Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 46704-46712 [2012-19149]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46704-46712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19149]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-837]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene 
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from Taiwan. The period 
of review (POR) is July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. This review 
covers respondents Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation (SSFC) and its 
subsidiary Shinkong Materials Technology Co. Ltd. (SMTC) (collectively, 
Shinkong), and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd. (Nan Ya), producers 
and exporters of PET Film from Taiwan. The Department preliminarily 
determines that Nan Ya made and Shinkong did not make sales of PET Film 
from Taiwan below normal value (NV). The preliminary results are listed 
below in the section titled ``Preliminary Results of Review.'' 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey or Milton Koch, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 428-
3964, or (202) 482-2584, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on PET Film from Taiwan.\1\ On July 1, 2011, 
the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of the order.\2\ In response, on July 29, 2011, 
Petitioners\3\ requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of Nan Ya's and Shinkong's sales of PET Film from Taiwan to the 
United States. Also on July 29, Shinkong requested that the Department 
conduct an administrative review of its sales. On August 1, 2011, Nan 
Ya requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of 
its sales.\4\ On November 25, 2011, Petitioners withdrew their request 
for an administrative review of Nan Ya. However, because Nan Ya 
requested a review of itself, there was no basis to rescind the review 
of Nan Ya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from 
Taiwan, 67 FR 44174 (July 1, 2002), as corrected in 67 FR 46566 
(July 15, 2002).
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation: Opportunity To Request Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 38609, 38610 (July 1, 2011).
    \3\ Petitioners are DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester 
Film, Inc., SKC, Inc., and Toray Plastics (America), Inc.
    \4\ This request was timely because July 31, 2011 was a Sunday. 
See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next Business Day'' 
Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the 
Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended,70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 26, 2011, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of Shinkong and Nan Ya (collectively, the respondents).\5\ On 
September 9, 2011, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
questionnaire to the respondents. On October 21 and 24, 2011, 
respectively, Shinkong and Nan Ya timely filed their Section A 
response. On November 14 and 18, 2011,

[[Page 46705]]

respectively, Shinkong and Nan Ya timely filed their Section B, C, and 
D responses. On March 27, 2012, the Department extended the time period 
for issuing the preliminary results of this administrative review.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation In Part, 76 FR 
53404, 53406 (August 26, 2011).
    \6\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET 
Film) From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 13128 
(March 10, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 11, 2012, Petitioners filed comments on Nan Ya's 
questionnaire response. Between April and July 2012, the Department 
issued several supplemental questionnaires separately on sections A, B, 
and C, and section D, to both Shinkong and Nan Ya requesting additional 
information. All responses were timely submitted. On July 9, 2012, 
Petitioners filed comments on both Nan Ya's and Shinkong's 
questionnaire responses. On July 17, 2012, Petitioners filed targeted 
dumping allegations for both Nan Ya and Shinkong.
    For purposes of these preliminary results the Department did not 
conduct a targeted dumping analysis. In calculating the preliminary 
weighted-average dumping margins for the mandatory respondents, the 
Department applied the calculation methodology adopted in Final 
Modification for Reviews.\7\ In particular, the Department compared 
monthly weighted-average export prices (EPs) (or constructed export 
prices (CEPs)) with monthly weighted-average NVs and granted offsets 
for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted-average 
dumping margins. Application of this methodology in these preliminary 
results affords parties an opportunity to meaningfully comment on the 
Department's implementation of this recently adopted methodology in the 
context of this administrative review. The Department intends to 
continue to consider, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(c), whether another 
method is appropriate in these administrative reviews in light of the 
parties' pre-preliminary comments and any comments on the issue that 
parties may include in their case and rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 
Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) 
(Final Modification for Reviews).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges 
of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, 
and strip, 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 performance-enhancing resinous or 
inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of 
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip are currently 
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the 
scope of the antidumping duty order is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR for this administrative review is July 1, 2010, through 
June 30, 2011.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply 
``facts otherwise available'' 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.
    Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not 
decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested 
party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all 
applicable requirements established by the administering authority'' if 
the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that 
it cannot be used, can be used without undue difficulties, and if the 
interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the 
information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute 
requires the Department to use the information supplied.
    For the reasons discussed below, the Department determines that, in 
accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the use of facts 
otherwise available is appropriate for the preliminary results with 
respect to Nan Ya's sales to certain importers in the United States. 
Because Nan Ya reported these sales as CEP sales, and we are treating 
these sales as EP sales for purposes of these preliminary results (see 
``Affiliation of Nan Ya with U.S. Customers''), necessary information, 
the invoice date of these sales, is not available on the record.

Collapsing SSFC and SMTC

    The Department will treat two or more affiliated producers as a 
single entity where: (1) those producers have production facilities for 
similar or identical products that would not require substantial 
retooling of either facility; and (2) there is a significant potential 
for manipulation of price or production pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.401(f)(1) and (2). Consistent with the most recently completed 
administrative review, the Department preliminarily determines that 
SSFC and SMTC should be treated as a single entity (i.e., Shinkong) for 
purposes of calculating an antidumping margin pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.401(f).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From 
Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 47540, 47541 (August 5, 2011) (``PET Film Prelim 09-
10'') unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 76 FR 76941 (December 9, 2011) (``PET Film Review 09-10'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SMTC was established in October 2004 and it is a subsidiary of 
SSFC. In the past, SSFC and SMTC both produced similar or identical 
merchandise, including subject merchandise. At the start of the current 
POR, on July 1, 2010, SSFC sold its equipment and machinery to its 
subsidiary SMTC, and SSFC stopped producing subject merchandise.\9\ 
However, the equipment remained at SSFC's facility and SSFC charged 
SMTC a plant management fee. Similar to the structure of companies the 
Department found affiliated in Pipe Fittings from Italy \10\ and Shrimp 
from Brazil, \11\ because SSFC is the majority shareholder of SMTC, the 
level of common ownership between SSFC and SMTC is such that operations 
are so intertwined that they are integral to the operations of each 
other. Shinkong reported that the management of the two companies is 
commingled and that SSFC and SMTC are effectively managed and operated 
as one company.\12\ Thus, we find that the two

[[Page 46706]]

companies could switch roles and restructure manufacturing priorities 
such that there is a significant potential for the manipulation of 
price or production and that, according to our practice, they satisfy 
the first criteria of 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). With regard to the 
significant potential for manipulation pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.401(f)(2), we find that, because SMTC has a fully functioning 
facility for producing the subject merchandise, which is located on the 
same premises and is controlled by SSFC,\13\ the role of producer and 
seller could easily switch from SMTC to SSFC without substantial 
retooling at either company. We also found that the majority ownership 
of SMTC by SSFC demonstrates a significant potential for manipulation 
of price or production between the two companies. In addition, the sale 
of the production equipment to SMTC without its relocation; the 
imposition of a plant management fee by SSFC on SMTC; and, the 
provision of major inputs at cost by SSFC to SMTC demonstrate that 
production operations are intertwined. Furthermore, the commingled 
management highlights that the companies are effectively operated and 
managed as one. Therefore, because both 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2) 
are met, we are continuing to collapse SSFC and SMTC, and treat them as 
a single entity, Shinkong, for these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Shinkong's October 21, 2011 submission at 1.
    \10\ See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Preliminary No Shipment Determination, 76 FR 79655 (December 22, 
2011) (Pipe Fittings from Italy), unchanged in Stainless Steel Butt-
Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final No Shipment Determination, 77 FR 
24459 (April 24, 2012).
    \11\ See Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910 
(December 23, 2004).
    \12\ See Shinkong's October 21, 2011 submission at 7.
    \13\ See Shinkong's June 18, 2012 submission at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affiliation of Nan Ya With U.S. Customers

    In the less-than-fair-value investigation \14\ and subsequent 
administrative reviews,\15\ the Department determined that Nan Ya, 
through a family grouping, was in a position of legal and operational 
control of three of its U.S. customers, in accordance with section 
771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We found 
that members of a family involved in the ownership and management of 
Nan Ya also shared ownership and management of three U.S. importers, 
and that this family possessed the potential to act in concert or act 
out of common interest to exert restraint or direction over the 
activities of these U.S. companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET 
Film) from Taiwan, 67 FR 35474 (May 20, 2002) (``PET Film from 
Taiwan Investigation'').
    \15\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 
FR 50166 (August 13, 2004) and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comments 1 and 3; see also Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review(``Pet Film Prelim 08-09''), 
75 FR 49902 (August 16, 2010), unchanged in Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 9745 (February 22, 
2011) (``Pet Film Review 08-09'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the last administrative review that analyzed Nan Ya's 
affiliation with these three U.S. importers that purchased and sold the 
subject merchandise, Nan Ya reported that the 2008 death of its 
Chairman, Mr. Y.C. Wang, dissolved the family ties and common ownership 
interests such that there was no longer an affiliation between Nan Ya 
and these three U.S. importers. However, the Department found that Nan 
Ya had not provided sufficient information to warrant the 
reconsideration of our prior affiliation finding.\16\ Nan Ya now has 
provided information in the instant review regarding both the 
disposition of Mr. Y.C. Wang's assets and the current ownership and 
corporate structure of Nan Ya and the three U.S. importers that the 
Department found affiliated in past proceedings.\17\ Our analysis of 
this information indicates that following the death of the Chairman, 
and distribution of his assets to his heirs, there was no longer any 
evidence of control of Nan Ya by the family unit. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that Nan Ya is no longer affiliated with these 
three U.S. customers; as such, we are treating all of Nan Ya's U.S. 
sales as EP sales. For further discussion of the business proprietary 
ownership information, see the Nan Ya affiliation memorandum.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, ``Affiliation of Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, 
Ltd. (Nan Ya) with Certain U.S. Customers,'' dated August 9, 2010, 
and attached to the Nan Ya affiliation memorandum for the 2010-11 
review period as Exhibit 1.
    \17\ See Nan Ya's Supplemental Questionnaire Response of June 
29, 2012 at Questions 12-14 and Exhibits SE5-Exhibits 12-1 through 
12-4.
    \18\ See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, ``Affiliation of Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, 
Ltd. (Nan Ya) with Certain U.S. Customers,'' dated July 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the volume of Shinkong's and Nan Ya's home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of their U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.401(b). Based on this comparison, we found that both 
companies' 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, and have determined that both 
Shinkong's and Nan Ya's home markets were viable during the POR for 
comparison purposes.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of PET Film were made at less than NV, 
we compared the respondents' EP sales made in the United States to 
unaffiliated customers to NV, as described below in the ``United States 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1) and 
(d), we compared EP to NV of the foreign like product in the 
appropriate corresponding calendar month where there were sales made in 
the ordinary course of trade, as described in the ``United States 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. Further, we 
granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the 
weighted-average dumping margin.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the 
weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in Final 
Modification for Reviews. In particular, the Department compared 
monthly weighted-average EPs with monthly weighted-average NVs and 
granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the 
weighted average dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Comparisons

    Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, we determined that products 
sold by the respondents, as described in the ``Scope of the Order'' 
section above, in Taiwan during the POR are foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
For product comparisons, we relied on five criteria to match U.S. sales 
of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales (in order of 
importance): grade, specification, thickness, thickness range, and 
surface treatment.\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See the Department's September 9, 2011 Antidumping Duty 
Questionnaire, issued to Shinkong and Nan Ya respectively, at 
sections B and C; see also PET Film Prelim 09-10, 76 FR at 47572, 
unchanged in PET Film Review 09-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    The Department normally uses invoice date as date of sale, 
consistent with 19 CFR 351.401(i). In prior

[[Page 46707]]

administrative reviews,\21\ the Department used invoice date as the 
date of sale. In this review, and as explained further below, the 
Department continues to find that invoice date should be used as the 
date of sale for both respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See PET Film Prelim 09-10, 76 FR at 47542, unchanged in PET 
Film Review 09-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the specific invoice date the Department is using 
for Shinkong, this respondent reported that, on occasion, before 
subject merchandise was shipped, changes to the terms of sale occurred 
at the customer's request or because of Shinkong's production capacity. 
According to Shinkong, during the POR, for home market sales and for 
sales to the United States, the terms of sale were finalized in the 
Government Uniform Invoice (GUI).\22\ As such, we preliminarily 
determine that for sales in the home market, and for sales to the 
United States made through domestic trading companies, the GUI date is 
the date on which the material terms of sale are finalized.\23\ 
Therefore, this invoice date is the most appropriate date to use as 
Shinkong's date of sale. For sales made directly to U.S. customers, 
Shinkong explained that it issues its commercial invoice after 
production of subject merchandise is completed, at which time the terms 
of sale have been finalized.\24\ Therefore, we preliminarily determine 
that, for sales made directly to the U.S. market, the commercial 
invoice date is the most appropriate invoice date to use as Shinkong's 
date of sale in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), except when shipment 
date predates invoice date. In those instances, and consistent with the 
Department's practice, we have used shipment date instead of invoice 
date as the date of sale.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Shinkong's October 21, 2012 submission at 17.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 
7244, 7251(February 18, 2010), unchanged in Narrow Woven Ribbons 
With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 41808 (July 
19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nan Ya reported the GUI invoice date as the date of sale in the 
home market during the POR, because Nan Ya allows the customer to 
change the order quantity after the date of the confirmed purchase 
order.\26\ As such, we preliminarily determine that for sales in the 
home market, the GUI date is the invoice date on which the material 
terms of sale are finalized, and is therefore the most appropriate date 
to use as Nan Ya's date of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Nan Ya's Section B Questionnaire Response of November 
22, 2011 at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nan Ya requested that the Department use the sales confirmation 
date as the date of sale for its reported EP sales because, according 
to Nan Ya, that is the date on which the material terms of sale are 
established (i.e., price and major product characteristics such as 
specification, thickness, and surface treatment).\27\ In addition, Nan 
Ya reported that it establishes a sales confirmation ceiling for total 
weight by always entering 19,000 kg., which represents the capacity of 
one order container as a cushion for changes in production conditions. 
This allows importers to change the width and length of the product, 
and in rare cases, to add an additional roll, provided that the 
resulting weight is within the ceiling established on the sales 
confirmation.\28\ Nan Ya also reported that there were a number of 
instances of sale changes by type and frequency for its reported U.S. 
sales that included other changes in addition to the product's width 
and length.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Nan Ya's Section A Questionnaire Response of October 
24, 2011 at 20.
    \28\ See Nan Ya's Section C Questionnaire Response of November 
22, 2011 at 14.
    \29\ See Nan Ya's Supplemental Questionnaire Response of June 5, 
2012 at Exhibit SE2 14.a. ``Sales Change Type and Frequency in the 
U.S. Sales.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's regulation establishes a presumption for invoice 
date which may be overcome when a party demonstrates that the material 
terms of sale such as price and quantity are established on another 
date. Nan Ya has not demonstrated that the material terms of sale are 
established on sales confirmation date. Nan Ya allows for changes after 
the sales confirmation that alters the product, which occurs after the 
sales confirmation date. Indeed, the record evidence demonstrates that 
all final alterations to the product and the actual weight are 
determined at the time of invoicing when the product is released to the 
customer.\30\ Thus, we preliminarily determine that the invoice date is 
the appropriate date to use as Nan Ya's date of sale in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.401(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Nan Ya's Section C Questionnaire Response of November 
22, 2011 at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above in the ``Affiliation of Nan Ya with U.S. Customers'' 
section, the Department has preliminarily determined that Nan Ya is no 
longer affiliated with certain U.S. importers and we now find all of 
Nan Ya's U.S. sales to be EP sales. However, because Nan Ya reported 
some of these sales as CEP sales, it did not provide its invoice date 
for these sales but provided the date of the purchase order between the 
U.S. importers and their unaffiliated customers as the date of sale. 
Because we have determined that the invoice date is the most 
appropriate date to use as Nan Ya's date of sale, necessary 
information, the invoice date of these sales, is missing from the 
record for NanYa's reported CEP sales, and we must rely on the facts 
available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.
    As facts available, we have constructed an invoice date using the 
adjusted purchase order date as explained below. For the sales it had 
identified as CEP sales, Nan Ya reported the date of the purchase order 
between the U.S. importers and their unaffiliated customers as the date 
of sale. In addition, Nan Ya explained that for all of its U.S. 
importers, ``{o{time} nce a purchase order is issued by the U.S. 
customer of the importer to the importer, the latter will place 
purchase orders via email or facsimile with Nan Ya.'' \31\ Therefore, 
we have relied on the date of the purchase order between the U.S. 
customer and the importer to establish the date on which Nan Ya's U.S. 
importers issued purchase orders to Nan Ya. In order to derive the date 
on which Nan Ya issued its invoice for these sales, we relied on 
information on the record that indicates that Nan Ya issues its invoice 
when the merchandise is released to the customer, which is generally 30 
to 60 days after the confirmed export order.\32\ For purposes of these 
preliminary results, we have derived Nan Ya's invoice date for these 
sales by adding 45 days to the date on which the purchase order was 
received by Nan Ya from these U.S. importers. Because this change 
affects the calculation of credit expenses for some of the reported CEP 
sales that have been reclassified as EP sales, we have used, as facts 
available, the average credit expense for all reported EP sales to 
reflect this expense if it was incurred by the U.S. importer when 
purchasing subject merchandise from Nan Ya. After these preliminary 
results, we intend to gather information from Nan Ya to establish the 
actual date of Nan Ya's invoice and credit expenses for these sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Nan Ya's Section A Questionnaire Response of October 
24, 2011 at 16.
    \32\ See Nan Ya's Section C Questionnaire Response of November 
22, 2011 at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Price

    In calculating the U.S. price for Shinkong and Nan Ya, we used EP, 
as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because sales to the first 
unaffiliated U.S. customer occurred before

[[Page 46708]]

importation.\33\ We based EP on packed prices to customers in the 
United States. We made deductions from U.S. price for the following 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: 
domestic inland freight from plant to port of exportation, brokerage 
and handling incurred in the country of manufacture, marine insurance, 
and international freight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ As noted above in the ``Affiliation of Nan Ya with U.S. 
Customers'' section, the Department has preliminarily determined 
that Nan Ya is no longer affiliated with certain U.S. customers and 
we now find all of Nan Ya's U.S. sales to be EP sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of Production Analysis

    Pursuant to 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, because the Department 
disregarded certain of Shinkong's and Nan Ya's sales in the most 
recently completed reviews of this order,\34\ the Department had 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Shinkong and Nan Ya made 
home market sales at prices below the cost of production (COP) in this 
review. As a result, the Department is directed under section 773(b) of 
the Act to determine whether Shinkong and Nan Ya made home market sales 
during the POR at prices below COP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ In the most recent review, only Shinkong was reviewed. See 
PET Film Prelim 09-10, 76 FR at 47543, unchanged in PET Film Review 
09-10. Nan Ya was most recently reviewed in the 2008-2009 
Administrative Review. See PET Film Prelim 08-09, 75 FR at 49905, 
unchanged in PET Film Review 08-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Calculation of COP

    The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual 
weighted-average cost for the entire POR.\35\ This methodology is 
predictable and generally applicable in all proceedings. However, the 
Department recognizes that distortions may result if our normal annual 
average cost method is used during a period of significant cost 
changes. Under such circumstances, in determining whether to deviate 
from our normal methodology of calculating an annual weighted average 
cost, the Department has evaluated the case-specific record evidence 
using two primary factors: (1) Whether the change in the cost of 
manufacturing (COM) experienced by the respondent during the POR is 
significant; and (2) whether the record evidence indicates that sales 
prices during the shorter averaging periods could be reasonably linked 
with the COP or constructed value (CV) during the same shorter 
averaging periods.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Italy, 65 FR 77852 
(December 13, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 18; see also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 (explaining the Department's 
practice of computing a single weighted-average cost for the entire 
period).
    \36\ See Final Results of the Antidumping Administrative Review: 
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 76 FR 76939 
(December 9, 2011), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Significance of Cost Changes
    Record evidence shows that Shinkong and Nan Ya experienced 
significant changes in the total COM during the POR and that the 
changes in COM are primarily attributable to the price volatility for 
purified terephthalic acid (PTA) and mono ethylene glycol (MEG),\37\ 
the main inputs consumed in the production of the merchandise under 
consideration. Specifically, the record data shows that the percentage 
difference between the high and low quarterly COM exceeded 25 percent 
during the POR. As a result, we have determined that for these 
preliminary results the changes in COM for Shinkong and Nan Ya are 
significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Nan Ya reported this input as ethylene glycol (EG), which 
is not chemically different than MEG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Linkage Between Cost and Sales Information
    The Department also evaluates whether there is evidence of linkage 
between the cost changes and the sales prices for the given POR. Absent 
a surcharge or other pricing mechanism, the Department may 
alternatively look for evidence of a pattern that changes in selling 
prices reasonably correlate to changes in unit costs.\38\ To determine 
whether a reasonable correlation existed between the sales prices and 
underlying costs during the POR, we compared weighted-average quarterly 
prices to the corresponding quarterly COM for the control numbers with 
the highest volume of sales in the comparison market and in the United 
States. Our comparison revealed that the quarterly cost and quarterly 
sales prices for Shinkong and Nan Ya appear to be reasonably correlated 
during this period of significant cost changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final 
Results of Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398 (December 11, 2008) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the two factors, we preliminarily find that it is 
appropriate to rely on a quarterly costing approach with respect to 
both Shinkong and Nan Ya. Thus, we used quarterly average PTA and EG 
costs and annual weighted-average fabrication costs in the COP 
calculations. For further discussion of this issue, see the Shinkong 
and Nan Ya cost adjustments memoranda.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director of Office of 
Accounting, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Review--Nan Ya Plastics 
Corporation,'' dated July 30, 2012 (Nan Ya Cost Adjustments 
Memorandum); see also Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director of 
Office of Accounting, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Review--Shinkong 
Synthetic Fibers Corporation,'' dated July 30, 2012 (Shinkong Cost 
Adjustments Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Calculation of Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated 
quarterly COP based on the sum of Shinkong's and Nan Ya's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for general and administrative expenses (G&A), interest expenses and 
home market packing costs. These calculations include revisions by the 
Department to the COP information reported by Shinkong and Nan Ya, 
consistent with Department practice.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the 
last review for Shinkong, we ignored the grade product characteristic 
reported by Shinkong when calculating product-specific costs, as grade 
differences are the result of inadvertent errors in production that 
lead to different qualities of PET Film and not the result of variances 
in production processes or costs. However, in this review, Shinkong 
reports a difference in grade based on internal PET film cost codes and 
therefore, different grades result in different weighted average unit 
COP.\41\ Thus, we have included the grade product characteristic in 
calculating product-specific costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Shinkong's section D response dated November 14, 2011 
at 108 and its supplemental D response dated June 18, 2012 at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether to disregard Shinkong's and Nan Ya's home 
market sales that were made at prices below the COP, we examined, in 
accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether, 
within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial 
quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices which did not 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in 
the normal course of trade. In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C) of 
the Act, where less than 20 percent of a given

[[Page 46709]]

product was sold at prices less than COP, we did not disregard any 
below-cost sales of that product, because the below-cost sales were not 
made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a given 
product was sold at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below cost 
sales if: (1) they were made within an extended period of time in 
``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) 
and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our comparison of prices to 
weighted-average COP figures for the POR, they were made at prices 
which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. As 
stated in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, prices are considered to 
provide for recovery of costs if such prices are above the weighted 
average per-unit COP for the period of investigation or review. In 
light of the Court's directives in SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, 
704 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010), and SeAH Steel Corporation 
v. United States, 764 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2011) to use an 
unadjusted annual average cost for purposes of the cost recovery test, 
in the instant review we have used the approach which we adopted 
recently to test for cost recovery when using a shorter cost period 
methodology.\42\ Using the methodology adopted in SPT from Turkey, we 
calculated a control-number-specific weighted-average annual price 
using only those sales that were made below their quarterly COP, and 
compared the resulting weighted-average price to the annual weighted-
average cost per control number. If the annual weighted-average price 
per control number was above the annual weighted-average cost per 
control number then we considered those sales to have provided for the 
recovery of costs and restored all such sales to the NV pool of 
comparison-market sales available for comparison with U.S. sales. For 
further details regarding the cost recovery methodology and the 
application of our shorter-cost period methodology, see Shinkong Cost 
Adjustments Memorandum and Nan Ya Cost Adjustments Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey; 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Review, 76 FR 76939 (December 
9, 2011) (``SPT from Turkey'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

1. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on packed prices (i.e., including costs for 
packing) to unaffiliated customers in the home market.\43\ We used 
Shinkong's and Nan Ya's adjustments and deductions as reported. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons involving 
similar merchandise, we made adjustments for cost differences 
attributable to the physical differences between the products compared, 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We 
also made adjustments for differences in the circumstances of sale, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410, specifically for imputed credit expenses. Finally, we deducted 
home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Shinkong and Nan Ya sold a small amount of foreign like 
product to its affiliates in the home market for consumption during 
the POR. These sales have failed the arm's-length test and therefore 
have been excluded from the calculation of NV. See ``Arm's Length 
Test'' section, below, for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Results of the Sales Below Cost Test

    We found that for certain products, more than 20 percent of 
Shinkong's home market sales were made at prices below COP and, in 
addition, these below cost sales were made within an extended period of 
time and in substantial quantities. In addition, pursuant to the cost 
recovery analysis described above, we found that these sales were at 
prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time. We therefore disregarded these sales from the 
calculation of NV and used the remaining home market sales as the basis 
for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

3. Arm's-Length Test

    The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated 
party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is 
comparable to the prices at which sales are made to parties not 
affiliated with the exporter or producer; i.e., sales to home market 
affiliates must be at arm's-length.\44\ Sales to affiliated customers 
for consumption in the home market that are determined not to be at 
arm's-length are excluded from our analysis. To test whether sales are 
made at arm's-length prices, the Department compares the prices of 
sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated 
customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and 
packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c), and in accordance with the 
Department's practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party 
are, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to 
unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the 
affiliated party, we determine that the sales to the affiliated party 
are at arm's-length.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
    \45\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the 
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proceeding, both Shinkong and Nan Ya reported sales of the 
foreign like product to affiliated customers who consumed the purchased 
material. Some of Shinkong's and all of Nan Ya's sales to these 
affiliated home market customers did not pass the arm's-length test, 
and were therefore excluded from our analysis.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See section 773(b)(1) of the Act; see also Memorandum to 
Dana S. Mermelstein, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 
``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 2010-2011 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Taiwan: Shinkong Synthetic 
Fibers Corporation and Shinkong Materials Technology Co. Ltd,'' 
dated July 30, 2012 and Memorandum to Dana S. Mermelstein, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, ``Analysis for the Preliminary 
Results of the 2010-2011 Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
Taiwan: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation,'' dated July 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Constructed Value-to-Price Comparisons

    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 for both Shinkong and Nan Ya. Therefore, the Department 
did not need to rely on constructed value for any calculations for 
these preliminary results.

Currency Conversions

    Pursuant to section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we made 
currency conversions for Shinkong's and Nan Ya'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.

Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different 
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not

[[Page 46710]]

sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the 
stages of marketing.\47\ In order to determine whether the comparison 
market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the 
U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., 
the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of 
customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for 
each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To 
Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part, 75 FR 50999, 51001 (August 
18, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 7 (OJ from Brazil).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices),\48\ we consider the starting prices 
before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A 
expenses, and profit for CV, where possible.
    \49\ See Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 
1314-16 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, 
the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data make it possible, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects 
price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment is possible), the 
Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See, e.g., OJ from Brazil, 75 FR at 51001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In implementing these principles, we examined information provided 
by Shinkong regarding the selling functions involved in its home market 
and U.S. sales, including a description of these selling functions, 
provided in Exhibit 8 of Shinkong's October 21, 2011 response and 
Exhibit 12 of Shinkong's May 24, 2012 response. Shinkong reported that 
in the home market it made sales to affiliated end users, unaffiliated 
end users and to unaffiliated distributors, and that all selling 
functions were performed at the same or similar levels of intensity in 
all channels of distribution. We examined the following three 
activities performed in the comparison market: (1) Sales and marketing 
(sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, order input/
processing, etc.); (2) freight and delivery (including packing); and 
(3) technical service/warranties. Based on our analysis, we find that 
Shinkong performed the same selling functions in all three categories 
to the same or similar degree in all channels of distribution with the 
exception of rebates, which were provided at a low level only to 
distributors. Because all comparison market sales are made through 
these channels of distribution, and Shinkong's selling activities did 
not vary significantly in intensity among these channels, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the comparison market 
for Shinkong.
    Shinkong reported that sales in the U.S. market were only made to 
distributors during the POR. Shinkong provided information which 
consolidated all of the selling activities performed for U.S. sales 
into this one channel of distribution.\51\ These selling activities 
were grouped into the following three activities: (1) Sales and 
marketing (sales negotiation, strategic/economic planning, order input/
processing, etc.); (2) freight and delivery (including packing); and 
(3) technical services/warranties. Since Shinkong's sales to the U.S. 
importers were only made through one channel of distribution, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Shinkong's supplemental questionnaire response of May 
24, 2012 at Exhibit 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we compared the U.S. market LOT to the home market LOT and 
found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and comparison home 
market customers do not differ, as Shinkong performed the same selling 
functions at the same relative or similar level of intensity in both 
markets, with the previously noted exception of rebates. There was no 
substantial difference in these selling activities, therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that sales to the U.S. and comparison market 
during the POR were made at the same LOT and, as a result, no LOT 
adjustment is warranted. These findings are consistent with 
determinations in past segments of this proceeding based on similar 
record evidence.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See PET Film from Taiwan Investigation; see also PET Film 
Review 09-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to Nan Ya, because the Department preliminarily 
determines that Nan Ya is no longer affiliated with certain U.S. 
customers as discussed in the ``Affiliation of Nan Ya with U.S. 
Customers'' section, above, all of the U.S. sales are preliminarily 
determined to be EP sales. We obtained information from Nan Ya 
regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign 
market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed by Nan Ya respondent for each channel of 
distribution.
    In this administrative review, with respect to the comparison 
market, Nan Ya reported that it made sales to both unaffiliated end 
users and to unaffiliated distributors, and that most selling functions 
were performed at the same or similar levels of intensity in both 
channels of distribution. We examined the following three activities 
performed in the comparison market: (1) Sales and marketing (sales 
forecasting, strategic/economic planning, order input/processing, 
etc.); (2) freight and delivery (including packing); and (3) technical 
service warranties. Based on our analysis, we find that Nan Ya 
performed the selling functions in all three categories to the same or 
similar degree in both channels of distribution.\53\ Because all 
comparison market sales are made through these two channels of 
distribution, and the selling activities to Nan Ya's customers did not 
vary between theses channels, we preliminarily determine that there is 
one LOT in the comparison market for Nan Ya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Nan Ya's Supplemental Questionnaire Response of June 5, 
2012, at Exhibit SE2-Exhibit-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nan Ya reported that its sales to the U.S. market were only made to 
distributors during the POR.\54\ Nan Ya provided information which 
consolidated all of the selling activities performed for U.S. sales 
into this one channel of distribution. These selling activities were 
grouped into the following three activities: (1) Sales and marketing 
(sales negotiation, strategic/economic planning, order input/
processing, etc.); (2) freight and delivery (including packing); and 
(3) technical services/warranties.\55\ Since Nan Ya's sales to the U.S. 
importers were only made through one channel of distribution, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Nan Ya's Section A Questionnaire Response of October 
24, 2011 at 13.
    \55\ See Nan Ya's Supplemental Questionnaire Response of June 5, 
2011, at Exhibit SE2-Exhibit-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we compared the U.S. market LOT to the home market LOT and 
found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and comparison home 
market customers do not differ significantly, as

[[Page 46711]]

Nan Ya performed the selling functions at the same relative or similar 
level of intensity in both markets. Nan Ya reported that it conducts 
more sales activities in the home market than in the U.S. market with 
respect to sales negotiations and post-sales technical services.\56\ 
Our examination of the selling and marketing activities in the instant 
review shows that almost all of the selling functions in the home 
market between end-use customers and distributors are the same.\57\ 
However, we do not find these home market activities or the level of 
intensity at which they are performed, to be significantly different 
from the selling and marketing activities performed in the U.S. market. 
Where some differences appear to exist between the U.S. and comparison 
markets, the narrative explanations show them to be more similar than 
different (e.g., the sales process does not differ by channel of 
distribution in either the U.S. or home market; the same process is 
used for handling technical inquiries in both the U.S. and home market; 
and Nan Ya hires outside carriers to deliver the merchandise to both 
its customers in the home market and to the port of export).\58\ 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that sales to the U.S. and 
comparison market during the POR were made at the same LOT and, as a 
result, no LOT adjustment is warranted. These findings are consistent 
with determinations in past segments of this proceeding based on 
similar record evidence.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Nan Ya's Section A Questionnaire Response of October 
24, 2011 at 14.
    \57\ See Nan Ya's Supplemental Questionnaire Response of June 5, 
2011 at Exhibit SE2-9.
    \58\ See Nan Ya's Section A Questionnaire Response of October 
24, 2011 at 16; see also Nan Ya's Section B Questionnaire Response 
of November 22, 2011 at 25; Nan Ya's Section C Questionnaire 
Response of November 22, 2011 at 26; and Nan Ya's Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response of June 5, 2011 at 12.
    \59\ See PET Film from Taiwan Investigation; see also PET Film 
Review 08-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following 
weighted-average antidumping duty margins exist for the period July 1, 
2010, through June 30, 2011.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                   Producer/ Exporter                         margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd........................            5.20
Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation...................            0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department shall determine, and 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. We will instruct CBP to liquidate 
entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by Shinkong and Nan Ya. 
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the date of publication of the final results of review. For 
assessment purposes, where possible, we calculate importer-specific (or 
customer-specific) ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of 
the total amount of the dumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales to the total entered value of those same sales.\60\ However, 
where the respondents do not report the entered value for their sales, 
we calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit duty 
assessment rates. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate 
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of PET Film from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final 
results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies under 
review will be the rate established in the final results of this review 
(except, if the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero 
cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate 
will be the all others rate for this proceeding, 2.40 percent. These 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

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.\61\ Interested parties, who wish to request a 
hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written 
request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An 
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 
p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this 
notice.\62\ If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify 
interested parties of the hearing schedule. Oral presentations will be 
limited to issues raised in the briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See 19 CFR 351.310.
    \62\ Requests should contain the party's name, address, and 
telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the 
issues to be discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. The Department typically requests that 
interested parties submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. However, we plan to issue a post-
preliminary supplemental questionnaire and, therefore, will be 
extending the case brief deadline. The Department will inform 
interested parties of the updated briefing schedule when it has been 
confirmed. 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.\63\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d) (for a further discussion of 
case briefs and rebuttal briefs, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 46712]]

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: July 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-19149 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P