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of
administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: November 30, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–31428 Filed 12–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–947]
Certain Steel Grating From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Rescission of the 2010–2011
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is rescinding the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain steel
grating from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period of review
(‘‘POR’’) of January 6, 2010, through
June 30, 2011, with respect to Ningbo
Haitian International Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo
Haitian’’), Shanghai Minmetals
Materials & Products Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Shanghai Minmetals’’), Yantai Xinke
Steel Structure Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yantai
Xinke’’), Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sinosteel Yantai’’), Ningbo
Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo Jiulong’’), Accurate
Screen, Ltd. (‘‘Accurate Screen’’), Wuxi
Juhua Import/Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wuxi
Juhua’’), and Well Forge Industries
(‘‘Well Forge’’). This rescission is based
on the timely withdrawal of the requests
for review by the only interested party
that requested the review of these
companies.
DATES: Effective Date: December 7, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Martin or Robert Bolling, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–3936 or (202) 482–
3434, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2011, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain steel
grating from the PRC. See Antidumping
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,
or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 76 FR 38609, 38610 (July 1,
2011). In response, on August 1, 2011,
Fisher & Ludlow and Alabama Metal
Industries Corporation (hereafter
referred to as ‘‘Petitioners’’) timely
requested an administrative review of
entries of the subject merchandise
during the POR from Ningbo Haitian,
Shanghai Minmetals, Yantai Xinke,
Sinosteel Yantai, Ningbo Jiulong,
Accurate Screen, Wuxi Juhua, and Well
Forge. On August 26, 2011, the
Department initiated a review of these
companies. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 53404
(August 26, 2011).
In a letter dated September 21, 2011,
Petitioners withdrew their request for
review of the aforementioned
companies, and requested that the
Department rescind the review with
respect to these companies. No other
parties requested a review.
Rescission of Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if the party
who requested the review withdraws
the request within 90 days of the date
of publication of the notice of initiation
of the requested review. Accordingly,
given that Petitioners’ withdrawal
requests were timely, and because no
other party requested a review, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department
is rescinding the entire administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain steel grating from the PRC for
the period January 6, 2010, through June
30, 2011.
Assessment
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. Antidumping duties
shall be assessed at rates equal to the
cash deposit of estimated antidumping
duties required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, in accordance with 19
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76365-76368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31428]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-520-803]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United
Arab Emirates: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from the United Arab
Emirates (UAE). This review covers the respondent, JBF RAK LLC (JBF), a
producer and exporter of PET Film from the UAE. The Department
preliminarily determines that sales of PET Film from the UAE have been
made below normal value (NV) during the November 1, 2009, through
October 31, 2010, period of review. The preliminary results are listed
below in the section titled ``Preliminary Results of Review.''
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: December 7, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Huston, or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4261 or (202) 482-1396, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 10, 2008, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on PET Film from the UAE. See
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Brazil, the
People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Antidumping
Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value for the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595 (November 10, 2008)
(Order). On November 1, 2010, the Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR
67079 (November 1, 2010). In response, on November 29, 2010, JBF
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its
sales of PET Film in the U.S. market.
On December 28, 2010, the Department initiated an administrative
review of JBF. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 81565,
81570 (December 28, 2010). On January 27, 2011, the Department issued
an antidumping duty questionnaire to JBF. On April 6, 2011, JBF
requested a 10 day extension to submit reconciliation information
required by Sections B, C, and D of the initial questionnaire, which
the Department approved by letter on the same date. JBF timely
submitted its response to Section A of the questionnaire on March 10,
2011, its response to Sections B, C, and D on April 11, 2011, and the
reconciliation information on April 21, 2011. On May 20, 2011, the
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to JBF, to which JBF
timely responded on June 3, 2011.
On June 20, 2011, JBF submitted information requested by the
[[Page 76366]]
Department regarding its submissions to United States Customs and
Border Protection (CBP). On July 22, 2011, the Department issued a
second supplemental questionnaire. JBF submitted its timely response to
the second supplemental questionnaire on August 22, 2011. On July 29,
2011, the Department extended the time period for issuing the
preliminary results of this administrative review. See Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From the United Arab Emirates:
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 45508 (July 29, 2011). On September 23,
2011, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire, to
which JBF submitted its timely response on October 11, 2011.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-
treated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, whether extruded or
co-extruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films
that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the
application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more
than 0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is roller transport cleaning
film which has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of
0.5 micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also
excluded. PET Film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2009, through October 31,
2010.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of PET Film were made at less than NV,
we compared JBF's sales, which were all export price (EP) sales, made
to unaffiliated customers in the United States to NV, as described
below in the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice. In accordance
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP of individual
transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs.
Product Comparisons
Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, we determined products sold
by JBF, as described in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, and
sold in the UAE during the POR, to be foreign like products for
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
We have relied on five criteria to match U.S. sales of subject
merchandise to comparison-market sales: Grade, specification,
thickness, thickness category, and surface treatment. Where there were
no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S.
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product
on the basis of the characteristics listed above.
In its first questionnaire response, JBF recommended two changes to
our model matching criteria based on surface treatment. First, JBF
proposed that the ranking values for surface treatment should be
weighted to ensure that certain surface treatments are matched. We have
not adopted this suggestion in the preliminary results. As a result of
surface treatment being the least important characteristic in the
ranking, the proposed change makes no difference in the matching, given
that the preceding four factors (grade, specification, thickness, and
thickness category) determine all matches. The Department, therefore,
will not adopt this change, which would contradict the matching
methodology used in the investigation, the previous review, and other
PET Film cases. If JBF can demonstrate, subsequent to these preliminary
results, that this change is justified based on the physical properties
of surface treatments and that it would also affect matching, we will
reexamine the suggested change to model matching criteria in the final
results. We note in this regard that even if JBF's proposed change
affected our calculations, the current basis for its proposal is not
detailed and relies only on a few brief assertions. Second, JBF
recommended changing the ranking of values for surface treatment to
account for a new surface treatment which was not listed in the
original questionnaire. JBF suggested this surface treatment be ranked
between two existing categories with which it is most physically
similar. Based on our analysis of the similarity of surface treatments,
we have adopted JBF's suggestion to change the ranking of surface
treatment values so that this new type of surface treatment will be
matched to products with the most similar surface treatment, if
identical matches are not available. See Memorandum to Mark Hoadley,
``Preliminary Analysis for JBF RAK LLC,'' dated November 30, 2011, (JBF
Analysis Memo) and attached SAS programs.
Arm's-Length Test
In this proceeding, JBF did not report sales to affiliates in the
home market; therefore the arms length test was not necessary.
Level of Trade
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
(LOT) than U.S. sales, we examine selling functions along the chain of
distribution between the respondent and the unaffiliated customer for
EP sales and between the respondent and the affiliated U.S. importer
for CEP sales. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT,
and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a
pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV
is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export
transaction, we make an LOT adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A)
of the Act.
In implementing these principles, we examined information provided
by JBF regarding the selling functions involved in its home market and
U.S. sales, including a description of these selling functions, listed
in Exhibit A-5 of JBF's March 10, 2011 submission. Our analysis
revealed that there were not any significant differences in selling
functions between different channels of distribution or customer types
in either the home or U.S. markets. Therefore, we preliminarily
determine that JBF made all home-market sales at one level of trade.
Moreover, we preliminarily determine that all home-market sales by JBF
were made at the same level of trade as its U.S. sales. Accordingly, a
LOT adjustment is not warranted.
Date of Sale
The Department will normally use invoice date, as recorded in the
exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of
business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the
invoice date if it better reflects the date on which the material terms
of sale are established. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). For JBF, we
preliminarily determine that no departure from our standard practice is
warranted. JBF reported invoice date as date of sale, and the record
does not indicate that material terms of sale are established at a
later date or earlier date in the sales process.
Margin Calculation
Export Price
The Department based the price of all U.S. sales of subject
merchandise by JBF on EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act
because the merchandise was sold
[[Page 76367]]
by JBF to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States before
importation. We calculated EP based on the packed price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made
adjustments to price for billing adjustments, where applicable, and
deducted all movement expenses reported by JBF.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PET
Film in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,
we compared the volume of respondent's home market sales of the foreign
like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. In
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.404(b),
because JBF's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S.
sales of the subject merchandise, we find that the home market was
viable for comparison purposes.
B. Calculation of Cost of Production (COP)
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of JBF's cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and
administrative expenses, interest expenses, and home market packing
costs. Details regarding calculation of COP, as well as other
calculation detail can be found in the JBF Analysis Memo, and attached
SAS programs.
C. Cost of Production Test
On a product-specific basis, we compared the revised COP figures to
home market prices, net of applicable billing adjustments, discounts
and rebates, movement charges, selling expenses, and packing, to
determine whether home market sales had been made at prices below COP.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices
below COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B) of the Act, whether, within an extended period of time, such sales
were made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made
at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a given product was sold at prices less than COP, we did not
disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because the below-cost
sales were not made in ``substantial quantities.'' However, we
disregarded the below-cost sales that: (1) Have been made within an
extended period of time (within six months to one year) in substantial
quantities (20 percent or more), as defined by section 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C) of the Act; and (2) were not made at prices which permit recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time, as prescribed by
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Accordingly, we determined to
disregard certain of JBF's sales in the determination of NV because (1)
20 percent or more of a given product was sold at prices less than COP
and (2) based on our comparison of prices to weighted-average COP
figured for the POR, they were made at prices that would not permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We used the
remaining home market sales as the basis for determining NV, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
D. Constructed Value
After disregarding certain sales as below cost, as described above,
home market sales of contemporaneous identical and similar products
existed that allowed for price-to-price comparisons for all margin
calculations. Therefore, the Department did not need to rely on
constructed value for any calculations for these preliminary results.
E. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers
in the home market. We used JBF's adjustments and deductions as
reported. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland
freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made
adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. In so doing, we made COS adjustments for the cost of providing
samples to customers. Finally, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted
home market packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B) of the Act, respectively.
Currency Conversions
Pursuant to section 773(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we made
currency conversions for JBF's sales based on the daily exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales as certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period November 1, 2009,
through October 31, 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Manufacturer/exporter average margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JBF RAK LLC........................................... 3.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of
the final results of review. For assessment purposes, where JBF
reported the entered value for its sales, we calculated importer-
specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem assessment rates based on
the ratio of the total amount of the antidumping duties calculated for
the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. See
19 CFR 351.212(b). However, where JBF did not report the entered value
for its sales, we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-
specific) per unit duty assessment rates.\1\ We will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this
review if any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this
review is above de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ JBF notified CBP in a ``prior disclosure'' letter that some
entries of subject merchandise were misidentified as ``free and
dutiable'' entries at the time of entry. These entries were not
corrected by CBP as they had already been liquidated. JBF states in
its letter to CBP that it will pay the entire amount of antidumping
duties due on both correctly and incorrectly classified entries at
the time the Department issues its liquidation instructions. A
``prior disclosure'' letter is provided for in CBP's regulations (19
CFR 162.74). The letter allows importers to correct mistakes made
during the entry process on their initiative, thus avoiding possible
sanctions or penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of PET Film from the UAE entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company
under review will be the rate established in the final results of this
review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed
or investigated companies not listed above, the cash
[[Page 76368]]
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published
for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered
in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer
is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate
will be the all others rate for this proceeding, 4.05 percent.\2\ These
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Order, 73 FR at 66597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
in this review within five days of the date of publication of this
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in
the Federal Register.\3\ If a hearing is requested, the Department will
notify interested parties of the hearing schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results of this review. Unless extended by the Department, interested
parties must submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed not later than five
days after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)
and (d) (additional discussion on case briefs and rebuttal briefs,
respectively). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in
this review are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement
of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of
authorities. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total,
including footnotes.
We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review,
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results
in the Federal Register, unless otherwise extended. See section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: November 30, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-31428 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
