[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5622-5623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2233]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-707]


Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by a respondent and petitioners, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on granular 
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Japan. The review period is 
August 1, 1992, through July 31, 1993. This review covers one company, 
Daikin Industries, Ltd. As a result of the review, the Department has 
preliminarily determined that dumping margins exist for the respondent. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle or Michael Rill, 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-
4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 3, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (58 FR 
41239) of the antidumping duty order on granular PTFE resin from Japan 
(53 FR 32287, August 24, 1988). Respondent Daikin Industries, Ltd., and 
petitioners E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Company and ICI Americas, Inc., 
requested an administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a) 
(1993). On September 30, 1993, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of this review (58 FR 51053), which covers the period August 
1, 1992, through July 31, 1993. The Department is now conducting this 
review pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

    The antidumping duty order covers granular PTFE resins, filled or 
unfilled. The order explicitly excludes PTFE dispersions in water and 
PTFE fine powders. During the period covered by this review, such 
merchandise was classified under item number 3904.61.90 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). We are providing this HTS number for 
convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of scope 
remains dispositive.
    The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of granular PTFE resin, 
Daikin Industries, Ltd. (Daikin). The period of review is August 1, 
1992, through July 31, 1993.

United States Price

    In calculating United States price (USP), the Department determined 
both purchase price (PP) and exporter's sales price (ESP), as defined 
in section 772 of the Tariff Act, to be appropriate. All sales were 
made through Daikin America, Inc. (DAI), a related sales agent in the 
United States, to an unrelated purchaser. However, whenever sales are 
made prior to the date of importation through a related sales agent in 
the United States, we typically determine that PP is the most 
appropriate determinant of the USP if:
    1. The merchandise in question was shipped directly from the 
manufacturer to the unrelated buyer, without being introduced into the 
inventory of the related shipping agent;
    2. Direct shipment from the manufacturer to the unrelated buyers 
was the customary commercial channel for sales of this merchandise 
between the parties involved; and
    3. The related selling agent in the United States acted only as a 
processor of sales-related documentation and a communication link with 
the unrelated U.S. buyers.
    Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 50343, 50344 (September 
27, 1993); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: New 
Minivans From Japan, 57 FR 21937, 21945 (May 26, 1992).
    For Daikin's sales which satisfy the criteria listed above, we 
regard the routine selling functions of the exporter as merely having 
been relocated from the country of exportation to the United States, 
where the sales agent performs them. Whether these functions take place 
in the United States or abroad does not change the substance of the 
transactions or the functions themselves, and we therefore treated 
these sales as PP transactions in accordance with Sec. 353.41(b) of the 
Department's regulations.
    During the period of review DAI began to inventory subject 
merchandise in the United States based on anticipated demand. Where 
DAI's role included warehousing responsibilities in addition to routine 
selling functions, such that the date of importation preceded the date 
of sale, we regarded sales of such merchandise as ESP sales in 
accordance with Sec. 353.41(c) of the Department's regulations.
    We based PP and ESP on the packed, delivered price to unrelated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where applicable, 
for foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, ocean 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland 
freight, U.S. duty, U.S. harbor fees and merchandise processing fees, 
and inland insurance, in accordance with section 772(d) of the Tariff 
Act. We also treated certain early payment discounts as reductions in 
price, and deducted them accordingly, in accordance with the 
Department's policy. See Sonco Steel Tube Div. v. United States, 714 
F.Supp 1218, 1222 (CIT 1989). For ESP sales we also made deductions, 
where applicable, for credit expense, replacement of defective 
merchandise, commissions paid to unrelated selling agents in the United 
States and indirect selling expenses, in accordance with section 772(e) 
of the Tariff Act.
    We made an addition to USP for the Japanese consumption tax in 
accordance with our practice as set forth in Silicomanganese From 
Venezuela; Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
(Silicomanganese), 59 FR 31204 (June 17, 1994).

Foreign Market Value

    Based on a comparison of the volume of home market and third 
country sales, we determined that the home market was viable. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act, 
we based FMV on the packed, delivered price to unrelated purchasers in 
the home market.
    In the preceding administrative review we found that Daikin made 
home market sales below the cost of production (COP). Therefore, in 
accordance with our standard practice, we also conducted a COP 
investigation during the current administrative review. We calculated 
COP as the sum of Daikin's reported materials, labor, factory overhead, 
and general expenses. [[Page 5623]] We compared COP to home market 
prices, net of movement charges, price adjustments, and discounts.
    As a result of our COP investigation, we found no below-cost sales, 
and therefore did not disregard any home market sales as being below 
cost.
    We calculated FMV on a monthly weighted-average basis. We compared 
all U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise in Japan. In 
accordance with our practice in this case, we disregarded sample sales 
as being outside the ordinary course of trade. The sales in question 
represent small quantities of granular PTFE resin sold to testing 
facilities in Japan at prices substantially higher than the prices of 
the vast majority of Daikin's sales. Further, the sales in question 
were not for consumption, but for evaluation purposes. See PTFE Resin 
From Japan, 58 FR at 50345.
    Where applicable, we made deductions for inland freight, discounts, 
and post-shipment price adjustments. To adjust for differences in 
circumstances of sale between the home market and the United States, we 
first deducted direct selling expenses incurred in the home market, 
which included credit and replacement of defective merchandise. For 
comparison to PP sales, we then added direct selling expenses incurred 
in the United States for replacement of defective merchandise, credit, 
and commissions (because no commissions were paid in the home market). 
Where applicable, in accordance with Sec. 353.56(b)(1) of the 
Department's regulations, we offset U.S. commissions by deducting home 
market indirect selling expenses from FMV in an amount not exceeding 
those commissions. For comparison to ESP sales, in accordance with 
Sec. 353.56(b)(2) of the Department's regulations, we deducted home 
market indirect selling expenses in an amount not to exceed the sum of 
U.S. commissions and indirect selling expenses incurred in the United 
States.
    On January 5, 1994, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 
in The Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland 
Cement v. United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994), held that the 
Department could not deduct home market movement charges from FMV 
pursuant to its inherent power to fill in the gaps in the antidumping 
statute. Accordingly, we now adjust for home market movement expenses 
under the circumstance-of-sale (COS) provision of 19 CFR 353.56 and the 
offset provisions of 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) and (2), as appropriate. In 
this review, home market movement expenses incurred between the 
warehouse and the customer after the sale were treated as direct COS 
deductions. Home market movement expenses were also incurred between 
the factory and the warehouse before the sale, and we have adjusted for 
such expenses as indirect selling expenses under the commission offset 
provision of 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) and under the ESP offset provision of 
19 CFR 353.56(b)(2), as appropriate.
    In order to adjust for differences in packing between the two 
markets, we deducted home market packing costs from FMV and added U.S. 
packing costs. We also adjusted for Japanese consumption tax in 
accordance with our decision in Silicomanganese.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our comparison of USP with FMV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following dumping margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
          Manufacturer/exporter                  Period        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daikin Industries.......................    08/01/92-07/31/93      23.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties may submit written comments on these preliminary 
results. Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the 
date of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 
days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 
approximately 35 days from the date of publication. Case briefs and 
other written comments from interested parties may be submitted not 
later than 21 days from the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and 
rebuttal comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be 
filed not later than 28 days from the date of publication. The 
Department will publish the final results of this administrative review 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written comments or at 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. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:
    (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those 
rates established in the final results of this administrative review; 
(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 original 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) the cash deposit rate for all 
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 91.74 percent, the 
rate made effective by the final results of the most recent 
administrative review of the order (see PTFE Resin From Japan, 58 FR at 
50346). As noted in the Department's previous final results in this 
proceeding, this rate is the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also 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 and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: December 23, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-2233 Filed 1-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P