Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From India and Taiwan: Final Results of the Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders and Correction to the Preliminary Results, 12153-12154 [2014-04748]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 2014 / Notices Effective Date: March 4, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Shuler, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1293. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: Background The Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Japan with respect to 22 companies for the period August 1, 2012, through July 31, 2013, 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).1 On December 19, 2013, Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review on all 22 companies. No other party requested a review. Rescission of Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(l), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws 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, 2012, through July 31, 2013. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all entries of brass sheet and strip from Japan during the period August 1, 2012 to July 31, 2013, 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)(l)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice. 1 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 78 FR 60834 (October 2, 2013). VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 03, 2014 Jkt 232001 Notifications 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 presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also 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 violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: February 20, 2014. Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2014–04782 Filed 3–3–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–824, A–583–837] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From India and Taiwan: Final Results of the Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders and Correction to the Preliminary Results Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: March 4, 2014. SUMMARY: As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that the revocation of the antidumping orders on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from India and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The magnitudes of the dumping margins likely to prevail are indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Sunset Reviews’’ section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Myrna Lobo, AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 12153 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) 482–5255 or (202) 482–2371. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 8, 2013, the Department published the Preliminary Results.1 Although the Department initially initiated expedited sunset reviews of these orders, the Department subsequently determined to conduct full sunset reviews in order to provide parties with the opportunity to comment regarding the implementation of the Final Modification for Reviews in these reviews.2 The Department extended the deadline for completing these reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).3 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. Petitioners filed a statement expressing their agreement with the Department’s Preliminary Results.4 No other party submitted a statement or comments concerning the Preliminary Results. Scope of the Orders India and Taiwan The products covered by these orders are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET Film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded from 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 classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The 1 Id. 2 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from Mark Hoadley, Acting Director, Office 6, ‘‘Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film from India and Taiwan: Adequacy Redetermination,’’ dated July 22, 2013; see also Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification for Reviews, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews). 3 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film from India and Taiwan: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary and Final Results of the Second Antidumping Duty Sunset Reviews, 78 FR 45512 (July 29, 2013). 4 See Comments from DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester, Inc., and SKC, Inc. to the Department of Commerce, dated December 30, 2013. E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 12154 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 2014 / Notices written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive. Since these orders were published, there was one scope determination for PET film from India, dated August 25, 2003. In this determination, requested by International Packaging Films Inc., the Department determined that tracing and drafting film is outside of the scope of the order on PET film from India.5 Dated: February 25, 2014. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. We invited interested parties to file comments following the release of the Post-Preliminary Analysis. No comments were received. [FR Doc. 2014–04748 Filed 3–3–14; 8:45 am] Final Results of the Sunset Reviews [C–475–819] For the reasons expressed in the Preliminary Results, pursuant to section 751(C) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the antidumping orders on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from India and Taiwan would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rates listed below: Certain Pasta From Italy; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2011 Scope of the Order The scope of the order consists of certain pasta from Italy. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Producer or exporter Rate (percent) INDIA: Ester Industries, Limited ....... Polyplex Corporation Limited All Others .............................. TAIWAN: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd ...................................... Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation ........................ All Others .............................. 24.10 3.02 6 13.17 8.99 0.75 4.37 Notification to Interested Parties tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of these proceedings. 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 violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 5 See Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 6 The applicable ‘‘all others’’ rate for the preliminary results of this sunset review for India was incorrectly stated as 16.96 percent in the Preliminary Results. See Preliminary Results, 78 FR at 67114. However, it was accurately stated as 13.17 percent in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. Id., and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Magnitude of the Margin Likely to Prevail.’’ VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 03, 2014 Jkt 232001 BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy. The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. We find that Molino e Pastificio Tomasello S.p.A. (Tomasello) received countervailable subsidies during the POR, and find that Delverde Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (Delverde) and Valdigrano di Flavio Pagani S.r.L. (Valdigrano) received de minimis countervailable subsidies during the POR. DATES: Effective Date: March 4, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Shuler or Christopher Siepmann, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1293 or (202) 482–7958, respectively. AGENCY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 13, 2013, the Department published in the Federal Register its Preliminary Results of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy for the POR of January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011.1 We deferred our analysis of some programs to a post-preliminary analysis in order to gather more information regarding those programs. On December 2, 2013, the Department issued its Post-Preliminary Analysis.2 1 See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2011, 78 FR 49256 (August 13, 2013) (Preliminary Results). 2 See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘PostPreliminary Analysis of Countervailing Duty PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Methodology The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.3 In making these findings, we relied, in part, on an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available because the Government of Italy (GOI) did not act to the best of its ability to respond to the Department’s requests for information regarding certain programs.4 For further discussion, see Preliminary Results, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences.’’ Developments Since the Preliminary Results Post-Preliminary Results Law 56/87 Delverde reported that it enjoyed reduced social security payments ‘‘pursuant to Italy’s apprenticeship laws 25/55 and 56/87 as modified by Legislative Decree 276/03.’’ 5 Law 25/55 and Legislative Decree 276/03 were previously found to be Administrative Review: Certain Pasta (‘‘Pasta’’) from Italy,’’ dated December 2, 2013 (PostPreliminary Analysis). 3 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Results and Post-Preliminary Analysis. 4 See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. 5 See Letter from Delverde, ‘‘Certain Pasta from Italy: CVD Questionnaire Response of Delverde Industrie Alimentari S.p.A.’’ (November 19, 2012) at 15–17. E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12153-12154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04748]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-824, A-583-837]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From India and 
Taiwan: Final Results of the Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Orders and Correction to the Preliminary Results

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

DATES: Effective Date: March 4, 2014.

SUMMARY: As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) finds that the revocation of the antidumping 
orders on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from India 
and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
dumping. The magnitudes of the dumping margins likely to prevail are 
indicated in the ``Final Results of Sunset Reviews'' section of this 
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Myrna Lobo, 
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) 482-5255 or (202) 482-2371.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 8, 2013, the Department 
published the Preliminary Results.\1\ Although the Department initially 
initiated expedited sunset reviews of these orders, the Department 
subsequently determined to conduct full sunset reviews in order to 
provide parties with the opportunity to comment regarding the 
implementation of the Final Modification for Reviews in these 
reviews.\2\ The Department extended the deadline for completing these 
reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act).\3\ We invited interested parties to comment on the 
Preliminary Results. Petitioners filed a statement expressing their 
agreement with the Department's Preliminary Results.\4\ No other party 
submitted a statement or comments concerning the Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Id.
    \2\ See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from 
Mark Hoadley, Acting Director, Office 6, ``Sunset Reviews of the 
Antidumping Duty Orders on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film from 
India and Taiwan: Adequacy Redetermination,'' dated July 22, 2013; 
see also Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 
Duty Proceedings; Final Modification for Reviews, 77 FR 8101 
(February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews).
    \3\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film from India and Taiwan: 
Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary and Final Results of the 
Second Antidumping Duty Sunset Reviews, 78 FR 45512 (July 29, 2013).
    \4\ See Comments from DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester, 
Inc., and SKC, Inc. to the Department of Commerce, dated December 
30, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Orders

India and Taiwan

    The products covered by these orders are all gauges of raw, 
pretreated, or primed PET Film, whether extruded or coextruded. 
Excluded from 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 classifiable in the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 
3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes. The

[[Page 12154]]

written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive. Since 
these orders were published, there was one scope determination for PET 
film from India, dated August 25, 2003. In this determination, 
requested by International Packaging Films Inc., the Department 
determined that tracing and drafting film is outside of the scope of 
the order on PET film from India.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of the Sunset Reviews

    For the reasons expressed in the Preliminary Results, pursuant to 
section 751(C) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of 
the antidumping orders on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 
strip from India and Taiwan would likely lead to a continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the rates listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Rate
                    Producer or exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDIA:
  Ester Industries, Limited................................        24.10
  Polyplex Corporation Limited.............................         3.02
  All Others...............................................    \6\ 13.17
TAIWAN:
  Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd.........................         8.99
  Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation....................         0.75
  All Others...............................................         4.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of 
these proceedings. 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 violation which is subject to sanction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The applicable ``all others'' rate for the preliminary 
results of this sunset review for India was incorrectly stated as 
16.96 percent in the Preliminary Results. See Preliminary Results, 
78 FR at 67114. However, it was accurately stated as 13.17 percent 
in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. Id., and the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Magnitude of the 
Margin Likely to Prevail.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 25, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-04748 Filed 3-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P