Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 11406-11407 [2014-04432]

Download as PDF 11406 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Notices under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimelyfiled requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/ html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments. These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: February 24, 2014. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2014–04428 Filed 2–27–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–824] Enforcement and Compliance, Formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) published its preliminary results on August 7, 2013.1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: 1 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Preliminary Results of 17:47 Feb 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 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. Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1398. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Analysis of Comments Received FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Background On August 7, 2013, the Department published the Preliminary Results.2 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. Jindal submitted a letter in lieu of a case brief on September 6, 2013. SRF submitted a case brief on September 20, 2013. Petitioners submitted a letter in lieu of a rebuttal brief on October 18, 2013, stating that the Department should not alter the differential pricing methodology that it used in the Preliminary Results. As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.3 Therefore, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 16 days. The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now February 21, 2014. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–2012 VerDate Mar<15>2010 The period of review is July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. This review covers two mandatory respondents, Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal) and SRF Limited (SRF), and one nonselected respondent, Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex). For the final results we continue to find that Polyplex and SRF sold subject merchandise at less than normal value. DATES: Effective Date: February 28, 2014. The products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET Film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2011– 2012, 78 FR 48143 (August 7, 2013) (Preliminary Results). 2 Id. 3 See Memorandum for the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government’’ (October 18, 2013). PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of issues that parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http:// trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, no changes have been made to Jindal’s calculations. SRF’s preliminary rate in the companion countervailing duty administrative review was 2.84 percent; 4 however, its final rate for the companion countervailing duty administrative review is 2.64 percent. The entirety of SRF’s countervailing duty rate is based on export subsidies. Therefore, we have adjusted SRF’s antidumping duty rate accordingly by the entire amount of its countervailing duty rate for these final results.5 4 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2011, 78 FR 48147, 48148 (August 7, 2013). 5 See Memorandum to Mark Hoadley, Program Manager ‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: SRF Limited, dated concurrently with these final results. E:\FR\FM\28FEN1.SGM 28FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Notices withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be the rate Weighted-avestablished in the final results of this Manufacturer/Exporter erage margin review (except, if the rate is zero or de (percent) minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no Jindal Poly Films Limited ...... 0.00 cash deposit will be required); (2) for SRF Limited .......................... 0.78 previously reviewed or investigated Polyplex Corporation Ltd ...... 0.78 companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the Assessment Rates company-specific rate published for the The Department determines, and U.S. most recent period; (3) if the exporter is Customs and Border Protection (CBP) not a firm covered in this review, a prior shall assess, antidumping duties on all review, or the less-than-fair-value appropriate entries. We will instruct investigation, but the manufacturer is, CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise the cash deposit rate will be the rate produced and/or exported by Jindal, established for the most recent period SRF, and Polyplex. The Department will for the manufacturer of the issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 merchandise; and (4) if neither the days after the date of publication of the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm final results of review. For assessment covered in this or any previous review, purposes, where the respondent the cash deposit rate will be the all reported the entered value for its sales, others rate for this proceeding, 5.71 we calculated importer-specific (or percent. These deposit requirements, customer-specific) ad valorem when imposed, shall remain in effect assessment rates based on the ratio of until further notice. the total amount of the dumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the Notification to Importers total entered value of those same sales.6 This notice serves as a final reminder However, where the respondent did not report the entered value for its sales, we to importers of their responsibility will calculate importer-specific (or under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a customer-specific) per-unit duty certificate regarding the reimbursement assessment rates. We will instruct CBP of antidumping duties prior to to assess antidumping duties on all liquidation of the relevant entries appropriate entries covered by this during this review period. Failure to review if any per-unit duty assessment comply with this requirement could rate calculated in the final results of this result in the Secretary’s presumption review is above de minimis (i.e., at or that reimbursement of antidumping above 0.50 percent). For any duties occurred and the subsequent individually examined respondents assessment of double antidumping whose weighted-average dumping duties. margin is above de minimis in these This notice also serves as a reminder final results, we will calculate importerto parties subject to administrative specific ad valorem duty assessment protective order (APO) of their rates based on the ratio of the total responsibility concerning the amount of antidumping duties destruction of proprietary information calculated for the importer’s examined disclosed under APO in accordance sales to the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR written notification of the return or 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to destruction of APO materials or liquidate without regard to antidumping conversion to judicial protective order is duties any entries for which the hereby requested. Failure to comply assessment rate is zero or de minimis with the regulations and terms of an (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).7 APO is a sanctionable violation. Cash Deposit Requirements The Department is issuing and publishing these final results of The following deposit requirements administrative review in accordance will be effective for all shipments of with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of PET Film from India entered, or the Act. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. 6 See 7 See 19 CFR 351.212(b). 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:47 Feb 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11407 Dated: February 21, 2014. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Differential Pricing Analysis: Magnitude of the Observed Price Differences Ignored. Comment 2: Differential Pricing Analysis: Inclusion of Both Higher- and LowerPriced Sales. Comment 3: Differential Pricing Analysis: Results of the Cohen’s d Test By Purchaser, Region or Time Period Should Be Considered Separately. Comment 4: Differential Pricing Analysis: Results of the Cohen’s d Test By Time Period Is Flawed. Comment 5: Differential Pricing Analysis: The Cohen’s d Test Does Not Measure Causal Links or Statistical Significance But Systematically Results in Affirmative Determinations. Comment 6: Differential Pricing Analysis: Explanation of Why the Average-toAverage Method Cannot Account for Such Differences. Comment 7: The Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing Targeted Dumping in Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations. Comment 8: Use of an Alternative Comparison Method in Administrative Reviews. [FR Doc. 2014–04432 Filed 2–27–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–583–837] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–2012 Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published its preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, sheet, and strip from Taiwan.1 The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the margin calculations for these final AGENCY: 1 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–12, 78 FR 48651 (August 9, 2013) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). E:\FR\FM\28FEN1.SGM 28FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11406-11407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04432]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-824]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Formerly Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) published its 
preliminary results on August 7, 2013.\1\ The period of review is July 
1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. This review covers two mandatory 
respondents, Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal) and SRF Limited (SRF), 
and one non-selected respondent, Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex). 
For the final results we continue to find that Polyplex and SRF sold 
subject merchandise at less than normal value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 2011-2012, 78 FR 48143 (August 7, 2013) (Preliminary 
Results).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: February 28, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On August 7, 2013, the Department published the Preliminary 
Results.\2\ We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary 
Results. Jindal submitted a letter in lieu of a case brief on September 
6, 2013. SRF submitted a case brief on September 20, 2013. Petitioners 
submitted a letter in lieu of a rebuttal brief on October 18, 2013, 
stating that the Department should not alter the differential pricing 
methodology that it used in the Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion 
to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.\3\ Therefore, all 
deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 16 
days. The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now 
February 21, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum for the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant 
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ``Deadlines Affected by 
the Shutdown of the Federal Government'' (October 18, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges 
of 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.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list 
of issues that parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The 
Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file 
electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 
IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central 
Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In 
addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can 
be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/. 
The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions 
of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from 
interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, no changes have 
been made to Jindal's calculations. SRF's preliminary rate in the 
companion countervailing duty administrative review was 2.84 percent; 
\4\ however, its final rate for the companion countervailing duty 
administrative review is 2.64 percent. The entirety of SRF's 
countervailing duty rate is based on export subsidies. Therefore, we 
have adjusted SRF's antidumping duty rate accordingly by the entire 
amount of its countervailing duty rate for these final results.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From 
India: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review; 2011, 78 FR 48147, 48148 (August 7, 2013).
    \5\ See Memorandum to Mark Hoadley, Program Manager ``Analysis 
Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from India: SRF Limited, dated concurrently with these final 
results.

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

[[Page 11407]]

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine the following weighted-
average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2011, through June 
30, 2012.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Manufacturer/Exporter                   average margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films Limited...............................            0.00
SRF Limited.............................................            0.78
Polyplex Corporation Ltd................................            0.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department determines, 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, SRF, and Polyplex. The Department will issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of review. For assessment purposes, where the 
respondent reported the entered value for its sales, we calculated 
importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem assessment rates 
based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same 
sales.\6\ However, where the respondent did not report the entered 
value for its sales, we will 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 per-unit duty assessment rate calculated in the final 
results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 
percent). For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-
average dumping margin is above de minimis in these final results, we 
will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based 
on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for 
the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of the sales 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to 
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is zero or 
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
    \7\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company 
under review will be the rate established in the final results of this 
review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 
percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed 
or investigated companies not listed above, the cash 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 to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under 
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.
    The Department is issuing and publishing these final results of 
administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 21, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Differential Pricing Analysis: Magnitude of the Observed 
Price Differences Ignored.
Comment 2: Differential Pricing Analysis: Inclusion of Both Higher- 
and Lower-Priced Sales.
Comment 3: Differential Pricing Analysis: Results of the Cohen's d 
Test By Purchaser, Region or Time Period Should Be Considered 
Separately.
Comment 4: Differential Pricing Analysis: Results of the Cohen's d 
Test By Time Period Is Flawed.
Comment 5: Differential Pricing Analysis: The Cohen's d Test Does 
Not Measure Causal Links or Statistical Significance But 
Systematically Results in Affirmative Determinations.
Comment 6: Differential Pricing Analysis: Explanation of Why the 
Average-to-Average Method Cannot Account for Such Differences.
Comment 7: The Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing 
Targeted Dumping in Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations.
Comment 8: Use of an Alternative Comparison Method in Administrative 
Reviews.

[FR Doc. 2014-04432 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P