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
<![CDATA[
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 https://
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 https://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 https://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 https://
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 https://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 https://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
