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
<![CDATA[
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
