The next meeting of the AC21 has been scheduled for August 27-28, 2012. The AC21 consists of members representing the biotechnology industry, the organic food industry, farming communities, the seed industry, food manufacturers, state government, consumer and community development groups, as well as academic researchers and a medical doctor. In addition, representatives from the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of State, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative have been invited to serve as “ex officio” members. The Committee meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on each day. The objective for the meeting is to complete all substantive work on a report to USDA addressing the following charge from Secretary Vilsack:

Background information regarding the work and membership of the AC21 is available on the USDA Web site at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=AC21Main.xml&contentidonly=true . An electronic copy of the draft report under discussion will be available on that Web site at least one week prior to the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements should also inform Dr. Schechtman in writing or via email at the indicated addresses at least three business days before the meeting. On May 29, 2012, if time permits, reasonable provision will be made for oral presentations of no more than five minutes each in duration.

The meeting will be open to the public, but space is limited. If you would like to attend the meetings, you must register by contacting Ms. Dianne Fowler at (202) 720-4074 or by Email at Dianne.fowler@ars.usda.gov at least 5 days prior to the meeting. Please provide your name, title, business affiliation, address, telephone, and fax number when you register. If you are a person with a disability and request reasonable accommodations to participate in this meeting, please note the request in your registration. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

The following business will be conducted: RAC Title II Special Projects proposal recommendations, overview of one-year extension, and new RAC committee member recruitment. An agenda of the meeting is also available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/workingtogether/advisorycommittees . The meeting is open to the public. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Opportunity for public input will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee. A summary of the meeting minutes will be posted at http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/workingtogether/advisorycommittees within 21 days of the meeting.

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring any matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by August 15, 2012 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions.

The Census Bureau plans to request clearance for updating the universe of collection of data concerning the school enrollment within the Current Population Survey (CPS) beginning in January 2013. Title 13, United States Code, Section 182, and Title 29, United States Code, Sections 1-9, authorize the collection of the CPS information. The Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsor the current basic annual school enrollment questions, which have been collected annually in the CPS for 50 years.

The main school enrollment question and the two follow up questions have long been asked of people ages 16 to 24 and restricted for other ages. We would like to increase the age range for those asked these questions to 54 based on current trends in school enrollment for people over 24. This change in universe will result in the main question being asked about approximately 53,600 more people and answers for approximately 3,000 more people will need to be provided for the two follow up questions.

Raising the age of respondents to which the monthly enrollment question is provided will substantially increase the data resources with which analysts and researchers identify the effects of federal education and training policies on key, policy-relevant populations.

The school enrollment information will be collected by both personal visit and telephone interviews. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0049.

Form Number: There are no forms. We conduct all interviews on computers.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 53,600 per month.

Estimated Time per Response: 15 seconds.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1324.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: The only cost to the respondents is that of their time.

Respondents Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Section 182, and Title 29, U.S.C., Sections 1-9.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

On August 10, 2010, the Department issued a final scope ruling on toolkits from the PRC imported by Target Corporation. See Final Scope Ruling. In the Final Scope Ruling, the Department found that steel nails within Target's toolkits from the PRC were not covered by the Order because the toolkits themselves did not meet the description of subject merchandise. See Final Scope Ruling.

In Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 770 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (CIT 2011) (“ Mid Continent I ”), the CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to Commerce to articulate a test it would apply consistently to determine the proper focus of a mixed-media scope ruling and to identify its legal authority to do so. See Mid Continent I, 770 F. Supp. 2d at 1383. Commerce then issued a remand redetermination finding that, pursuant to a mixed-media analysis, the toolkits were not subject to the Order. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand Order in Mid Continent Nail Corporation v. United States and Target Corporation, dated October 17, 2011 (first remand redetermination).

In Mid Continent II, the CIT again remanded to Commerce, ordering the Department to issue a scope determination that construes the scope of the Order as including the steel nails found within Target Corporation's toolkits. See Mid Continent II, at 11. On May 14, 2012, the Department issued its second remand redetermination pursuant to Mid Continent II. Pursuant to the remand order in Mid Continent II, under protest, we construed the scope of the Order as including the steel nails found within toolkits, including those imported by Target Corporation. The CIT sustained the Department's remand redetermination on July 25, 2012. See Mid Continent III.

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC has held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's July 25, 2012, judgment sustaining the Department's second remand redetermination construing the scope of the Order as including the steel nails found within toolkits (including those imported by Target Corporation), constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Because there is now a final court decision with respect to steel nails found within Target Corporation's toolkits from the PRC, the Department amends its final scope ruling and now finds that the scope of the Order includes steel nails found within toolkits, including those imported by Target Corporation. Accordingly, the Department will issue revised instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection if the Court's decision is not appealed or if it is affirmed on appeal.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

On July 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on PET Film from India. 1 On July 1, 2011, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the order. 2 In response, the Department received a timely request from Petitioners  3 for an antidumping administrative review of five companies: Ester Industries Limited (Ester); Garware Polyester Ltd. (Garware); Jindal; Polyplex; and SRF. The Department also received timely requests for an antidumping review from Vacmet India Ltd. (Vacmet) and Polypacks Industries of India (Polypacks). On August 26, 2011, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review with respect to Ester, Garware, Jindal, Polyplex, SRF, Vacmet, and Polypacks. 4 On August 23, 2011, Vacmet and Polypacks withdrew their requests for a review. The Department published a rescission, in part, of the antidumping administrative review with respect to Vacmet and Polypacks on September 20, 2011. 5 On September 1, 2011, the Department placed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data covering the POR on the record of this review. 6 On October 21, 2011, the Department selected Jindal and Polyplex as the two mandatory respondents in this review. 7 Subsequently, on November 25, 2011, Petitioners timely withdrew their request for administrative reviews of Ester and Garware, and the Department published a rescission, in part, of the antidumping administrative review with respect to these two companies on January 25, 2012. 8 Thus, the remaining respondents in this review are the two selected respondents Jindal and Polyplex, and the non-selected respondent, SRF.

The Department issued the original questionnaires to the two selected respondents on November 9, 2011. Jindal and Polyplex timely submitted their section A questionnaire responses on December 12, 2011 and December 13, 2011, respectively. On December 28, 2011, Jindal timely filed responses to sections B and C; on January 9, 2012 Jindal filed its section D response. Polyplex timely filed its responses to sections B, C, and D on January 5, 2012. On February 15, 2012, Petitioners filed comments on Jindal's and Polyplex's questionnaire responses. On March 12, 2012, the Department extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this administrative review. 9 Between March and July 2012, the Department issued several supplemental questionnaires separately on sections A, B, and C, and section D, to both Jindal and Polyplex requesting additional information. All responses were timely submitted. On July 13, 2012, Petitioners filed targeted dumping allegations for both Jindal and Polyplex. For purposes of these preliminary results the Department did not conduct a targeted dumping analysis. In calculating the preliminary weighted-average dumping margins for the mandatory respondents, the Department applied the calculation methodology adopted in Final Modification for Reviews. 10 In particular, the Department compared monthly weighted-average export prices (EPs) (or constructed export prices (CEPs)) with monthly weighted-average normal values and granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted-average dumping margins. Application of this methodology in these preliminary results affords parties an opportunity to meaningfully comment on the Department's implementation of this recently adopted methodology in the context of this administrative review. The Department intends to continue to consider, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(c), whether another method is appropriate in these administrative reviews in light of the parties' pre-preliminary comments and any comments on the issue that parties may include in their case and rebuttal briefs.

In addition, we note that serious issues with certain companies exist concerning the reconciliation of the quantities of subject merchandise suspended with the quantities reported exported, and the Department intends to investigate those issues further.

The products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET Film, 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 currently 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 antidumping duty order is dispositive.

The POR is July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011.

In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the volume of Jindal's and Polyplex's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of their U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Based on this comparison, we determined that both Jindal's and Polyplex's home markets were viable during the POR.

Pursuant to section 771(16)(A) of the Act, for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to the U.S. sales, the Department considers all products, as described in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice above, that were sold in the comparison market in the ordinary course of trade. In accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act, where there are no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade, we compare U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product based on the characteristics listed in sections B and C of our antidumping questionnaire: grade, specification, dimension, thickness, and surface treatment.

To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United States were made at less than fair value, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1) and (d), we compared the respondents' monthly weighted-average EP or CEP sales made in the United States to unaffiliated customers with the monthly weighted-average NV, as described in the United States Price and Normal Value sections of this notice, below. Further, we granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted-average dumping margin. 11

The Department will normally use invoice date, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the invoice date if it better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. 12 For Jindal's sales to the United States, as in prior reviews, we preliminarily determine to use the invoice date as the date of sale. In this administrative review, Jindal requested that the Department use the purchase order date as the date of sale. According to Jindal, the material terms for all of its sales to U.S. customers are established on the purchase order date, and the terms established in the purchase order remained constant for all U.S. sales made during the POR. Jindal reported that it negotiates and finalizes the actual terms of sale depending upon market conditions prevailing at the particular point in time of negotiation. The company then issues a pro-forma invoice within one to three days to confirm the terms of payment, delivery, etc., as well as the allowable tolerances  13 with respect to quantity. 14 Any variation in quantity from the pro-forma invoice, which Jindal insists never exceeds the allowable tolerance, is reflected in the commercial invoice, which is issued 25 to 30 days after the purchase order. 15 Thus, it appears from Jindal's explanation that the pro-forma invoice, and not the purchase order, is the document that finalizes the material terms of sale, including the allowable tolerances in quantity. On this basis, we cannot rely, as Jindal has requested, on the purchase order date to establish date of sale.

Jindal's explanation provides a basis to rely on the date of the pro-forma invoice to establish the date of sale. However, Jindal did not provide the Department with the dates that the pro-forma invoices were issued to its customers for all of its sales of subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Jindal has not demonstrated an alternative date on which the material terms of sale were established to warrant departure from our practice of relying on invoice date as date of sale. As such, we will continue to use the invoice date as the date of sale for Jindal's sales of subject merchandise to the United States because the record otherwise demonstrates that this is when the material terms of the sale are established.

Regarding Jindal's home market sales, Jindal reported invoice date as date of sale for the home market, and the record does not indicate that material terms of sale are established at a later or earlier date in the sales process. 16 As such, we are preliminarily relying upon invoice date as date of sale in the home market.

Polyplex reported the invoice date as the date of sale for both its home market sales and its sales of subject merchandise to the United States, and the record does not indicate that material terms of sale are established at a later or earlier date in the sales process. Therefore, for both Polyplex's home market sales and its sales to the United States, we have preliminarily determined that the invoice date is the date of sale.

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP sale. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). 17 Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. 18 In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( i.e., the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( i.e., NV based on either home market or third country prices), 19 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 20

When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it possible, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( i.e., no LOT adjustment is practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. 21

In this administrative review, we obtained information from both respondents regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below.

Jindal reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market to both unaffiliated end users and to unaffiliated trading companies. 22 We examined the selling activities performed for U.S. sales for both channels of distribution and found that Jindal performed selling functions, which we have grouped into the following four activities: (1) Sales and marketing (sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, order input/processing, etc. ); (2) freight and delivery (including packing); (3) technical services/warranties (engineering services and technical assistance); and (4) inventory management. 23 Accordingly, based on our examination of the individual selling functions performed within those categories, we find that Jindal performed the same selling functions in all four categories to the same degree in both channels of distribution. 24 Because the selling activities to Jindal's customers did not vary for sales in the United States through its two channels of distribution, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.

With respect to the comparison market, Jindal reported that it made sales to both unaffiliated end users and to unaffiliated trading companies, and that most selling functions were performed at the same or similar levels of intensity in both channels of distribution. 25 We examined the following three activities performed in the comparison market: (1) Sales and marketing (sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, order input/processing, etc. ); (2) freight and delivery (including packing); and (3) inventory management. We find that Jindal performed the same selling functions in all three categories to the same or similar degree in both channels of distribution. 26 Accordingly, based on these selling functions noted above, we find that Jindal performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for all comparison market sales. Although the comparison market sales are made through two channels of distribution, because the selling activities to Jindal's customers did not vary between theses channels, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the comparison market for Jindal.

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the comparison market LOT and found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and comparison market customers do not differ significantly, as Jindal performed the same selling functions at the same or similar level of intensity in both markets. With regard to the one difference in the reported level of intensity, while Jindal did not provide technical services/warranties in the comparison market as it did in the United States market, Jindal performs this selling function at a low intensity level (rarely or seldom) in the United states market. Therefore, we determine that sales to the U.S. and comparison market during the POR were made at the same LOT and, as a result, no LOT adjustment is warranted. 27

Polyplex reported that it made CEP sales in the U.S. market to its U.S. affiliate Polyplex (America), Inc. (PA). We examined the selling activities performed for U.S. sales for all three channels of distribution (Polyplex to PA, Polyplex to un-affiliated U.S. customers, and PA to un-affiliated U.S. customers) and found that Polyplex performed selling functions, which we grouped into the following four activities: (1) Sales and marketing (sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, order input/processing, etc.); (2) freight and delivery (including packing); (3) technical services/warranties (engineering services and technical assistance); and (4) inventory management. 28 Because the first two channels of distribution represent selling functions performed by Polyplex in the U.S. market, the Department is preliminarily collapsing these two channels into one for analysis purposes, 29 and creating one channel of distribution in the U.S. market. Based on our examination of the individual selling functions performed within the aforementioned categories, we find that Polyplex performed the same selling functions in all four categories to varying degrees in both channels of distribution. 30 Even though the degree to which Polyplex performed certain selling functions varied across both channels, the differences were not significant enough to constitute a different LOT in the United States. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.

With respect to the comparison market, Polyplex reported that it made sales to both end users and to distributors. We examined the following three activities performed in the comparison market: (1) Sales and marketing (sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, order input/processing, etc.); (2) freight and delivery (including packing); (3) technical services/warranties (engineering services and technical assistance); and (4) inventory management. We find that Polyplex performed the same selling functions in all four categories to varying degrees in both channels of distribution. 31 Even though the degree to which Polyplex performed certain selling functions varied across the two channels, the differences were not significant enough to constitute a different LOT in the comparison market. 32 Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the comparison market for Polyplex.

Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to the comparison market LOT. In accordance with Micron Tech, we removed the selling activities as set forth in section 772(d) of the Act from the U.S. LOT prior to performing the LOT analysis. After removing the appropriate selling activities, we compared the U.S. LOT to the comparison market LOT. Based on our analysis, we preliminarily find that the U.S. sales are at a less advanced LOT than the comparison market sales. 33

As stated previously, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( i.e., no LOT adjustment is possible), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we are preliminarily granting to Polyplex a CEP offset.

We used EP methodology for Jindal's U.S. sales, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the evidence on the record. In accordance with sections 772(a) and (c) of the Act, we calculated EP based on packed prices, adding excess and/or separately recovered freight Jindal charged its unaffiliated customer. We made deductions from the starting price for discounts, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions from the starting price, where applicable, for movement expenses, including domestic inland freight and insurance, domestic brokerage and handling, international freight and marine insurance, and U.S. inland freight, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(e).

In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.

For purposes of this review, Polyplex classified all of its export sales of PET Film to the United States as CEP sales. During the POR, Polyplex made sales in the United States through its U.S. affiliate PA, which then resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers. The Department calculated CEP based on packed prices to customers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for discounts, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions for movement expenses (foreign and U.S. movement, U.S. customs duty and brokerage, as well as foreign and U.S. warehousing), in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(e). In addition, because Polyplex reported CEP sales, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price, credit expenses, late payment fees, and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, incurred in the United States and India and associated with economic activities in the United States.

In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we will adjust Jindal's and Polyplex's U.S. price to account for countervailing duties attributable to subject merchandise in order to offset export subsidies received by Jindal and Polyplex.

Information about the specific adjustments and our analysis of the adjustments is business proprietary, and is detailed in the “Adjustments” section of the preliminary calculation memoranda. 34

For both Jindal and Polyplex, the Department disregarded sales below cost of production (COP) in the most recently completed administrative antidumping duty review. 35 We therefore have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below COP. Thus, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether Jindal's and Polyplex's sales in the home market were made at prices below the COP during the POR.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated Jindal's and Polyplex's COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus an amount for selling, general and administrative (SG&A), interest expenses, and home market packing costs. See “Results of the COP Test” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses. We examined the cost data and determined that our quarterly cost methodology is not warranted and, therefore, we have applied our standard methodology of using annual costs based on the reported data as adjusted below.

Based on our analysis of Jindal's questionnaire responses, we determined that no adjustments to Jindal's reported COP were necessary. 36 Based on our analysis of Polyplex's questionnaire responses, we made the following adjustments to Polyplex's reported COP: (1) We revised the G&A expense rate to include company-wide G&A expenses, other expenses, and depreciation in the numerator of the calculation, and depreciation in the cost of goods sold (COGS) denominator; and (2) we revised the financial expense rate to include scrap sales in the COGS denominator. 37

On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, movement charges, and actual direct and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made: (1) Within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR are at prices less than the COP, we disregard those sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent substantial quantities within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Because we are applying our standard annual-average cost test in these preliminary results, we have also applied our standard cost-recovery test with no adjustments.

We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of Polyplex's home market sales during the POR were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, the below-cost sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Our cost test for Jindal revealed that none of Jindal's sales for any of its models were at prices below the COP.

We based NV on the starting prices of Jindal's and Polyplex's sales to unaffiliated home market customers, pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(A) and 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions from NV for movement expenses ( i.e., inland freight and inland insurance) where appropriate. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made, where indicated, circumstance-of-sale adjustments for home market direct selling expenses, including imputed credit expenses, and for discounts and rebates. We also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not the other. Specifically, because commissions were paid only in the home market, we made an upward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) The amount of commission paid in the home market; or (2) the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market on U.S. sales. 38 In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. We also made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 39

After disregarding certain sales as below cost, as described above, home market sales of contemporaneous identical and similar products existed that allowed for price-to-price comparisons for all margin calculations. Therefore, it was not necessary for the Department to rely on CV for any comparisons for these preliminary results.

Section 776(a) the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if (1) Necessary information is not on the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.

Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate.

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, can be used without undue difficulties, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information supplied.

For the reasons discussed below, the Department determines that, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts otherwise available is appropriate for the preliminary results with respect to Polyplex's sales of non-prime merchandise in the United States.

Polyplex reported POR sales and production of non-prime merchandise under the product code TFOG (Transparent Film Other Grade). 40 Polyplex reported TFOG sales in the United States and home markets during the POR. 41 This TFOG merchandise is considered by the company to be a basket category, as it includes PET Film of different product characteristics. Polyplex explains that the product characteristics ( e.g., grade, specification, dimension, thickness, and surface treatment) of TFOG cannot be identified because this merchandise is a mix of various film product types. 42 Therefore, in its questionnaire responses, Polyplex did not identify TFOG sales based on individual product characteristics.

Polyplex explained that the TFOG merchandise is a mixture of different grades of films for which specific TFOG characteristics cannot be provided. However, the Department finds that the use of facts otherwise available is appropriate for the preliminary results with respect to Polyplex, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, because Polyplex has not provided information requested for purposes of these preliminary results. A review of the record indicates that: (1) Merchandise reported as TFOG is in fact prime merchandise; and (2) Polyplex has the capabilities to provide the specific information regarding the product characteristics of its TFOG sales. As such, the Department finds that Polyplex has withheld information that is necessary a comparison of sales in the U.S. and home markets.

As an initial matter, Polyplex has indicated that PET Film that is reported as TFOG is in fact actually prime merchandise. Specifically, Polyplex stated there are three circumstances where it will re-classify prime merchandise as TFOG: (1) Off cut rolls; (2) downgraded rolls; and (3) slow moving/non-moving inventory. Polyplex has reported that in two of these scenarios (off cut rolls and slow/non-moving inventory), the company considers the goods to be prime merchandise. 43 In addition, the Department finds that the company is re-classifying some of its subject merchandise as TFOG after production. For example, Polyplex stated that prime merchandise from off cut rolls may be re-classified for specific end-users. 44 Given that Polyplex is able to provide product characteristics for its prime merchandise, the Department finds that Polyplex is aware of the product characteristics of this merchandise when re-classifying it as TFOG. In addition, the Department finds that a portion of Polyplex's sales reported as TFOG are in fact prime merchandise.

Finally, Polyplex has provided sample documentation for two of its TFOG sales in the United States during the POR. 45 These documents clearly include product characteristics for these two TFOG sales. 46 As such, we preliminarily conclude that Polyplex can identify, by product characteristics, the products classified as TFOG.

Therefore, for the purposes of these preliminary results, the Department is treating Polyplex's U.S. TFOG sales as prime merchandise. The Department is re-classifying all TFOG sales in the United States as prime merchandise and assigning them CONNUMs based on the product characteristics shown in the sample documents described above. These re-classified sales are in-turn being appropriately matched to identical or similar prime merchandise sales in the home market. 47

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we made currency conversions for Jindal's and Polyplex's sales based on the daily exchange rates in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

With regard to determining an appropriate rate to be applied to the non-selected respondent SRF, the statute and the Department's regulations do not directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination where the Department limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in cases involving limited selection of respondents has been to look for guidance in section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. The Department generally weight-averages the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding zero and de minimis rates and rates based entirely on facts available, and applies that resulting weighted-average margin to non-selected respondents. 48 Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that where all margins are zero rates, de minimis rates, or rates based entirely on facts available, the Department may use “any reasonable method” for assigning the rate to non-selected respondents.

In this review, we have preliminarily calculated zero or de minimis weighted-average dumping margins for all companies selected as mandatory respondents. In previous cases, the Department has determined that a “reasonable method” to use when the rates of the respondents selected for individual examination are zero or de minimis is to apply to those companies not selected for individual examination the average of the most recently determined rates that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available (which may be from a prior review or new shipper review). 49 If a non-selected company had its own calculated rate that is contemporaneous with or more recent than such prior determined rates, however, the Department has applied such individual rate to the non-selected company, including when that rate is zero or de minimis. 50

The Department has stated that it will no longer use its zeroing methodology in administrative reviews with preliminary determinations issued after April 16, 2012. 51 Therefore, the Department will normally not apply any rates calculated in prior reviews using the zeroing methodology to the non-selected companies in these reviews. However, the Department conducted a new shipper review (NSR) of SRF, in which the Department calculated a zero rate for SRF and this rate is contemporaneous with the most recently completed administrative review. 52 In addition, in the NSR, SRF had one sale of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and the calculated margin was zero. Thus, the Department calculated this margin without the application of the zeroing methodology. Based on this, and in accordance with the statute, a reasonable method for determining the weighted-average dumping margin for SRF is to use the rate calculated for SRF in the NSR because this rate was calculated without the Department's zeroing methodology and the NSR in which the rate was calculated is contemporaneous with the most recently completed administrative review.

We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by Jindal, Polyplex, and SRF. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. For assessment purposes, where the respondent reported the entered value for its sales, we calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. 53 However, where the respondent did not report the entered value for its sales, we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit duty assessment rates. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any per-unit duty assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis ( i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis in the final results, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 54 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent). 55

The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of PET Film from the India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for company under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the all others rate for this proceeding, 5.71 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . 56 Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 57 If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department typically requests that interested parties submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. However, we plan to issue a post-preliminary supplemental questionnaire and, therefore, will be extending the case brief deadline. The Department will inform interested parties of the updated briefing schedule when it has been confirmed. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 58 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register , unless otherwise extended. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On July 1, 2011, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the POR of July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. 1 On July 29, 2011, we received a request to conduct a review with respect to Marsan and its claimed affiliates: Birlik, Bellini, and Marsa Yag. We also received a request from TAT for the Department to conduct an administrative review of TAT.

On August 3, 2011, the Department provided Marsan with an opportunity to comply with the recently revised certification requirements with respect to its request for review. 2 On August 10, 2011, Marsan resubmitted its request for administrative review with the requisite certification language.

On August 26, 2011, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. 3

On September 14, 2011, the Department issued initial questionnaires covering sections A, B, C, and D to Marsan and sections A, B, and C to TAT with a due date of October 21, 2011. Because the Department disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which sales were reviewed for Marsan, 4 we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by Marsan were made at prices below the cost of production (COP) during the POR, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and therefore, included section D in the questionnaire to Marsan. After granting extensions to Marsan, the sections A, B, and C questionnaire responses were submitted on November 4, 2011, and the section D questionnaire response was submitted on November 18, 2011. On November 22, 2011, petitioners submitted deficiency comments on sections A through D of Marsan's initial questionnaire response. 5 The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Marsan between January 13, 2012, and May 3, 2012. Responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires were received from Marsan between January 23, 2012, and July 2, 2012.

After granting extensions to TAT, TAT's sections A, B, and C questionnaire responses were submitted on November 9, 2011. On Novmeber 28, 2011, February 27, 2012, and May 1, 2012, petitioners submitted deficiency comments for TAT. On February 23, 2012, petitioners submitted its comments requesting that the Department rescind this administrative review for TAT because TAT lacked a reviewable entry. Petitioners urged that the Department request CBP to investigate any entries of subject merchandise, negligence in importations, and/or customs fraud made by TAT. The Department issued several supplemental questionnaires to TAT and we received responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires on December 15, 2011, January 10, 2012, March 29, 2012, and June 15, 2012.

On February 24, 2012, the Department published a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the administrative review from April 1, 2012, to July 30, 2012. 6

The POR covered by this review is July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011.

Petitioners contend that it conducted its own targeted dumping analysis of Marsan's U.S. sales using the Department's targeted dumping methodology as applied in Steel Nails and modified in Wood Flooring. 7 Based on their analysis, petitioners argue the Department should conduct a targeted dumping analysis and employ average-to-transaction comparisons without offsets should the Department find that the record supports its allegation of targeted dumping. Marsan did not comment on the targeted dumping allegations submitted by the petitioners.

For purposes of these preliminary results, the Department did not conduct a targeted dumping analysis. In calculating the preliminary weighted-average dumping margin, the Department applied the calculation methodology adopted in the Final Modification for Reviews. 8 In particular, the Department compared monthly, weighted-average export prices with monthly, weighted-average normal values, and granted offsets for negative comparison results in the calculation of the weighted-average dumping margins. 9 Application of this methodology in these preliminary results affords parties an opportunity to meaningfully comment on the Department's implementation of this recently adopted methodology in the context of this administrative review.

Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of this review are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white.

The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 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 subject to the order is dispositive.

As discussed above, in its request for review, Marsan requested a review of itself and three companies (Birlik, Bellini, and Marsa Yag) which it claimed as affiliates. In the instant review, the Department preliminarily finds that Birlik, Bellini and Marsa Yag are affiliated in accordance with sections 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act based on ownership structure and major shareholder controlling interest in these three subsidiaries. 10 At the outset of the POR, Birlik operated the pasta production facility, but Bellini took over operation of the pasta production facility in October 2010. 11 Because Birlik and Bellini operated the pasta production facility during different periods and both companies were not producing subject merchandise at the same time, the Department preliminarily determines that it is not appropriate to treat these companies as a single entity pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). 12

Consistent with our findings in the prior review, 13 the Department finds that Marsan was not affiliated with Birlik or Bellini, prior to June 2, 2011. 14 However, as discussed in more detail in the Affiliation/Collapsing Memo, the Department preliminarily determines that effective June 2, 2011, Marsan and Bellini became affiliated persons within the meaning of section 771(33)(F) of the Act. 15

Upon finding Bellini to be affiliated with Marsan for the last month of the POR, the Department has also considered whether to treat Bellini and Marsan as a single entity for that month pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). Based upon the level of common ownership and the intertwining of the production and distribution operations of these companies after the acquisition of Marsan, the Department preliminarily finds there to be significant potential for manipulation of price or production of subject merchandise and has thus treated Bellini and Marsan as a single entity for the last month of the POR, referred to hereafter as Marsan/Bellini. 16

Petitioners have raised various concerns about the nature of TAT's sales of subject merchandise to the United States, including whether TAT has reviewable entries and whether its sales prices are consistent with normal commercial practices. 17 Record information indicates that TAT has at least one reviewable entry, allowing the Department to continue with its review of TAT. 18 With respect to petitioners' concerns about the nature of TAT's sales, the Department does not find support for those allegations in record evidence at this time because they are mainly premised upon petitioners' contentions that TAT does not have any reviewable entries subject to antidumping duty liability, 19 which the Department preliminarily finds not to be case as addressed above. Petitioners also question whether TAT's sales to its U.S. customers were conducted at arm's length. 20 Record evidence, however, establishes that TAT is not affiliated with its U.S. customers  21 and petitioners have not identified information on the record demonstrating otherwise. However, we will continue to consider this matter. Should we determine that petitioners' concerns have merit we will further investigate in the context of this administrative review and, if necessary, conduct an analysis of whether TAT's sales are bona fide.

For purposes of calculating NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines “foreign like product” as merchandise which is either (1) identical or (2) similar to the merchandise sold in the United States. When no identical products are sold in the home market, the products which are most similar to the product sold in the United States are identified. For the non-identical or most similar products which are identified based on the Department's product matching criteria, an adjustment is made to the NV for differences in cost attributable to differences in the actual physical differences between the products sold in the United States and the home market. 22

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to match contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and comparison markets that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: (1) Pasta shape; (2) wheat species; (3) milling form; (4) protein content; (5) additives; and (6) enrichment. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market to compare with U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales with the most similar product based on the characteristics listed above, in descending order of priority.

To determine whether sales of certain pasta from Turkey were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In particular, the Department compared monthly, weighted-average export prices with monthly, weighted-average normal values, and granted offsets for negative comparison results in the calculation of the weighted-average dumping margins. 23

Based on our affiliation and collapsing preliminary determinations, as discussed above, we separately calculated weighted-average dumping margins for: (1) Birlik for the period July 2010 through September 2010; (2) Bellini for the period October 2010 through May 2011; and (3) Marsan/Bellini (the collapsed entity of Bellini and Marsan) for the month of June 2011. For each of the respondents, we compared the respective monthly weighted-average NVs to monthly, weighted-average export prices. 24

For the price to the United States, we used EP, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. Section 772(a) defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. We calculated EP for each of the respondents' U.S. sales because they were made to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States and constructed export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including foreign inland freight from plant/warehouse to customer. In addition, when appropriate, we increased EP by an amount equal to the countervailing duty (CVD) rate attributed to export subsidies in the most recently completed CVD administrative review, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. 25

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price of the foreign like product sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP or CEP. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we used the combined home market sales volume for Marsan, Birlik and Bellini, and TAT's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of their U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because the respondents had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. 26

We included in our analysis the respondents' home market sales to affiliated customers only where we determined that such sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to prices at which identical merchandise was sold to their unaffiliated customers. To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the prices to that affiliated party were, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the prices of comparable merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's-length. 27 Conversely, where we found that the sales to an affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, then all sales to that affiliated party have been excluded from the dumping analysis. 28

As discussed above, because the Department disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which sales were reviewed for Marsan, 29 we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by Marsan were made at prices below the COP during the POR, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, the Department conducted a COP investigation of sales in the home market by Marsan. Therefore, we required Marsan to submit a response to section D of the Department's questionnaire. As discussed above and in the Affiliation/Collapsing Memo, the Department has preliminarily determined to collapse Marsan and Bellini and, therefore, we have relied on the cost data from both of these entities.

We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. Except as noted below, the Department relied on the COP data submitted by Marsan and Bellini—the affiliated party we preliminarily determined to collapse with Marsan.

We have applied our standard methodology of using annual costs based on the reported data. We relied on the COP data submitted by Marsan on May 9, 2012, for Bellini, except for the following adjustments: For Bellini, we adjusted the per-unit material costs for one CONNUM sold but not produced during the POR to account for the cost of bran consumed. We adjusted Bellini's reported total cost of manufacturing (TCOM) to account for an unreconciled difference between the total cost of sales in the audited financial statements and the extended total cost of manufacturing captured in the reported cost file. 30

We compared the weighted-average COPs for the collapsed Marsan/Bellini entity to their home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time ( i.e., normally a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses. 31

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) They were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

We found that Marsan/Bellini made sales below cost and we disregarded such sales where appropriate. 32

We calculated NV based on ex-works, free on board (FOB) or delivered prices to comparison market customers. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(c), we made deductions from the starting price, when appropriate, for discounts and rebates. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted comparison market packing, respectively. We also deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b). Specifically, we made adjustments to NV for comparison to respondents' EP transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales ( i.e., credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( i.e., credit expenses). See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.410(c). 33

When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing (VCOM) for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using weighted-average costs. 34

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP and/or CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there are no sales at the same LOT, we compare U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length affiliated) customers. The Department identifies the LOT based on: the starting price or constructed value (for normal value); the starting price (for EP sales); and the starting price, as adjusted under section 772(d) of the Act (for CEP sales). If the comparison-market sales were at a different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

During the POR, TAT reported that all of its sales were EP sales. TAT produced and sold pasta to affiliated and unaffiliated wholesalers/distributors and retailers in the home market. TAT sold pasta through two channels of distribution in the home market. TAT sold pasta to unaffiliated wholesalers/distributors in the U.S. market and sold pasta through one channel of distribution. TAT claimed that there were no differences in levels of trade between sales in the home market and sales to the United States, and thus TAT did not provide a selling functions chart in its Section A Response. 35 Therefore, we preliminarily determine that no level of trade adjustment is warranted.

Birlik and Bellini produced and sold the subject merchandise to both affiliated and unaffiliated companies in the home and U.S. markets during the POR. Marsan, an unaffiliated company purchased pasta from Birlik and Bellini and sold the purchased pasta to unaffiliated customers in the home market and U.S. market. Birlik, Bellini, and Marsan claimed that there were no differences in levels of trade between sales in the home market and sales to the United States. 36 Therefore, we preliminarily determine that no level of trade adjustment is warranted,

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), we intend to disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 5 days after the time limit for filing the case briefs in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). As specified by 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Written arguments should be submitted via the Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 37

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 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 raised in the respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs.

The Department intends to publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments or hearing, within 120 days from publication of this notice, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless the time limit is extended.

The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. 38 Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. 39 Where the importer-specific rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 40 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Assessment of Antidumping Duties. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. 41 In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of certain pasta from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Marsan/Bellini and TAT will be the rates established in the final results of this review (except, if the rates are zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review or the LTFV investigation conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 51.49 percent, the All-Others rate established in the LTFV. 42 Because we preliminarily determine that as of June 2, 2011, neither Birlik nor Bellini continue to exist as independent pasta producers, we are not establishing a cash deposit rate for these entities. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice 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 and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping and/or increase the antidumping duty by the amount of the countervailing duties.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On January 31, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period December 1, 2010, through November 30, 2011. 1

On March 2, 2012, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Peak. 2 On March 23, 2012, Peak responded to Section A of the Department's questionnaire. 3 On April 9, 2012, Peak submitted a request for a one-day extension of the deadline to file its response to Sections C and D of the Department's questionnaire, less than 6 minutes before the deadline, 4 which would make the new deadline April 10, 2012. When the Department granted Peak's extension request, the Department advised Peak to file any future extension requests as soon as it suspects additional time may be necessary. 5 On April 9, 2012, Peak responded to Sections C and D of the Department's questionnaire. 6 On April 3, 2012, the Department issued Peak a supplemental Section A questionnaire with a deadline of April 17, 2012. 7 Peak did not submit a response nor request an extension by April 17, 2012. Instead, on April 19, 2012, Peak submitted a request for an extension of 10 days, which would have made the new due date April 27, 2012. On April 20, 2012, the American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association (collectively “Petitioners”) submitted an objection to the untimely extension request by Peak. 8 On April 24, 2012, Peak submitted a rebuttal to Petitioners Objection to Untimely Extension Request. 9 On April 27, 2012, Peak requested a second extension of one day, until April 28, 2012, and submitted its supplemental Section A response after the close of business on April 27, 2012. On May 22, 2012, the Department rejected, and removed from the record, both of Peak's untimely filed extension requests and its untimely filed supplemental Section A response pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(d). 10 On April 16, 2012, Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review for all companies under review except Peak. 11 On May 1, 2012, the Department rescinded the review with respect to Anhui Honghui, Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd., Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd., and Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd., as these companies have a separate rate. The Department stated it would address the disposition of the remaining withdrawn companies that do not have a separate rate in the preliminary results of this review. 12

The products covered by the order are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, 2106.90.99, 0409.00.0010, 0409.00.0035, 0409.00.0005, 0409.00.0045, 0409.00.0056, and 0409.00.0065 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.

As stated above, on April 16, 2012, Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review for all companies under review except Peak. The Department previously rescinded those companies which had a separate rate and stated that we would address the disposition of the remaining withdrawn companies that did not have a separate rate at the preliminary results of this review. 13 We note that the deadline to file a separate rate application, separate rate certification, or a notification of no sales, exports or entries, is 60 days after the initiation of the administrative review, 14 which in this case was March 31, 2012. Therefore, as of April 1, 2012, the remaining companies under review that did not demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate effectively became part of the PRC-wide entity. Accordingly, while the requests for review of those companies were withdrawn by Petitioners on April 16, 2012, those withdrawn companies remain under review as part of the PRC-wide entity and the Department will make a determination with respect to the PRC-wide entity at these preliminary results and the final results. 15

Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), provides that the Department shall use facts otherwise available if necessary information is not otherwise available on the record of the antidumping proceeding. Specifically, section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that where an interested party: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide requested information by the requested date or in the form and manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping proceeding; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall use facts otherwise available in reaching its determination.

As explained above, the Department cautioned Peak in its April 9 Extension Memo with respect to timely extension requests, and advised Peak that the Department must be afforded adequate time to fully consider such requests. Further, we note that the instructions in the Section A supplemental questionnaire issued to Peak, which it failed to timely submit, stated that a response or extension request must be received by close of business on the day of the deadline or the Department may resort to the use of facts available. 16 As noted above, Peak did not timely respond to the supplemental Section A questionnaire issued by the Department on April 3, 2012 and the Department rejected Peak's untimely filed extension requests and its untimely filed supplemental Section A response pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(d).

We note that in Grobest, the Court of International Trade (“CIT” or the “Court”) recently held that rejecting a separate rate certification (“SRC”) that was three months late was an abuse of discretion because, inter alia, the certification had been submitted early in the proceeding, the respondent was diligent in attempting to correct the error, and the burden on the agency to consider the certification would have been minimal. 17 The Court noted that the facts of that case suggested that the administrative burden of reviewing the SRC rejected by the Department would not have been great because the Department had granted the respondent company separate-rate status in the preceding three administrative reviews without needing to conduct a separate- rate analysis. 18 Therefore, but for the untimeliness of its submission, the respondent would likely have received a separate rate in the segment in question, with minimal administrative burden imposed upon the Department, and, as a result of its rejected submission, was likely assigned an inaccurate and disproportionate margin. 19 The CIT further held that, while the Department has discretion both to set deadlines and to enforce those deadlines by rejecting untimely filings, that discretion is not absolute and the Court will evaluate “on a case-by-case basis whether the interests of accuracy and fairness outweigh” the Department's administrative burden and interest in finality. 20

In this case, the Department has considered Peak's untimely requests for extension, and determined that Peak has not provided good cause for submitting its extension requests in an untimely manner. As noted by the Court in Grobest, the Department has the discretion to “set and enforce deadlines.”  21 The Departments regulations provide that the agency “may, for good cause, extend any time limit established by this part.”  22 Parties requesting an extension are required to submit a written request “before the time limit specified” by the Department, and must “state the reasons for the request.” In its Supplemental Section A Extension Request Peak explained that it was requesting an extension of the deadline for filing its supplemental Section A response due to unexpected computer failures and difficulties communicating with management who were away on business. 23 However, Peak provided no explanation as to why it was unable to file the actual extension request in a timely manner prior to the deadline for its questionnaire response, as required by section 19 CFR 351.302(c). 24 This deficiency was also pointed out by Petitioners in their objection to Peak's extension request: “* * *the request fails to explain in any manner why it was not filed prior to the deadline.”  25 In Peak's Rebuttal to Petitioners' Objection, Peak again failed to address this deficiency, merely reiterating that the Department's regulations and long-standing policy allow it to extend any deadline for good cause, explaining that the “circumstances surrounding the unanticipated delay in the preparation of the Supplemental Questionnaire at issue were caused by unexpected computer failures and the difficulties in communicating with the management personnel who were traveling in remold areas for business.”  26 While the Department may extend deadlines, it does so “for good cause,” in accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(b). Because Peak did not provide any explanation for why it did not submit its extension request in a timely manner, the Department determined that Peak had not provided good cause pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b) for the Department to extend retroactively its deadline for the extension request and rejected Peak's two untimely extension requests and its supplemental Section A response. 27

The Department set deadlines in this proceeding after careful consideration of the time and resources that were needed to complete a review of Peak's sales during the POR. Peak's U.S. sales have been found to be non- bona fide in two prior reviews, 28 a determination that requires careful consideration of the totality of circumstances, including: (1) The timing of the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) the expenses arising from the transaction; (4) whether the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) whether the transaction was made on an arms-length basis;  29 (6) as well as the business practices of the importer and U.S. customers. 30 The supplemental Section A questionnaire that Peak failed to timely submit would have provided information regarding Peak's reported quantity and value, its separate rate status, structure and affiliations, sales process, accounting and financial practices, and merchandising. This information has proven vital to the Department's prior non- bona fide analyses. Moreover, the Department requires a significant amount of time and effort to gather the necessary information, consider the facts of the record, and provide interested parties with an appropriate period for comments and rebuttal comments. For example, in the ninth administrative review of this proceeding the Department issued its initial questionnaire to Peak in February 2011, and continued to request and receive supplemental questionnaire responses until December 13, 2011, just 10 days before the preliminary results were signed. 31 In order to properly analyze and consider submissions from Peak and Petitioners, and provide an opportunity for interested parties to comment, the Department was required to extend both its preliminary and final results. 32 The establishment of deadlines for submission of factual information in an antidumping duty review is not arbitrary. Rather, deadlines are specifically designed to allow a respondent sufficient time to prepare responses to detailed requests for information, and to allow the Department to analyze and verify that information, within the statutorily-mandated timeframe for completing the review. The Department recognizes that respondents may encounter difficulties in meeting certain deadlines in the course of any segment; indeed, the Department's regulations specifically address the requirements governing requests for extensions of specific time limits ( i.e., 19 CFR 351.302(c)). While the Department may extend deadlines when possible, and where there is good cause, here Peak submitted no explanation for why it was unable to submit its extension requests in a timely manner.

As noted above, Peak, had previously requested an extension for its Section C and D response before the applicable deadline, albeit very close to that deadline, and the Department advised Peak at that time that extension requests must be made well before the applicable deadline. 33 Accordingly, it was important for Peak to provide the Department adequate notice that it required additional time to submit the supplemental Section A questionnaire response in the current administrative review. Rather than doing so, Peak submitted two untimely extension requests, without providing any explanation or “good cause” within the meaning of section 351.302(b), for why it was unable to submit an extension request in a timely manner. The Department notes that Peak did so despite being cautioned on at least two occasions that all extension requests must be submitted before the deadline for the requested information. Peak's supplemental Section A response was submitted eleven days after the original deadline, without the Department having granted Peak's two untimely extension requests. 34 Therefore, we rejected Peak's supplemental Section A response as untimely pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(d). 35 Furthermore, the Department's decision to reject the submissions at issue is consistent with the general practice of rejecting untimely filed questionnaire responses. 36 The Department establishes appropriate deadlines to ensure that its ability to complete the proceeding is not jeopardized. We note that the CIT has long recognized the need to establish, and enforce, time limits for filing questionnaire responses, the purpose of which is to aid the Department in the administration of the dumping laws. 37

Accordingly, because the record lacks a complete Section A response  38 from Peak, which has contained information vital to our analyses of this respondent in prior reviews, the Department finds that the information necessary to calculate an accurate margin is not available on the record of this review. Further, because we issued questions regarding Peak's separate rate status  39 to which Peak did not timely respond, Peak did not establish its eligibility in this segment of the proceeding for a separate rate. As a result, we preliminarily find Peak to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Because the entity, which includes Peak, did not cooperate to the best of its ability, the record lacks the requisite data that is needed to reach a determination. Accordingly, the Department finds that the necessary information to calculate an accurate and reliable margin is not available on the record of this proceeding. The Department finds that because Peak, as part of the PRC-wide entity, failed to submit its response to the Department's Supplemental Section A questionnaire, the PRC-wide entity withheld the requested information, failed to provide the information in a timely manner and in the form requested, and significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act. On this basis, the Department finds that it must rely on the facts otherwise available to determine a margin for the PRC-wide entity in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act. 40

Section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority * * * {the Department} * * * may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” 41 Adverse inferences are appropriate to “ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” 42 In selecting an adverse inference, the Department may rely on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. 43

The Department determines that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Peak due to its failure to respond to all of the Department's questionnaires, has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in providing the requested information. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and section 776(b) of the Act, we find it appropriate to apply a margin to the PRC-wide entity based entirely on the facts available, and to apply an adverse inference. 44 By doing so, we ensure that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Peak, will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had it cooperated fully in this review.

The Department's practice is to select an AFA rate that is sufficiently adverse as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner and that ensures that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully. 45 Specifically, the Department's practice in reviews, when selecting a rate as total AFA, is to use the highest rate on the record of the proceeding which, to the extent practicable, can be corroborated. 46 The CIT and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) have affirmed decisions to select the highest margin from any prior segment of the proceeding as the AFA rate on numerous occasions. 47 Therefore, we are assigning the PRC-wide entity, which includes Peak, a rate of $2.63 per kilogram, which is the highest rate on the record of this proceeding and which was the rate assigned to the PRC-wide entity in the seventh administrative review of this proceeding, the most recent review that was not rescinded. 48

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available. To be considered corroborated, the Department must find the information has probative value, meaning that the information must be both reliable and relevant. 49 Secondary information is “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 {of the Act} concerning the subject merchandise.” 50 Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated margins. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses, as AFA, a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin. 51

The Department considers the AFA rate calculated for the current review as both reliable and relevant. On the issue of reliability, the adverse rate selected was calculated for another respondent, Anhui Native Produce Import & Export Corporation, during the sixth administrative review. 52 No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. With respect to the relevance, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. 53 This rate was assigned to the PRC-wide entity in a prior review which demonstrates its relevance to the PRC-wide entity. Furthermore, the selected AFA margin is based upon the calculated rate for another respondent in sixth administrative review of this proceeding, and thus reflects the commercial reality of a competitor in the same industry. 54 There is no information on the record to indicate that this rate is not relevant, as was the case in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico. For all these reasons, the Department finds that this rate is also relevant.

Given that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Peak, failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in this administrative review, it is appropriate to select an AFA rate that serves as an adequate deterrent in order to induce cooperation in the proceeding. The Federal Circuit held in KYD, that selecting the highest prior margin reflects “a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins because, if it were not so, the importer knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” 55 Here, Peak did not produce current information in a timely manner, as noted above. On this basis, we find that selecting the highest calculated rate of this proceeding is sufficiently relevant to the commercial reality for the PRC-wide entity, which includes Peak. Furthermore, there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is uncharacteristic of the industry, or otherwise inappropriate for use as AFA. Based upon the foregoing, we determine this rate to be relevant.

As the $2.63 per kilogram AFA rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value and is corroborated to the extent practicable, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. Therefore, we have assigned this rate as AFA to exports of the subject merchandise by the PRC-wide entity, which includes Peak.

We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty margin exists:

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are requested to provide a summary of the arguments 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, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, pursuant to the Department's e-filing regulations located at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/IA%20ACCESS%20User%20Guide.pdf. 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 raised in the respective case briefs.

The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the 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.

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we will calculate importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer). Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importers'/customers' entries during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

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, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of $2.63 per kilogram; and, (4) 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.

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 review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On July 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on PET Film from Taiwan. 1 On July 1, 2011, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the order. 2 In response, on July 29, 2011, Petitioners 3 requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Nan Ya's and Shinkong's sales of PET Film from Taiwan to the United States. Also on July 29, Shinkong requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales. On August 1, 2011, Nan Ya requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales. 4 On November 25, 2011, Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of Nan Ya. However, because Nan Ya requested a review of itself, there was no basis to rescind the review of Nan Ya.

On August 26, 2011, the Department initiated an administrative review of Shinkong and Nan Ya (collectively, the respondents). 5 On September 9, 2011, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to the respondents. On October 21 and 24, 2011, respectively, Shinkong and Nan Ya timely filed their Section A response. On November 14 and 18, 2011, respectively, Shinkong and Nan Ya timely filed their Section B, C, and D responses. On March 27, 2012, the Department extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this administrative review. 6

On April 11, 2012, Petitioners filed comments on Nan Ya's questionnaire response. Between April and July 2012, the Department issued several supplemental questionnaires separately on sections A, B, and C, and section D, to both Shinkong and Nan Ya requesting additional information. All responses were timely submitted. On July 9, 2012, Petitioners filed comments on both Nan Ya's and Shinkong's questionnaire responses. On July 17, 2012, Petitioners filed targeted dumping allegations for both Nan Ya and Shinkong.

For purposes of these preliminary results the Department did not conduct a targeted dumping analysis. In calculating the preliminary weighted-average dumping margins for the mandatory respondents, the Department applied the calculation methodology adopted in Final Modification for Reviews. 7 In particular, the Department compared monthly weighted-average export prices (EPs) (or constructed export prices (CEPs)) with monthly weighted-average NVs and granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted-average dumping margins. Application of this methodology in these preliminary results affords parties an opportunity to meaningfully comment on the Department's implementation of this recently adopted methodology in the context of this administrative review. The Department intends to continue to consider, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(c), whether another method is appropriate in these administrative reviews in light of the parties' pre-preliminary comments and any comments on the issue that parties may include in their case and rebuttal briefs.

The products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metalized 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 polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip are currently 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 antidumping duty order is dispositive.

The POR for this administrative review is July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011.

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if: (1) Necessary information is not on the record; or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, can be used without undue difficulties, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information supplied.

For the reasons discussed below, the Department determines that, in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the use of facts otherwise available is appropriate for the preliminary results with respect to Nan Ya's sales to certain importers in the United States. Because Nan Ya reported these sales as CEP sales, and we are treating these sales as EP sales for purposes of these preliminary results ( see “Affiliation of Nan Ya with U.S. Customers”), necessary information, the invoice date of these sales, is not available on the record.

The Department will treat two or more affiliated producers as a single entity where: (1) those producers have production facilities for similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility; and (2) there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). Consistent with the most recently completed administrative review, the Department preliminarily determines that SSFC and SMTC should be treated as a single entity ( i.e., Shinkong) for purposes of calculating an antidumping margin pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). 8

SMTC was established in October 2004 and it is a subsidiary of SSFC. In the past, SSFC and SMTC both produced similar or identical merchandise, including subject merchandise. At the start of the current POR, on July 1, 2010, SSFC sold its equipment and machinery to its subsidiary SMTC, and SSFC stopped producing subject merchandise. 9 However, the equipment remained at SSFC's facility and SSFC charged SMTC a plant management fee. Similar to the structure of companies the Department found affiliated in Pipe Fittings from Italy   10 and Shrimp from Brazil,   11 because SSFC is the majority shareholder of SMTC, the level of common ownership between SSFC and SMTC is such that operations are so intertwined that they are integral to the operations of each other. Shinkong reported that the management of the two companies is commingled and that SSFC and SMTC are effectively managed and operated as one company. 12 Thus, we find that the two companies could switch roles and restructure manufacturing priorities such that there is a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production and that, according to our practice, they satisfy the first criteria of 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). With regard to the significant potential for manipulation pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2), we find that, because SMTC has a fully functioning facility for producing the subject merchandise, which is located on the same premises and is controlled by SSFC, 13 the role of producer and seller could easily switch from SMTC to SSFC without substantial retooling at either company. We also found that the majority ownership of SMTC by SSFC demonstrates a significant potential for manipulation of price or production between the two companies. In addition, the sale of the production equipment to SMTC without its relocation; the imposition of a plant management fee by SSFC on SMTC; and, the provision of major inputs at cost by SSFC to SMTC demonstrate that production operations are intertwined. Furthermore, the commingled management highlights that the companies are effectively operated and managed as one. Therefore, because both 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2) are met, we are continuing to collapse SSFC and SMTC, and treat them as a single entity, Shinkong, for these preliminary results.

In the less-than-fair-value investigation  14 and subsequent administrative reviews, 15 the Department determined that Nan Ya, through a family grouping, was in a position of legal and operational control of three of its U.S. customers, in accordance with section 771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We found that members of a family involved in the ownership and management of Nan Ya also shared ownership and management of three U.S. importers, and that this family possessed the potential to act in concert or act out of common interest to exert restraint or direction over the activities of these U.S. companies.

In the last administrative review that analyzed Nan Ya's affiliation with these three U.S. importers that purchased and sold the subject merchandise, Nan Ya reported that the 2008 death of its Chairman, Mr. Y.C. Wang, dissolved the family ties and common ownership interests such that there was no longer an affiliation between Nan Ya and these three U.S. importers. However, the Department found that Nan Ya had not provided sufficient information to warrant the reconsideration of our prior affiliation finding. 16 Nan Ya now has provided information in the instant review regarding both the disposition of Mr. Y.C. Wang's assets and the current ownership and corporate structure of Nan Ya and the three U.S. importers that the Department found affiliated in past proceedings. 17 Our analysis of this information indicates that following the death of the Chairman, and distribution of his assets to his heirs, there was no longer any evidence of control of Nan Ya by the family unit. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Nan Ya is no longer affiliated with these three U.S. customers; as such, we are treating all of Nan Ya's U.S. sales as EP sales. For further discussion of the business proprietary ownership information, see the Nan Ya affiliation memorandum. 18

In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the volume of Shinkong's and Nan Ya's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of their U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(b). Based on this comparison, we found that both companies' aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, and have determined that both Shinkong's and Nan Ya's home markets were viable during the POR for comparison purposes.

To determine whether sales of PET Film were made at less than NV, we compared the respondents' EP sales made in the United States to unaffiliated customers to NV, as described below in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1) and (d), we compared EP to NV of the foreign like product in the appropriate corresponding calendar month where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Further, we granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted-average dumping margin. 19

Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, we determined that products sold by the respondents, as described in the “Scope of the Order” section above, in Taiwan during the POR are foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. For product comparisons, we relied on five criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales (in order of importance): grade, specification, thickness, thickness range, and surface treatment. 20 Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

The Department normally uses invoice date as date of sale, consistent with 19 CFR 351.401(i). In prior administrative reviews, 21 the Department used invoice date as the date of sale. In this review, and as explained further below, the Department continues to find that invoice date should be used as the date of sale for both respondents.

With respect to the specific invoice date the Department is using for Shinkong, this respondent reported that, on occasion, before subject merchandise was shipped, changes to the terms of sale occurred at the customer's request or because of Shinkong's production capacity. According to Shinkong, during the POR, for home market sales and for sales to the United States, the terms of sale were finalized in the Government Uniform Invoice (GUI). 22 As such, we preliminarily determine that for sales in the home market, and for sales to the United States made through domestic trading companies, the GUI date is the date on which the material terms of sale are finalized. 23 Therefore, this invoice date is the most appropriate date to use as Shinkong's date of sale. For sales made directly to U.S. customers, Shinkong explained that it issues its commercial invoice after production of subject merchandise is completed, at which time the terms of sale have been finalized. 24 Therefore, we preliminarily determine that, for sales made directly to the U.S. market, the commercial invoice date is the most appropriate invoice date to use as Shinkong's date of sale in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), except when shipment date predates invoice date. In those instances, and consistent with the Department's practice, we have used shipment date instead of invoice date as the date of sale. 25

Nan Ya reported the GUI invoice date as the date of sale in the home market during the POR, because Nan Ya allows the customer to change the order quantity after the date of the confirmed purchase order. 26 As such, we preliminarily determine that for sales in the home market, the GUI date is the invoice date on which the material terms of sale are finalized, and is therefore the most appropriate date to use as Nan Ya's date of sale.

Nan Ya requested that the Department use the sales confirmation date as the date of sale for its reported EP sales because, according to Nan Ya, that is the date on which the material terms of sale are established ( i.e., price and major product characteristics such as specification, thickness, and surface treatment). 27 In addition, Nan Ya reported that it establishes a sales confirmation ceiling for total weight by always entering 19,000 kg., which represents the capacity of one order container as a cushion for changes in production conditions. This allows importers to change the width and length of the product, and in rare cases, to add an additional roll, provided that the resulting weight is within the ceiling established on the sales confirmation. 28 Nan Ya also reported that there were a number of instances of sale changes by type and frequency for its reported U.S. sales that included other changes in addition to the product's width and length. 29

The Department's regulation establishes a presumption for invoice date which may be overcome when a party demonstrates that the material terms of sale such as price and quantity are established on another date. Nan Ya has not demonstrated that the material terms of sale are established on sales confirmation date. Nan Ya allows for changes after the sales confirmation that alters the product, which occurs after the sales confirmation date. Indeed, the record evidence demonstrates that all final alterations to the product and the actual weight are determined at the time of invoicing when the product is released to the customer. 30 Thus, we preliminarily determine that the invoice date is the appropriate date to use as Nan Ya's date of sale in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i).

As noted above in the “Affiliation of Nan Ya with U.S. Customers” section, the Department has preliminarily determined that Nan Ya is no longer affiliated with certain U.S. importers and we now find all of Nan Ya's U.S. sales to be EP sales. However, because Nan Ya reported some of these sales as CEP sales, it did not provide its invoice date for these sales but provided the date of the purchase order between the U.S. importers and their unaffiliated customers as the date of sale. Because we have determined that the invoice date is the most appropriate date to use as Nan Ya's date of sale, necessary information, the invoice date of these sales, is missing from the record for NanYa's reported CEP sales, and we must rely on the facts available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.

As facts available, we have constructed an invoice date using the adjusted purchase order date as explained below. For the sales it had identified as CEP sales, Nan Ya reported the date of the purchase order between the U.S. importers and their unaffiliated customers as the date of sale. In addition, Nan Ya explained that for all of its U.S. importers, “{o}nce a purchase order is issued by the U.S. customer of the importer to the importer, the latter will place purchase orders via email or facsimile with Nan Ya.”  31 Therefore, we have relied on the date of the purchase order between the U.S. customer and the importer to establish the date on which Nan Ya's U.S. importers issued purchase orders to Nan Ya. In order to derive the date on which Nan Ya issued its invoice for these sales, we relied on information on the record that indicates that Nan Ya issues its invoice when the merchandise is released to the customer, which is generally 30 to 60 days after the confirmed export order. 32 For purposes of these preliminary results, we have derived Nan Ya's invoice date for these sales by adding 45 days to the date on which the purchase order was received by Nan Ya from these U.S. importers. Because this change affects the calculation of credit expenses for some of the reported CEP sales that have been reclassified as EP sales, we have used, as facts available, the average credit expense for all reported EP sales to reflect this expense if it was incurred by the U.S. importer when purchasing subject merchandise from Nan Ya. After these preliminary results, we intend to gather information from Nan Ya to establish the actual date of Nan Ya's invoice and credit expenses for these sales.

In calculating the U.S. price for Shinkong and Nan Ya, we used EP, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because sales to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer occurred before importation. 33 We based EP on packed prices to customers in the United States. We made deductions from U.S. price for the following movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: domestic inland freight from plant to port of exportation, brokerage and handling incurred in the country of manufacture, marine insurance, and international freight.

Pursuant to 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, because the Department disregarded certain of Shinkong's and Nan Ya's sales in the most recently completed reviews of this order, 34 the Department had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Shinkong and Nan Ya made home market sales at prices below the cost of production (COP) in this review. As a result, the Department is directed under section 773(b) of the Act to determine whether Shinkong and Nan Ya made home market sales during the POR at prices below COP.

The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual weighted-average cost for the entire POR. 35 This methodology is predictable and generally applicable in all proceedings. However, the Department recognizes that distortions may result if our normal annual average cost method is used during a period of significant cost changes. Under such circumstances, in determining whether to deviate from our normal methodology of calculating an annual weighted average cost, the Department has evaluated the case-specific record evidence using two primary factors: (1) Whether the change in the cost of manufacturing (COM) experienced by the respondent during the POR is significant; and (2) whether the record evidence indicates that sales prices during the shorter averaging periods could be reasonably linked with the COP or constructed value (CV) during the same shorter averaging periods. 36

Record evidence shows that Shinkong and Nan Ya experienced significant changes in the total COM during the POR and that the changes in COM are primarily attributable to the price volatility for purified terephthalic acid (PTA) and mono ethylene glycol (MEG), 37 the main inputs consumed in the production of the merchandise under consideration. Specifically, the record data shows that the percentage difference between the high and low quarterly COM exceeded 25 percent during the POR. As a result, we have determined that for these preliminary results the changes in COM for Shinkong and Nan Ya are significant.

The Department also evaluates whether there is evidence of linkage between the cost changes and the sales prices for the given POR. Absent a surcharge or other pricing mechanism, the Department may alternatively look for evidence of a pattern that changes in selling prices reasonably correlate to changes in unit costs. 38 To determine whether a reasonable correlation existed between the sales prices and underlying costs during the POR, we compared weighted-average quarterly prices to the corresponding quarterly COM for the control numbers with the highest volume of sales in the comparison market and in the United States. Our comparison revealed that the quarterly cost and quarterly sales prices for Shinkong and Nan Ya appear to be reasonably correlated during this period of significant cost changes.

In light of the two factors, we preliminarily find that it is appropriate to rely on a quarterly costing approach with respect to both Shinkong and Nan Ya. Thus, we used quarterly average PTA and EG costs and annual weighted-average fabrication costs in the COP calculations. For further discussion of this issue, see the Shinkong and Nan Ya cost adjustments memoranda. 39

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated quarterly COP based on the sum of Shinkong's and Nan Ya's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative expenses (G&A), interest expenses and home market packing costs. These calculations include revisions by the Department to the COP information reported by Shinkong and Nan Ya, consistent with Department practice. 40

On a product-specific basis, we compared the revised COP figures to home market prices net of applicable billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, movement charges, selling expenses, and packing to determine whether home market sales had been made at prices below COP. In the last review for Shinkong, we ignored the grade product characteristic reported by Shinkong when calculating product-specific costs, as grade differences are the result of inadvertent errors in production that lead to different qualities of PET Film and not the result of variances in production processes or costs. However, in this review, Shinkong reports a difference in grade based on internal PET film cost codes and therefore, different grades result in different weighted average unit COP. 41 Thus, we have included the grade product characteristic in calculating product-specific costs.

In determining whether to disregard Shinkong's and Nan Ya's home market sales that were made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a given product was sold at prices less than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a given product was sold at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below cost sales if: (1) they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our comparison of prices to weighted-average COP figures for the POR, they were made at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. As stated in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, prices are considered to provide for recovery of costs if such prices are above the weighted average per-unit COP for the period of investigation or review. In light of the Court's directives in SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010), and SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, 764 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2011) to use an unadjusted annual average cost for purposes of the cost recovery test, in the instant review we have used the approach which we adopted recently to test for cost recovery when using a shorter cost period methodology. 42 Using the methodology adopted in SPT from Turkey, we calculated a control-number-specific weighted-average annual price using only those sales that were made below their quarterly COP, and compared the resulting weighted-average price to the annual weighted-average cost per control number. If the annual weighted-average price per control number was above the annual weighted-average cost per control number then we considered those sales to have provided for the recovery of costs and restored all such sales to the NV pool of comparison-market sales available for comparison with U.S. sales. For further details regarding the cost recovery methodology and the application of our shorter-cost period methodology, see Shinkong Cost Adjustments Memorandum and Nan Ya Cost Adjustments Memorandum.

We calculated NV based on packed prices ( i.e. , including costs for packing) to unaffiliated customers in the home market. 43 We used Shinkong's and Nan Ya's adjustments and deductions as reported. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons involving similar merchandise, we made adjustments for cost differences attributable to the physical differences between the products compared, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in the circumstances of sale, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, specifically for imputed credit expenses. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

We found that for certain products, more than 20 percent of Shinkong's home market sales were made at prices below COP and, in addition, these below cost sales were made within an extended period of time and in substantial quantities. In addition, pursuant to the cost recovery analysis described above, we found that these sales were at prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore disregarded these sales from the calculation of NV and used the remaining home market sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the prices at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer; i.e. , sales to home market affiliates must be at arm's-length. 44 Sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home market that are determined not to be at arm's-length are excluded from our analysis. To test whether sales are made at arm's-length prices, the Department compares the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c), and in accordance with the Department's practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party are, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determine that the sales to the affiliated party are at arm's-length. 45

In this proceeding, both Shinkong and Nan Ya reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated customers who consumed the purchased material. Some of Shinkong's and all of Nan Ya's sales to these affiliated home market customers did not pass the arm's-length test, and were therefore excluded from our analysis. 46

After disregarding certain sales as below cost, as described above, home market sales of contemporaneous identical and similar products existed that allowed for price-to-price comparisons for all margin calculations for both Shinkong and Nan Ya. Therefore, the Department did not need to rely on constructed value for any calculations for these preliminary results.

Pursuant to section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we made currency conversions for Shinkong's and Nan Ya's sales based on the daily exchange rates in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. 47 In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( i.e. , the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( i.e. , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 48 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 49

When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it possible, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( i.e. , no LOT adjustment is possible), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. 50

In implementing these principles, we examined information provided by Shinkong regarding the selling functions involved in its home market and U.S. sales, including a description of these selling functions, provided in Exhibit 8 of Shinkong's October 21, 2011 response and Exhibit 12 of Shinkong's May 24, 2012 response. Shinkong reported that in the home market it made sales to affiliated end users, unaffiliated end users and to unaffiliated distributors, and that all selling functions were performed at the same or similar levels of intensity in all channels of distribution. We examined the following three activities performed in the comparison market: (1) Sales and marketing (sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, order input/processing, etc. ); (2) freight and delivery (including packing); and (3) technical service/warranties. Based on our analysis, we find that Shinkong performed the same selling functions in all three categories to the same or similar degree in all channels of distribution with the exception of rebates, which were provided at a low level only to distributors. Because all comparison market sales are made through these channels of distribution, and Shinkong's selling activities did not vary significantly in intensity among these channels, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the comparison market for Shinkong.

Shinkong reported that sales in the U.S. market were only made to distributors during the POR. Shinkong provided information which consolidated all of the selling activities performed for U.S. sales into this one channel of distribution. 51 These selling activities were grouped into the following three activities: (1) Sales and marketing (sales negotiation, strategic/economic planning, order input/processing, etc. ); (2) freight and delivery (including packing); and (3) technical services/warranties. Since Shinkong's sales to the U.S. importers were only made through one channel of distribution, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.

Finally, we compared the U.S. market LOT to the home market LOT and found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and comparison home market customers do not differ, as Shinkong performed the same selling functions at the same relative or similar level of intensity in both markets, with the previously noted exception of rebates. There was no substantial difference in these selling activities, therefore, we preliminarily determine that sales to the U.S. and comparison market during the POR were made at the same LOT and, as a result, no LOT adjustment is warranted. These findings are consistent with determinations in past segments of this proceeding based on similar record evidence. 52

With regard to Nan Ya, because the Department preliminarily determines that Nan Ya is no longer affiliated with certain U.S. customers as discussed in the “Affiliation of Nan Ya with U.S. Customers” section, above, all of the U.S. sales are preliminarily determined to be EP sales. We obtained information from Nan Ya regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by Nan Ya respondent for each channel of distribution.

In this administrative review, with respect to the comparison market, Nan Ya reported that it made sales to both unaffiliated end users and to unaffiliated distributors, and that most selling functions were performed at the same or similar levels of intensity in both channels of distribution. We examined the following three activities performed in the comparison market: (1) Sales and marketing (sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, order input/processing, etc. ); (2) freight and delivery (including packing); and (3) technical service warranties. Based on our analysis, we find that Nan Ya performed the selling functions in all three categories to the same or similar degree in both channels of distribution. 53 Because all comparison market sales are made through these two channels of distribution, and the selling activities to Nan Ya's customers did not vary between theses channels, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the comparison market for Nan Ya.

Nan Ya reported that its sales to the U.S. market were only made to distributors during the POR. 54 Nan Ya provided information which consolidated all of the selling activities performed for U.S. sales into this one channel of distribution. These selling activities were grouped into the following three activities: (1) Sales and marketing (sales negotiation, strategic/economic planning, order input/processing, etc. ); (2) freight and delivery (including packing); and (3) technical services/warranties. 55 Since Nan Ya's sales to the U.S. importers were only made through one channel of distribution, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.

Finally, we compared the U.S. market LOT to the home market LOT and found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and comparison home market customers do not differ significantly, as Nan Ya performed the selling functions at the same relative or similar level of intensity in both markets. Nan Ya reported that it conducts more sales activities in the home market than in the U.S. market with respect to sales negotiations and post-sales technical services. 56 Our examination of the selling and marketing activities in the instant review shows that almost all of the selling functions in the home market between end-use customers and distributors are the same. 57 However, we do not find these home market activities or the level of intensity at which they are performed, to be significantly different from the selling and marketing activities performed in the U.S. market. Where some differences appear to exist between the U.S. and comparison markets, the narrative explanations show them to be more similar than different ( e.g. , the sales process does not differ by channel of distribution in either the U.S. or home market; the same process is used for handling technical inquiries in both the U.S. and home market; and Nan Ya hires outside carriers to deliver the merchandise to both its customers in the home market and to the port of export). 58 Therefore, we preliminarily determine that sales to the U.S. and comparison market during the POR were made at the same LOT and, as a result, no LOT adjustment is warranted. These findings are consistent with determinations in past segments of this proceeding based on similar record evidence. 59

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average antidumping duty margins exist for the period July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by Shinkong and Nan Ya. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. 60 However, where the respondents do not report the entered value for their sales, we calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit duty assessment rates. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of PET Film from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the all others rate for this proceeding, 2.40 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . 61 Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 62 If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department typically requests that interested parties submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. However, we plan to issue a post-preliminary supplemental questionnaire and, therefore, will be extending the case brief deadline. The Department will inform interested parties of the updated briefing schedule when it has been confirmed. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 63 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register , unless otherwise extended. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On February 8, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register its negative preliminary determination that Evraz's imports of vanadium pentoxide from Russia that are toll-converted into ferrovanadium in the United States by Bear are not circumventing the antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia, 2 pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act. 3

AMG Vanadium Inc. (AMG Vanadium) and Bear submitted case briefs on March 23, 2012. Both of these parties and Evraz submitted rebuttal briefs on March 28, 2012. We held both a public and a closed hearing on May 3, 2012.

The products subject to this order are ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium, regardless of grade, chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of this order. Ferrovanadium includes alloys containing ferrovanadium as the predominant element by weight ( i.e., more weight than any other element, except iron in some instances) and at least 4 percent by weight of iron. Nitrided vanadium includes compounds containing vanadium as the predominant element, by weight, and at least 5 percent, by weight, of nitrogen. Excluded from the scope of the order are vanadium additives other than ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium, such as vanadium-aluminum master alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium waste and scrap, vanadium-bearing raw materials, such as slag, boiler residues, fly ash, and vanadium oxides.

The products subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 2850.00.20, 7202.92.00, 7202.99.50.40, 8112.40.30.00, and 8112.40.60.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

The product subject to this anticircumvention inquiry is vanadium pentoxide (V 2 O 5 ) from Russia, which is usually in a granular form and may contain other substances, including silica (SiO 2 ), manganese, and sulfur, and which is converted into ferrovanadium in the United States. Such merchandise is classifiable under subheading 2825.30.0010 of the HTSUS. This inquiry only covers such products that are imported by the Evraz Group and converted into ferrovanadium in the United States by Bear.

Section 781(a) of the Act provides that the Department may find circumvention of an antidumping duty order when merchandise of the same class or kind subject to the order is completed or assembled in the United States. In conducting anticircumvention inquiries under section 781(a)(1) of the Act, the Department determines whether (A) merchandise sold in the United States is of the same class or kind as any other merchandise produced in a foreign country that is the subject of an antidumping duty order; (B) such merchandise sold in the United States is completed or assembled in the United States from parts or components produced in the foreign country with respect to which the antidumping duty order applies; (C) the process of assembly or completion in the United States is minor or insignificant; and (D) the value of the parts or components referred to in (B) is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise.

With regard to sub-part (C), section 781(a)(2) of the Act specifies that the Department “shall take into account: (A) The level of investment in the United States; (B) the level of research and development in the United States; (C) the nature of the production process in the United States, (D) the extent of production facilities in the United States; and (E) whether the value of the processing performed in the United States represents a small proportion of the value of the merchandise sold in the United States.”

In addition, the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 893 (1994), states that no single factor listed in section 781(a)(2) of the Act will be controlling. The SAA also states that the Department will evaluate each of the factors as they exist in the United States depending on the particular circumvention scenario. See id. Therefore, the importance of any one of the factors listed under 781(a)(2) of the Act can vary from case to case depending on the particular circumstances unique to each specific circumvention inquiry.

Further, section 781(a)(3) of the Act directs the Department to consider, in determining whether to include parts or components produced in a foreign country within the scope of an antidumping duty order, such factors as: (A) The pattern of trade, including sourcing patterns; (B) whether the manufacturer or exporter of the parts or components is affiliated with the person who assembles or completes the merchandise sold in the United States from the parts or components produced in the foreign country with respect to which the order applies; and (C) whether imports into the United States of the parts or components produced in such foreign country have increased after the initiation of the investigation which resulted in the issuance of such order or finding.

We considered all of the comments submitted by the interested parties and find, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act, that circumvention of the antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia is not occurring by reason of imports of vanadium pentoxide from Russia by the Evraz Group that are toll-converted into ferrovanadium by Bear.

As we explained in the Preliminary Determination, in order to make an affirmative determination of circumvention, all the criteria under section 781(a)(1) of the Act must be satisfied. In addition, section 781(a)(3) of the Act instructs the Department to consider, in determining whether to include parts or components within the scope of an order, such factors as pattern of trade, affiliation, and import volume.

With respect to the four criteria under section 781(a)(1) of the Act, we find that three of the four criteria have been satisfied. Specifically, (A) the merchandise sold in the United States, ferrovanadium, is of the same class or kind as any other merchandise that is the subject of the antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium from Russia; (B) the ferrovanadium sold in the United States is completed in the United States from parts or components ( i.e., vanadium pentoxide), produced in Russia; and (D) the value of the Russian-produced vanadium pentoxide used in the production of ferrovanadium in the United States is a significant portion of the total value of the ferrovanadium sold in the United States. However, as discussed in detail in the Preliminary Determination and in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Negative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order on Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium from the Russian Federation (dated concurrently with this notice) (Decision Memo), based on our analysis of all the relevant factors under section 781(a)(2) of the Act and the record information, we do not find that the remaining criterion at section 781(a)(1)(C) of the Act, the process of assembly or completion in the United States is minor or insignificant, has been satisfied.

Pursuant to section 781(a)(3) of the Act, we also considered the additional factors concerning the pattern of trade, affiliation, and import trends after the initiation of the investigation which resulted in the antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium from Russia. Our analysis of these factors, as discussed in the Preliminary Determination and the Decision Memo, when viewed in conjunction with our analysis of the other statutory criteria under sections 781(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act, do not support including vanadium pentoxide in the antidumping duty order.

All issues raised by the interested parties to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and are addressed in the Decision Memo, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The Decision Memo is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic system (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision Memo and the electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Based on the analysis under section 781(a) of the Act, summarized above and detailed in the Decision Memo, we determine that circumvention of the antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia is not occurring by reason of Evraz's imports of vanadium pentoxide from Russia that are toll-converted into ferrovanadium by Bear in the United States.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

This final negative circumvention determination is published in accordance with section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225.