Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Final Results of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order; 2010-2011, 9670-9672 [2013-03082]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
9670
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2013 / Notices
based on a request by GBC Metals, LLC,
of Global Brass and Copper, Inc., doing
business as Olin Brass; Heyco Metals,
Inc.; Aurubis Buffalo, Inc.; PMX
Industries, Inc.; and Revere Copper
Products, Inc. (collectively,
‘‘Petitioners’’). See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 77 FR 59168
(September 26, 2012).
The review covers 22 companies:
Dowa Metals & Mining Co., Ltd.;
Fujisawa Co., Ltd.; Furukawa Electric
Co., Ltd.; Harada Metal Industry;
Hitachi Alloy, Ltd.; Hitachi Cable, Ltd.;
Kicho Shindosho Co., Ltd.; Kitz Metal
Works Corp.; Kobe Steel, Ltd.;
Mitsubishi Materials Corp.; Mitsubishi
Electric Metecs Co., Ltd.; Mitsubishi
Shindoh Co., Ltd.; Mitsui Mining &
Smelting Co., Ltd. (Mitsui Kinzoku);
Mitsui Sumitomo Metal Mining Brass &
Copper Co., Ltd.; NGK Insulators (NGK
Metals); Nippon Mining & Metals Co.,
Ltd.; Ohki Brass & Copper Co., Ltd.;
Sambo Copper Alloy Co., Ltd.; Sugino
Metal Industry Co., Ltd.; Sumitomo
Metal Mining Brass & Copper Co., Ltd.;
Uji Copper & Alloy Co., Ltd.; and YKK
Corporation.
On December 20, 2012, Petitioners
withdrew their request for an
administrative review on all 22
producers/exporters.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Rescission of Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if the parties
that requested a review withdraw the
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the notice of initiation of
the requested review. In this case,
Petitioners withdrew their request
within the 90-day deadline and no other
parties requested an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order.
Therefore, we are rescinding the
administrative review of brass sheet and
strip from Japan covering the period
August 1, 2011, through July 31, 2012.
Assessment
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess antidumping duties on all
suspended entries subject to the AD
Order for the period August 1, 2011 to
July 31, 2011. 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
CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
date of publication of this notice.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:26 Feb 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Order
This notice serves as a final reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under an APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
(Jindal), Polyplex Corporation Ltd.
(Polyplex), and SRF Limited (SRF),
producers and exporters of PET Film
from India. Based on the results of our
analysis of the comments received, we
have made changes to the preliminary
results. For the final weight-averaged
dumping margins, see the ‘‘Final Results
of Review’’ section below.
DATES: Effective Date: February 11,
2013.
Elfi
Blum or Toni Page, 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) 428–0197 or (202) 482–
1398, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
International Trade Administration
Since the Preliminary Results, the
following events have taken place. The
Department extended the final results of
review from December 6, 2012 to
February 4, 2013.2 Jindal and Polyplex
submitted timely case briefs on
December 5, 2012. DuPont Teijin Films,
Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., SKC,
Inc., and Toray Plastics (America), Inc.
(collectively, Petitioners) filed a timely
rebuttal brief on December 13, 2012.
The Department issued a postpreliminary analysis to address
Petitioners’ targeted dumping
allegations for both Jindal and Polyplex
on December 20, 2012.3 Petitioners filed
timely comments regarding the
Department’s post-preliminary analysis
on January 3, 2013. In response, Jindal
and Polyplex filed timely rebuttal
comments on January 8, 2013.
[A–533–824]
Scope of the Order
Dated: February 5, 2013.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013–03080 Filed 2–8–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From India: Final
Results of Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order; 2010–
2011
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 6, 2012, the
Department of Commerce (Department)
published the preliminary results of
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on
polyethylene terephthalate film (PET
Film) from India.1 This review covers
three respondents, Jindal Poly Films Ltd
AGENCY:
1 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip From India: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR
46687 (August 6, 2012) (Preliminary Results).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The products covered by the
antidumping duty order are all gauges of
2 See Memorandum from Barbara Tillman,
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations
Office 6 Director, to Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film from India: Extension of
Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review,’’ dated November 9, 2012.
See also Memorandum to the Record from Paul
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the
Government Closure During Hurricane Sandy,’’
dated October 31, 2012.
3 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip
(PET film) from India: Post-Preliminary Analysis
and Calculation Memorandum, dated December 20,
2012 (Post-Prelim Analysis and Calculation
Memorandum).
E:\FR\FM\11FEN1.SGM
11FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2013 / Notices
raw, pretreated, or primed PET film,
whether extruded or coextruded.
Excluded are metallized films and other
finished films that have had at least one
of their surfaces modified by the
application of a performance-enhancing
resinous or inorganic layer of more than
0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET
film are currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) under item
number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes. The
written description of the scope of the
antidumping duty order is dispositive.
results, we made no other changes to
Jindal’s margin calculations. Polyplex’s
margin calculations were adjusted to
account for the company’s expenditures
for its sample sales and its sales of
secondary merchandise in the U.S. The
adjustments for Polyplex did not change
its weighted-average dumping margin
calculated for the Preliminary Results.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
determine that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist for the
period July 1, 2010, through June 30,
2011.
Period of Review
The period of review is July 1, 2010,
through June 30, 2011.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs filed by parties are
addressed in the Decision
Memorandum.4 A list of these issues is
attached to this notice in the Appendix.
The Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is on file electronically
via Import Administration’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to
all registered users at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all
parties in the Central Records Unit
(CRU), room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Internet at https://
www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision
Memorandum and electronic versions of
the Decision Memorandum are identical
in content.
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
Manufacturer/
exporter
Jindal Poly Films Limited ......
Polyplex Corporation Limited
SRF Limited 6 ........................
0.00
0.00
0.00
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the
comments received and information
received after the Preliminary Results,
we have made adjustments to our
margin calculations for Jindal and
Polyplex in accordance with our postpreliminary analysis.5 For these final
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. We will
instruct CBP to liquidate entries of
merchandise produced and/or exported
by Jindal, Polyplex, and SRF. The
Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
date of publication of the final results of
review. For individually examined
respondents whose weighted-average
dumping margin is above de minimis
(i.e., 0.50 percent) in the final results,
we will calculate importer-specific ad
valorem duty assessment rates based on
the ratio of the total amount of dumping
calculated for the importer’s examined
sales to the total entered value of the
sales in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).7 We will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review when the importer-specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de
minimis. Where either the respondent’s
4 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results of the 2010–2011 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet, and Strip from India,’’ dated February
4, 2013 (Decision Memorandum).
5 For our detailed analysis, see Post-Prelim
Analysis and Calculation Memorandum; see also
Analysis Memorandum for the Post-Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip from India: Jindal Poly Films Limited and
Polyplex Corporation Ltd., dated December 20,
2012, at 2, respectively.
6 SRF is a non-selected respondent in this review.
For additional information regarding the calculation
of SRF’s rate, which remains unchanged from the
Preliminary Results, see Preliminary Results, 77 FR
at 46692.
7 In these final results, the Department applied
the assessment rate calculation method adopted in
Final Modification for Reviews, i.e. on the basis of
monthly average-to-average comparisons using only
the transactions associated with that importer with
offsets being provided for non-dumped
comparisons. See Antidumping Proceedings:
Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping
Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain
Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification,
77 FR 8101 (February 14, 1012) (Final
Modificationfor Reviews).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:26 Feb 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9671
weighted-average dumping margin is
zero or de minimis, or an importerspecific assessment rate is zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate without regard to antidumping
duties any entries.8
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will
apply to entries of subject merchandise
during the period of review produced by
each respondent for which they did not
know that their merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. For a full discussion of
this clarification, see Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective for all shipments of
PET Film from India 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 Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (Act): (1) The cash
deposit rate for company under review
will be the rate established in the final
results of this review (except, if the rate
is zero or de minimis, then 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 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, 5.71
percent. These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice is the only reminder to
parties subject to the administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under the APO in accordance
8 See
E:\FR\FM\11FEN1.SGM
19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
11FEN1
9672
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2013 / Notices
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entries during this 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.
We are issuing and publishing these
final results and this notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 4, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
Comment 1: Targeted Dumping
Comment 2: Polyplex’s Transparent Film
Other Grade (TFOG) Sales
Comment 3: Jindal’s Date of Sale
Comment 4: Jindal’s Export Quantities
[FR Doc. 2013–03082 Filed 2–8–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A–489–805]
Certain Pasta From Turkey; 2010–2011;
Final 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 certain pasta
(pasta) from Turkey. The period of
review (POR) is July 1, 2010, through
June 30, 2011, and covers TAT
Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
(TAT), and Marsan Gida Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S (Marsan) and its claimed
affiliates Birlik Pazarlama Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. (Birlik), Bellini Gida Sanayi
A.S. (Bellini), and Marsa Yag Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. (Marsa Yag). Based on our
analysis of the comments received, we
have not made any changes in the
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:26 Feb 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
flavorings, and up to two percent egg
white. The pasta covered by this scope
is typically sold in the retail market, in
fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or
polyethylene or polypropylene bags of
varying dimensions. Excluded from the
scope of this review are refrigerated,
frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all
forms of egg pasta, with the exception
of non-egg dry pasta containing up to
two percent egg white.
The merchandise subject to review is
currently classifiable under item
1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise subject to the order is
dispositive.
Background
On August 6, 2012, the Department
published the Preliminary Results,1 and
invited interested parties to comment.
On October 19, 2012, Marsan Gida
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., (Marsan) filed a
case brief, and the petitioners 2 filed a
case brief with respect to TAT. On
October 24, 2012, petitioners filed a
rebuttal brief. On December 21, 2012,
the Department issued a postpreliminary analysis decision
memorandum of the targeting dumping
allegation with respect to Marsan.3 At
that time, we invited parties to comment
on the Department’s analysis in
addressing the petitioners’ targeted
dumping allegation in this review. The
Department did not receive any
comments on its post-preliminary
decision memorandum.
Analysis of Comments Received
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is
July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011.
International Trade Administration
AGENCY:
margin calculation for Marsan. The final
weighted-average dumping margins for
the reviewed firms are listed below in
the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of
Review.’’
DATES: Effective Date: February 11,
2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Moore (Marsan, Birlik,
Bellini, and Marsan Yag), Victoria Cho
(TAT) or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3692, (202) 482–
5075, or (202) 482–0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this
order are certain non-egg dry pasta in
packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms)
or less, whether or not enriched or
fortified or containing milk or other
optional ingredients such as chopped
vegetables, vegetable purees, milk,
gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and
1 See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the 2010–2011 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 46694 (August
6, 2012) (Preliminary Results).
2 New World Pasta Company, Dakota Growers
Pasta Company & American Italian Pasta Company
(petitioners).
3 See Memorandum to Lynn Fischer Fox, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations
titled ‘‘2010/2011 Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain Pasta (pasta) from Turkey: PostPreliminary Analysis Memorandum’’, dated
December 21, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
proceeding and to which we have
responded are listed in Appendix I to
this notice and addressed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum, dated
concurrently with, and hereby adopted
by, this notice.4 The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU), Room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce Building, as
well as electronically via Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).
IA ACCESS is available to registered
users at https://iaacess.trade.gov and is
available to all parties in the CRU. In
addition, a complete version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum can
be accessed directly on the internet at
https://www.trade.gov/ia/frn/.
The signed Issues and Decision
Memorandum and the electronic
versions of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, we
determine that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist for the
period July 1, 2010, through June 30,
2011:
4 See Issues and Decision Memorandum from
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, titled ‘‘Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Pasta from Turkey; 2010–2011,’’ dated February 4,
2013.
5 The Department has found Marsan not to be
affiliated with Birlik or Bellini, prior to June 2,
2011. Birlik ceased operation of the pasta
production facility in October 2010 and at the same
time Bellini took over operation of the pasta
production facility from Birlik. See the Issues and
E:\FR\FM\11FEN1.SGM
11FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9670-9672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03082]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-824]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India:
Final Results of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order;
2010-2011
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 6, 2012, the Department of Commerce (Department)
published the preliminary results of administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film (PET Film)
from India.\1\ This review covers three respondents, Jindal Poly Films
Ltd (Jindal), Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex), and SRF Limited
(SRF), producers and exporters of PET Film from India. Based on the
results of our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes
to the preliminary results. For the final weight-averaged dumping
margins, see the ``Final Results of Review'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From
India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 77 FR 46687 (August 6, 2012) (Preliminary Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: February 11, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum or Toni Page, 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-
0197 or (202) 482-1398, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since the Preliminary Results, the following events have taken
place. The Department extended the final results of review from
December 6, 2012 to February 4, 2013.\2\ Jindal and Polyplex submitted
timely case briefs on December 5, 2012. DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi
Polyester Film, Inc., SKC, Inc., and Toray Plastics (America), Inc.
(collectively, Petitioners) filed a timely rebuttal brief on December
13, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Memorandum from Barbara Tillman, Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations Office 6 Director, to Christian
Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations, ``Polyethylene Terephthalate Film from India:
Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review,'' dated November 9, 2012. See also Memorandum
to the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a
Result of the Government Closure During Hurricane Sandy,'' dated
October 31, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department issued a post-preliminary analysis to address
Petitioners' targeted dumping allegations for both Jindal and Polyplex
on December 20, 2012.\3\ Petitioners filed timely comments regarding
the Department's post-preliminary analysis on January 3, 2013. In
response, Jindal and Polyplex filed timely rebuttal comments on January
8, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip (PET film) from
India: Post-Preliminary Analysis and Calculation Memorandum, dated
December 20, 2012 (Post-Prelim Analysis and Calculation Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges
of
[[Page 9671]]
raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded.
Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at
least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a
performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001
inches thick. Imports of PET film are currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item
number 3920.62.00.90. 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 period of review is July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties
are addressed in the Decision Memorandum.\4\ A list of these issues is
attached to this notice in the Appendix. The Decision Memorandum is a
public document and is on file electronically via Import
Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to all
registered users at https://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all
parties in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at https://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision Memorandum and electronic
versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2010-
2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India,'' dated February 4,
2013 (Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the comments received and information
received after the Preliminary Results, we have made adjustments to our
margin calculations for Jindal and Polyplex in accordance with our
post-preliminary analysis.\5\ For these final results, we made no other
changes to Jindal's margin calculations. Polyplex's margin calculations
were adjusted to account for the company's expenditures for its sample
sales and its sales of secondary merchandise in the U.S. The
adjustments for Polyplex did not change its weighted-average dumping
margin calculated for the Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For our detailed analysis, see Post-Prelim Analysis and
Calculation Memorandum; see also Analysis Memorandum for the Post-
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Jindal
Poly Films Limited and Polyplex Corporation Ltd., dated December 20,
2012, at 2, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2010,
through June 30, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ SRF is a non-selected respondent in this review. For
additional information regarding the calculation of SRF's rate,
which remains unchanged from the Preliminary Results, see
Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 46692.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/ exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films Limited............................... 0.00
Polyplex Corporation Limited............................ 0.00
SRF Limited \6\......................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise
produced and/or exported by Jindal, Polyplex, and SRF. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date
of publication of the final results of review. For individually
examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de
minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent) in the final results, we will calculate
importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio
of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined
sales to the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).\7\ We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-
specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review
is above de minimis. Where either the respondent's weighted-average
dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific
assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In these final results, the Department applied the
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Final Modification for
Reviews, i.e. on the basis of monthly average-to-average comparisons
using only the transactions associated with that importer with
offsets being provided for non-dumped comparisons. See Antidumping
Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 1012) (Final Modificationfor
Reviews).
\8\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the period of review produced by each respondent for
which they did not know that their merchandise 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
intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full
discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6,
2003).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of PET Film from India 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act): (1) The cash
deposit rate for company under review will be the rate established in
the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de
minimis, then 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 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, 5.71 percent. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders
This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under the APO in accordance
[[Page 9672]]
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this 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.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 4, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
Comment 1: Targeted Dumping
Comment 2: Polyplex's Transparent Film Other Grade (TFOG) Sales
Comment 3: Jindal's Date of Sale
Comment 4: Jindal's Export Quantities
[FR Doc. 2013-03082 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
