Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016, 10789-10790 [2019-05521]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10789-10790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05521]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-825]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Jindal 
Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal) and SRF Limited (SRF), exporters 
of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from 
India, received countervailable subsidies during the period of review 
(POR) January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

DATES: Applicable March 22, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum at 202-482-0197, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this review on August 
10, 2018.\1\ For a history of events that occurred since the 
Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\2\ On 
November 27, 2018, we postponed the final results of review by sixty 
days until February 6, 2019. Commerce exercised its discretion to toll 
deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from 
January 20 to January 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-
business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will 
become the next business day. The deadline for the final results of 
this administrative review is now March 18, 2019.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from 
India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review; 2016, 83 FR 39677 (August 10, 2018) 
(Preliminary Results).
    \2\ See Memorandum re: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Final Results in the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India,'' dated 
concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this 
notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).
    \3\ See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the 
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance, ``Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of 
the Federal Government'' (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 
2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been 
extended by 3 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an analysis of the comments received and record 
information, we have revised our calculations for SRF. The final 
subsidy rates are listed in the ``Final Results of Administrative 
Review'' section below.

Scope of the Order

    For the purposes of the order, the products covered are all gauges 
of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet 
and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized 
films and other finished films that have had at least one of their 
surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing 
resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports 
of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The 
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised by the interested parties in their case and 
rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 
The issues are identified in the Appendix to this notice. 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 and 
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 on the internet at https://trade.gov/enforcement/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision 
Memorandum and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the comments received from the GOI, Jindal, and SRF, and 
the rebuttal comments received from the petitioners, we made changes to 
our rate calculations for Jindal and SRF. We determined 
countervailability for certain income tax programs and calculated rates 
for Jindal and SRF: ``Income Tax Deductions under Section 35 for 
Research and Development (R&D) Expenses (Section 35 R&D Tax 
Deductions)'' and ``Section 32 for Investments into new Plants and 
Machinery (Section 32 Capital Investment Deductions) of the Income Tax 
Act, 1961.'' In addition, we made minor changes for two of SRF's 
programs: ``Exemption from Payment of Central Sales Tax (CST) on 
Purchases of Capital Goods and Raw Materials, Components, Consumables, 
Intermediates, Spare Parts and Packing Material'' and ``State and Union 
Territory Sales Tax Incentive Programs.'' For a discussion of these 
issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Methodology

    Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 
751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each 
of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a 
subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives 
rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is 
specific.\4\ For a description of the methodology underlying all of 
Commerce's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies Not Selected for Individual Review

    For the companies not selected for individual review, because the 
rates calculated for Jindal and SRF were above de minimis and not based 
entirely on facts available, we applied, consistent with section 
705(c)(5)(A) of

[[Page 10790]]

the Act, a subsidy rate based on a simple average of the subsidy rates 
calculated for Jindal and SRF because publicly ranged sales value data 
was not submitted by both respondents.

Final Results of Administrative Review

    In accordance with section 777A(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(5), we determine the total estimated net countervailable 
subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016 
to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Subsidy rate
                  Manufacturer/exporter                     (percent ad
                                                             valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films of India Limited......................           11.26
SRF Limited.............................................            7.54
Chiripal Poly Films Limited.............................            9.40
Ester Industries Limited................................            9.40
Garware Polyester Ltd...................................            9.40
Polyplex Corporation Ltd................................            9.40
Vacmet India Limited....................................            9.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue 
appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 
days after publication of the final results of this review. Commerce 
will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise 
produced and/or exported by the companies listed above, entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2016, through 
December 31, 2016, at the percent rates, as listed above for each of 
the respective companies, of the entered value.
    Commerce intends also to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of 
estimated countervailing duties, in the amounts shown above for each of 
the respective companies shown above, on shipments of subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For 
all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect 
cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate 
applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to 
an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    These final results are issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 19, 2019.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II. List of Issues
III. Background
IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Results
V. Scope of the Order
VI. Period of Review
VII. Subsidies Valuation Information
    A. Allocation Period
    B. Attribution of Subsidies
    C. Benchmarks Interest Rates
    D. Denominator
VIII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
IX. Analysis of Programs
    A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable
    B. Programs Determined To Be Not Used or To Provide No Benefit 
during the POR
    C. Programs Determined To Be Terminated
X. Final Results of Review
XI. Analysis of Comments
    Comment 1: Whether Commerce may countervail certain benefits 
respondents received pursuant to the Merchandise Exports from India 
Scheme (MEIS).
    Comment 2: Whether deductions under sections 32AC, 35(1)(iv), 
and 35 (2AB) of the Indian Income Tax Act are countervailable 
subsidies.
    Comment 3: Whether Commerce clearly identified which components 
of duties were included in the benefit calculations of the Export 
Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS).
    Comment 4: Whether the GOI has a verification system in place 
for the Duty Drawback Scheme (DDB) that is effective and reasonable, 
and whether Commerce is obligated to calculate the ``excess 
remission,'' pursuant to the SCM Agreement.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, 
April 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
Organization (SCM Agreement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 5: Whether Commerce incorrectly determined the Special 
Economic Zone (SEZ) program to be contingent on export performance.
    Comment 6: Whether the Advance Authorization Scheme (AAS) is a 
countervailable subsidy, and whether Commerce is obligated to 
calcite the ``excess remission,'' pursuant to the SCM Agreement.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 7: Whether Commerce used the most recent turnover data 
reported by SRF in its rate calculations for respondent.
    Comment 8: Whether Chiripal was omitted from the list of 
respondents not selected for individual review.
XII. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2019-05521 Filed 3-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P