Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 13327-13330 [2016-05710]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Notices Methodology The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Preliminary Results of Review The Department preliminarily determines that Shanghai Jinneng and Shanghai Jinfeng are part of the PRCwide entity. No review has been requested for the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide rate is 139.49 percent. Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments, filed electronically using ACCESS, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).4 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days after the due date for case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the argument not to exceed five pages, and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties, who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. Electronically filed case briefs/written comments and hearing requests must be received successfully in their entirety by the Department’s electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.5 Hearing requests should contain: (1) The party’s name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those issues raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date of the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230. The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the 4 See also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). 5 See 19 CFR 351.310(c). VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:27 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.6 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. The Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise from Shanghai Jinneng and Shanghai Jinfeng, at 139.49 percent (the PRC-wide rate). For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011). 13327 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 double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. Dated: March 7, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Sections in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Methodology Non-Market Economy Country Status PRC-Wide Entity Recommendation Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters which are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but which have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, including Shanghai Jinneng and Shanghai Jinfeng, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide entity rate of 139.49 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. [FR Doc. 2016–05688 Filed 3–11–16; 8:45 am] Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 6 See PO 00000 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–861] Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate resin (PET resin) from India are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the section entitled ‘‘Final Determination Margins.’’ AGENCY: Effective Date: March 14, 2016. Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2924 or (202) 482– 0649. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1 13328 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Notices Background On October 15, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation of PET resin from India.1 The events occurring since the Preliminary Determination was issued are addressed in detail in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 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 (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// access.trade.gov. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now March 4, 2016.3 Period of Investigation The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. Scope of the Investigation jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES The product covered by this investigation is certain PET resin from India. For a full description of the scope 1 See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 80 FR 62029 (October 15, 2015) (Preliminary Determination). 2 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Less-Than-Fair Value Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin (PET) Resin from India (Issues and Decision Memorandum),’’ dated concurrently with this notice. 3 See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,’’ dated January 27, 2016. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:27 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 of the investigation, see Appendix I to this notice. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, and which is hereby adopted by this notice.4 A list of the issues raised and to which the Department responded is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Changes to the Margin Calculations Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to Ester’s and Reliance’s margin calculations in the Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and AFA In the preliminary determination, we stated that because the mandatory respondents Dhunseri Petrochem, Limited (Dhunseri) and JBF Industries, Limited (JBF) failed to respond to the Department’s questionnaire, we preliminarily determined to apply facts otherwise available with an adverse inference to these respondents pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.5 Pursuant to section 776 of the Act, the Department continues to find it appropriate to base Dhunseri and JBF’s rate on AFA. In applying AFA, we are assigning Dhunseri and JBF the highest margin identified in the petition, 19.41 percent. See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 14. Final Determination Margins The Department determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014: Exporter or producer Dhunseri Petrochem, Ltd .......... Ester Industries, Ltd ................. JBF Industries, Ltd ................... Reliance Industries, Ltd ............ 4 See Weightedaverage dumping margin (percent) 19.41 14.23 19.41 8.03 Issues and Decision Memorandum. Memorandum from Christian Marsh to Paul Piquado, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India,’’ dated October 6, 2015, at 14. 5 See PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Exporter or producer All-Others .................................. Weightedaverage dumping margin (percent) 11.13 All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated ‘‘all-others’’ rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, we calculated weightedaverage dumping margins for mandatory respondents Ester and Reliance that are above de minimis and which are not based on section 776 of the Act. However, because there are only two relevant weighted-average dumping margins for this final determination, using a weighted-average of these two rates risks disclosure of business proprietary data. Therefore, the Department assigned a margin to the allothers rate companies based on the simple average of the two mandatory respondents’ rates,6 less an adjustment for the export subsidies identified in the companion countervailing duty investigation.7 6 With two respondents, we would normally calculate (A) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; (B) a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company’s publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration. We would compare (B) and (C) to (A) and select the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all other companies. See, Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of ChangedCircumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010). As complete publicly ranged sales data was unavailable, we based the all-others rate on a simple average of the two calculated margins. See, e.g., Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 77 FR 9204 (February 16, 2012), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 77 FR 40857, 40858 (July 11, 2012). 7 See section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Unlike in administrative reviews, the Department calculates the adjustment for export subsidies in investigations not in the margin calculation program, but in the cash deposit instructions issued to CBP. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Notices Disclosure We will disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that, based on respondents’ reported shipment volumes, there was reason to believe or suspect that critical circumstances existed for imports of subject merchandise from India from Ester and Reliance. Furthermore, we drew an adverse inference with respect to Dhunseri and JBF, both of which are mandatory respondents that failed to respond to our requests for information, and thereby determined that critical circumstances existed with respect to them also. Finally, based on data from the ITC Dataweb, we found that there were critical circumstances with respect to those Indian shippers which were not selected for individual examination.8 We received one comment on the Department’s preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances, and have addressed the comment in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. It did not cause us to change our preliminary determination. Therefore, pursuant to section 735(a)(3) of the Act, we continue to determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of PET resin from India from all parties. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain PET resin from India which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 17, 2015, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination. We also will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weightedaverage amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for Dhunseri, Ester, JBF, and Reliance will be equal to the estimated weightedaverage dumping margins determined in this final determination; (2) if the 8 See Preliminary Determination, 80 FR at 62030, and accompanying Preliminary Issues and Decision Memorandum at 18. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:27 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will be 11.13 percent. Consistent with our practice,9 where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent CVD investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.10 Therefore, in the event that a CVD order is issued and suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion CVD investigation on PET resin from India, the Department will instruct CBP to require cash deposits adjusted for export subsidies, as appropriate, found in the final determination of the companion CVD investigation. Specifically, for cash deposit purposes, we will subtract from the applicable cash deposit rate that portion of the CVD rate attributable to the export subsidies found in the final affirmative countervailing duty determination for each respondent (i.e., 5.10 percent for Dhunseri, Ester, Reliance, and ‘‘all-others,’’ and 37.08 for JBF.) 11 After this adjustment, the resulting cash deposit rates will be 14.31 percent for Dhunseri, 9.13 percent for Ester, 2.93 percent for Reliance, 00.00 percent for JBF, and 6.03 for ‘‘allothers.’’ These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our final 9 The Department terminated the suspension of liquidation associated with the CVD investigation effective December 12, 2015. See CBP message no. 5348309 dated December 14, 2015. Therefore, until and unless suspension of liquidation is resumed, we will not adjust the antidumping cash deposit rate for collection of duties associated with export subsidies. 10 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November 17, 2004); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From the Republic of Korea, 77 FR 17413 (March 26, 2012). 11 See the Memorandum to the File, through Robert James, Program Manager, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations, from Fred Baker, Analyst, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, ‘‘Export Subsidies Calculated in the Countervailing Duty Final Determination of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India,’’ dated March 4, 2016. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 13329 determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that such injury exists, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice will serve as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the 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. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 4, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 0.70, but not more than 0.88, deciliters per gram. The scope includes blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET resin containing 50 percent or more virgin PET resin content by weight, provided such blends meet the intrinsic viscosity requirements above. The scope includes all PET resin meeting the above specifications regardless of additives introduced in the manufacturing process. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 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 under investigation is dispositive. Appendix II—List of Topics in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope of the Investigation E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1 jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13330 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Notices V. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination VI. Use of Adverse Facts Available VII. Discussion of Interested Party Comments Comment 1: Whether Critical Circumstances Exist Comment 2: Whether Ester Should Be a Mandatory Respondent in This Investigation Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Recalculate Imputed Credit Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Recalculate Home Market Inland Freight Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Make a Duty Drawback Adjustment Comment 6: Whether to Adjust Ester’s G&A Ratio Comment 7: Whether to Adjust Ester’s Financial Expense Ratio Comment 8: Whether to Include Import Taxes in the Total Cost of Manufacture Comment 9: Whether to Rely on Ester’s Revised Packing Costs Comment 10: Whether to Revise Reliance’s COP Using Reliance’s Verified Actual Chain Costs Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Use its Differential Pricing Analysis in the Final Determination Comment 12: Whether to Use Invoice Date as the Date of Sale in Both Markets Comment 13: Whether to Resort to Adverse Facts Available for Reliance A. Whether Reliance Failed to Submit All Home Market Sales Subject to the Investigation B. Whether Reliance Provided a Complete Home Market Sales Listing for Contract Customers C. Whether Reliance Reported the Wrong Date as the Sale Date for U.S. Sales D. Whether Reliance Wrongly Submitted a Claim for a Duty Drawback Adjustment E. Whether Reliance Wrongly Submitted a Claim for an Adjustment for the Focus Product Scheme F. Whether the Department Failed to Verify Export Warranty Expenses G. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Included Third-Country Sales in its Home Market Sales Listing H. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Included Free Samples in its Home Market Sales Listing I. Whether Reliance Knowingly Withheld its U.S. and Home Market Short-Term Interest Rates J. Whether Reliance Failed to Accurately Provide Its U.S. and Home Market Selling Functions K. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Offset General and Administrative Expenses L. Use of Total Adverse Facts Available Comment 14: Proper AFA Rate VIII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2016–05710 Filed 3–11–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:27 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–580–837] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review; Calendar Year 2014 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review and new shipper review (NSR) of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of review (POR) for the CVD review and the NSR is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The Department preliminary determines that Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), the firm examined in the administrative review, and Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel), the firm examined in the NSR, each received a de minimis net subsidy rate during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. DATES: Effective March 14, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff (for Hyundai Steel) or Jolanta Lawska (for DSM), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1009 and (202) 482–8362, respectively. AGENCY: Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the Order 1 is certain hot-rolled carbonquality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and (2) flat1 See Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from India, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea: Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 FR 264 (January 4, 2012) (the Order); see also Notice of Amended Final Determination: Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon– Quality Steel Plate From India and the Republic of Korea; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon–Quality Steel Plate From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6587 (February 10, 2000). PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils).2 The merchandise subject to the Order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this Order is dispositive.3 Methodology The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).4 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with these results and hereby adopted by this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary 2 See ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, and the Preliminary Intent to Rescind in Part: Certain Cutto-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea,’’ from Chris Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum) for a complete description of the scope of the Order. 3 See Order. 4 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. E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13327-13330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05710]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-861]


Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that 
imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate resin (PET resin) from 
India are being sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act). The final weighted-average dumping margins of sales 
at LTFV are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Determination 
Margins.''

DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2924 or (202) 482-0649.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 13328]]

Background

    On October 15, 2015, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation of PET 
resin from India.\1\ The events occurring since the Preliminary 
Determination was issued are addressed in detail in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum.\2\ 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 (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is available to 
all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main 
Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: 
Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 80 FR 62029 
(October 15, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).
    \2\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, 
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the 
Less-Than-Fair Value Investigation of Certain Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Resin (PET) Resin from India (Issues and Decision 
Memorandum),'' dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary 
for Enforcement & Compliance, the Department has exercised its 
discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent 
closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the 
proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised 
deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now March 
4, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S 
for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative 
Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm 
Jonas,'' dated January 27, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2014, through 
December 31, 2014.

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is certain PET resin from 
India. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, see 
Appendix I to this notice.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 
this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
accompanying this notice, and which is hereby adopted by this 
notice.\4\ A list of the issues raised and to which the Department 
responded is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes to the Margin Calculations Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from 
parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made 
certain changes to Ester's and Reliance's margin calculations in the 
Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and AFA

    In the preliminary determination, we stated that because the 
mandatory respondents Dhunseri Petrochem, Limited (Dhunseri) and JBF 
Industries, Limited (JBF) failed to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, we preliminarily determined to apply facts otherwise 
available with an adverse inference to these respondents pursuant to 
sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.\5\ Pursuant to section 776 of the 
Act, the Department continues to find it appropriate to base Dhunseri 
and JBF's rate on AFA. In applying AFA, we are assigning Dhunseri and 
JBF the highest margin identified in the petition, 19.41 percent. See 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh to Paul Piquado, 
``Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Resin from India,'' dated October 6, 2015, at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination Margins

    The Department determines that the following weighted-average 
dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2014, through December 
31, 2014:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                    Exporter or producer                       dumping
                                                                margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dhunseri Petrochem, Ltd....................................        19.41
Ester Industries, Ltd......................................        14.23
JBF Industries, Ltd........................................        19.41
Reliance Industries, Ltd...................................         8.03
All-Others.................................................        11.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated ``all-
others'' rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the 
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters 
and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de 
minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 
of the Act. In this investigation, we calculated weighted-average 
dumping margins for mandatory respondents Ester and Reliance that are 
above de minimis and which are not based on section 776 of the Act. 
However, because there are only two relevant weighted-average dumping 
margins for this final determination, using a weighted-average of these 
two rates risks disclosure of business proprietary data. Therefore, the 
Department assigned a margin to the all-others rate companies based on 
the simple average of the two mandatory respondents' rates,\6\ less an 
adjustment for the export subsidies identified in the companion 
countervailing duty investigation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ With two respondents, we would normally calculate (A) a 
weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory 
respondents; (B) a simple average of the dumping margins calculated 
for the mandatory respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the 
dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each 
company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under 
consideration. We would compare (B) and (C) to (A) and select the 
rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all other 
companies. See, Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-
Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 
53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010). As complete publicly ranged sales 
data was unavailable, we based the all-others rate on a simple 
average of the two calculated margins. See, e.g., Large Power 
Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination, 77 FR 9204 (February 16, 2012), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 77 FR 40857, 40858 
(July 11, 2012).
    \7\ See section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Unlike in 
administrative reviews, the Department calculates the adjustment for 
export subsidies in investigations not in the margin calculation 
program, but in the cash deposit instructions issued to CBP. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and 
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined 
Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

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

[[Page 13329]]

Disclosure

    We will disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations 
performed for this final determination within five days of the date of 
public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b).

Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that, based 
on respondents' reported shipment volumes, there was reason to believe 
or suspect that critical circumstances existed for imports of subject 
merchandise from India from Ester and Reliance. Furthermore, we drew an 
adverse inference with respect to Dhunseri and JBF, both of which are 
mandatory respondents that failed to respond to our requests for 
information, and thereby determined that critical circumstances existed 
with respect to them also. Finally, based on data from the ITC Dataweb, 
we found that there were critical circumstances with respect to those 
Indian shippers which were not selected for individual examination.\8\ 
We received one comment on the Department's preliminary affirmative 
determination of critical circumstances, and have addressed the comment 
in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. It did not cause us 
to change our preliminary determination. Therefore, pursuant to section 
735(a)(3) of the Act, we continue to determine that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of PET resin from India 
from all parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Preliminary Determination, 80 FR at 62030, and 
accompanying Preliminary Issues and Decision Memorandum at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to 
suspend liquidation of all entries of certain PET resin from India 
which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after July 17, 2015, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication 
of the preliminary determination.
    We also will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the 
weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, 
adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies, as follows: (1) The 
cash deposit rate for Dhunseri, Ester, JBF, and Reliance will be equal 
to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this 
final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in 
this investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for 
the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate 
for all other producers or exporters will be 11.13 percent.
    Consistent with our practice,\9\ where the product under 
investigation is also subject to a concurrent CVD investigation, we 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit less the amount of the 
countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.\10\ 
Therefore, in the event that a CVD order is issued and suspension of 
liquidation is resumed in the companion CVD investigation on PET resin 
from India, the Department will instruct CBP to require cash deposits 
adjusted for export subsidies, as appropriate, found in the final 
determination of the companion CVD investigation. Specifically, for 
cash deposit purposes, we will subtract from the applicable cash 
deposit rate that portion of the CVD rate attributable to the export 
subsidies found in the final affirmative countervailing duty 
determination for each respondent (i.e., 5.10 percent for Dhunseri, 
Ester, Reliance, and ``all-others,'' and 37.08 for JBF.) \11\ After 
this adjustment, the resulting cash deposit rates will be 14.31 percent 
for Dhunseri, 9.13 percent for Ester, 2.93 percent for Reliance, 00.00 
percent for JBF, and 6.03 for ``all-others.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Department terminated the suspension of liquidation 
associated with the CVD investigation effective December 12, 2015. 
See CBP message no. 5348309 dated December 14, 2015. Therefore, 
until and unless suspension of liquidation is resumed, we will not 
adjust the antidumping cash deposit rate for collection of duties 
associated with export subsidies.
    \10\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 
67306, 67307 (November 17, 2004); and Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Critical Circumstances 
Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From 
the Republic of Korea, 77 FR 17413 (March 26, 2012).
    \11\ See the Memorandum to the File, through Robert James, 
Program Manager, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations, from Fred Baker, 
Analyst, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, ``Export Subsidies 
Calculated in the Countervailing Duty Final Determination of Certain 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India,'' dated March 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect 
until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the 
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. 
As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 
735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether the 
domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or 
threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the 
likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the 
ITC determines that such injury exists, the Department will issue an 
antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further 
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    This notice will serve as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of the 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

     Dated: March 4, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance.

Appendix I--Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is polyethylene 
terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 
0.70, but not more than 0.88, deciliters per gram. The scope 
includes blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET resin 
containing 50 percent or more virgin PET resin content by weight, 
provided such blends meet the intrinsic viscosity requirements 
above. The scope includes all PET resin meeting the above 
specifications regardless of additives introduced in the 
manufacturing process. The merchandise subject to this investigation 
is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 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 under 
investigation is dispositive.

Appendix II--List of Topics in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II. Background
III. Period of Investigation
IV. Scope of the Investigation

[[Page 13330]]

V. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
VI. Use of Adverse Facts Available
VII. Discussion of Interested Party Comments
    Comment 1: Whether Critical Circumstances Exist
    Comment 2: Whether Ester Should Be a Mandatory Respondent in 
This Investigation
    Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Recalculate Imputed 
Credit
    Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Recalculate Home Market 
Inland Freight
    Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Make a Duty Drawback 
Adjustment
    Comment 6: Whether to Adjust Ester's G&A Ratio
    Comment 7: Whether to Adjust Ester's Financial Expense Ratio
    Comment 8: Whether to Include Import Taxes in the Total Cost of 
Manufacture
    Comment 9: Whether to Rely on Ester's Revised Packing Costs
    Comment 10: Whether to Revise Reliance's COP Using Reliance's 
Verified Actual Chain Costs
    Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Use its Differential 
Pricing Analysis in the Final Determination
    Comment 12: Whether to Use Invoice Date as the Date of Sale in 
Both Markets
    Comment 13: Whether to Resort to Adverse Facts Available for 
Reliance
    A. Whether Reliance Failed to Submit All Home Market Sales 
Subject to the Investigation
    B. Whether Reliance Provided a Complete Home Market Sales 
Listing for Contract Customers
    C. Whether Reliance Reported the Wrong Date as the Sale Date for 
U.S. Sales
    D. Whether Reliance Wrongly Submitted a Claim for a Duty 
Drawback Adjustment
    E. Whether Reliance Wrongly Submitted a Claim for an Adjustment 
for the Focus Product Scheme
    F. Whether the Department Failed to Verify Export Warranty 
Expenses
    G. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Included Third-Country Sales in 
its Home Market Sales Listing
    H. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Included Free Samples in its 
Home Market Sales Listing
    I. Whether Reliance Knowingly Withheld its U.S. and Home Market 
Short-Term Interest Rates
    J. Whether Reliance Failed to Accurately Provide Its U.S. and 
Home Market Selling Functions
    K. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Offset General and 
Administrative Expenses
    L. Use of Total Adverse Facts Available
    Comment 14: Proper AFA Rate
VIII. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2016-05710 Filed 3-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P