[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4590-4592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1759]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-814]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Japan; 
Preliminary Results and Termination, in Part, of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and termination, in part, of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from one respondent and one U.S. 
producer, the Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene 
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from Japan. The review 
covers two manufacturers/exporters of this merchandise to the United 
States, Toray Industries, Inc. (Toray), and Teijin, Ltd. (Teijin), and 
the period June 1, 1992 through May 31, 1993. We are now terminating 
this review, in part, with respect to a third company, Diafoil Co., 
Ltd. (Diafoil).
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct 
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference 
between the United States price (USP) and FMV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur N. DuBois or Thomas F. Futtner, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
6312/3814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 7, 1993, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity 
to Request an Administrative Review'' (58 FR 31941) of the antidumping 
duty order on PET film (56 FR 25660, June 5, 1991). On June 30, 1993, 
one respondent, Toray, requested an administrative review and one U.S. 
producer, Toray Plastics America (TPA), requested an administrative 
review for two other Japanese manufacturers/exporters of PET film, 
Teijin and Diafoil. We initiated the review, covering June 1, 1992, 
through May 31, 1993, on July 21, 1993 (58 FR 39007).

Termination in Part

    On February 4, 1994, TPA withdrew its request for review and 
requested that the Department terminate this review, in part, with 
respect to Diafoil. Section 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) of the Department's 
regulations stipulates that the Secretary may permit a party that 
requests a review to withdraw the request not later than 90 days after 
the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested 
review. This regulation also provides that the Secretary may extend the 
time limit for withdrawal of a request if it is reasonable to do so. 
Because no other interested party has requested an administrative 
review of Diafoil for this period, we are waiving the 90-day 
requirement in section 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) and terminating this review, 
in part, with respect to Diafoil. The Department has now conducted the 
review of the two remaining companies in accordance with section 751 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by the review are shipments of all gauges of raw, 
pretreated, or primed PET film, sheet, and strip, whether extruded or 
co-extruded. The films excluded from the scope of this order are 
metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of 
their surfaces modified by the application of performance-enhancing 
resin or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches (0.254 micrometers) 
thick. Roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its 
surfaces modified by the application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex 
has also been ruled as not within the scope of the order.
    PET film is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00.00. The HTS subheading is provided for 
convenience and for Customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive.
    The review covers two Japanese manufacturers/exporters of this 
merchandise to the United States and the period June 1, 1992, through 
May 31, 1993.

United States Price (USP)

    We calculated the USP based on purchase price, for both Toray and 
Teijin as all U.S. sales were made to unrelated parties prior to 
importation into the United States, in accordance with section 772(b) 
of the Act.
    For both Toray and Teijin, we calculated purchase price based on 
f.o.b. Japanese port or delivered U.S. customer prices. We also made 
deductions, where appropriate, for price adjustments (rebates) for the 
costs of foreign inland freight and insurance, bank charges, 
containerization, warehousing, commissions, credit insurance, inventory 
carrying charges, other expenses, compensation for credit expense, 
foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
duty, harbor and U.S. [[Page 4591]] Customs user fees, U.S. brokerage 
and handling, and U.S. inland freight and insurance in accordance with 
section 772(d)(2) of the Act.
    In addition, we adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our 
practice outlined in Siliconmagnanese from Venezuela, Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 
1994.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

    In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of PET 
film in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating FMV, 
we compared the volume of home market sales of PET film to the volume 
of third country sales of PET film, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1) of the Act. Each respondent had a viable home market with 
respect to sales of PET film made during the period of review (POR).
    For both Toray and Teijin, we utilized annual weight-averaged FMVs 
for purposes of comparison. For Toray, we calculated annual FMV's based 
on delivered prices to unrelated customers in the home market. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.45(a) we did not use related party sales 
because the prices to related parties were determined not to be at 
arm's length. We made deductions, where appropriate, for rebates, and 
post-sale inland freight. We deducted home market packing cost and 
added U.S. packing costs.
    For Teijin, we calculated annual FMV's based on delivered prices to 
unrelated and related customers in the home market.
    These related party sales were determined to be at arm's length, in 
accordance with section 353.45(a) of our regulations. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for rebates and post-sale inland freight 
and insurance. We deducted home market packing cost and added U.S. 
packing costs.
    For both Teijin and Toray we made a difference-in-merchandise 
adjustments, where appropriate, based on differences in the variable 
cost of manufacture. For both Toray and Teijin, pursuant to 19 CFR 
353.56, we also made circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where 
appropriate, for differences in claim compensation expenses, post-sale 
warehousing expenses, credit expenses and credit interest revenue. 
Finally, we adjusted for Japanese consumption taxes in accordance with 
our decision in Siliconmagnanese from Venezuela, Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 
1994.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period June 1, 1992, through May 31, 
1993:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                Manufacturer/producer/exporter                   percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toray.........................................................      0.33
Teijin........................................................     7.18 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
De minimis.                                                             

    Case briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be 
submitted no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed not later 
than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice.
    Within 10 days of the date of publication of this notice, 
interested parties to this proceeding may request a disclosure and/or a 
hearing. The hearing, if requested, will take place not later than 44 
days after publication of this notice. Persons interested in attending 
the hearing should contact the Department for the date and time of the 
hearing.
    The Department will subsequently publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written comments or a hearing.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated 
above. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service upon completion of this review.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of our final results of review for all shipments of 
the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after that publication date of the final results of 
this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Act:
    (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be those 
rates established in the final results of this review, except for rates 
which are less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash 
deposit will be zero;
    (2) The cash deposit rate for subject merchandise exported by 
manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review, but covered in 
previous reviews or in the original LTFV investigation, will be based 
upon the most recently published rate in a final result or 
determination for which the manufacturer or exporter received a 
company-specific rate;
    (3) The cash deposit rate for subject merchandise exported by an 
exporter not covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 
investigation, but where the manufacturer of the merchandise has been 
covered by this or a prior final results or determination, will be 
based upon the most recently published company-specific rate for that 
manufacturer; and
    (4) The cash deposit rate for merchandise exported by all other 
manufacturers and exporters, who are not covered by these or any 
previous administrative review conducted by the Department, will be the 
``all others'' rate established in the less than fair value 
investigation.
    On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT), in Floral 
Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp 766, and Federal-Mogul 
Corporation v. United States, 839 F.Supp 864, decided that once an 
``all others'' rate is established for a company, it can only be 
changed through an administrative review. The Department has determined 
that, in order to implement these decisions, it is appropriate to 
reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation 
(or that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a 
result of litigation) in the proceeding governed by antidumping duty 
orders.
    Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty order, 
the ``all others'' rate will be 6.32 percent, the ``all others'' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation (56 FR 25660, June 5, 1991).
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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.
    This administrative review, termination in part, and notice are in 
accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.

    [[Page 4592]] Dated: January 12, 1995.
Paul L. Joffe,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-1759 Filed 1-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P