[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32133-32138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15072]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-814]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Japan; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On March 2, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 
strip (PET film) from Japan. The review covers three manufacturers/
exporters of this merchandise to the United States, Toray Industries, 
Inc. (Toray), Teijin, Ltd. (Teijin), and Diafoil Co. Ltd. (Diafoil), 
and the period November 30, 1990 through May 31, 1992. Based on our 
analysis of comments received, we have changed the final results from 
those presented in our preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur N. DuBois or Thomas F. Futtner, 
[[Page 32134]] Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC. 20230, telephone: (202) 482-6312/3814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 2, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(59 FR 9960) the preliminary results of its administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on PET film (56 FR 25660, June 5, 1991). The 
Department has now completed that administrative review in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Tariff Act) and 19 CFR 
353.22.
    One firm, Diafoil, did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. Therefore, we are using best information otherwise 
available (BIA) for cash deposit and appraisement purposes. As BIA for 
Diafoil, we determined the dumping margin to be 14.00 percent, the 
highest margin calculated in any administrative review or the original 
investigation.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received comments from petitioners, all three 
respondents and one interested party. All parties participated in the 
hearing held on April 14, 1994.

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 
coextruded. The films excluded from the scope of this order are 
metallized films and other finished films that have had a 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 from Japan is currently classifiable under Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 3920.62.0000. The HTS item numbers 
are provided for convenience and for Customs purposes only. The written 
descriptions remain dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    Comment 1: Toray Plastics America (TPA), an interested party, 
argues that the Department should use BIA for Diafoil, because Diafoil 
refused to answer the Department's questionnaire.
    Diafoil responds that it is not uncooperative, only unresponsive. 
Diafoil objects to TPA's attempt to characterize Diafoil as an 
``uncooperative party'' just because Diafoil declined to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. Diafoil argues that, as a small exporter, 
it did not respond because of the excessive burden and cost involved.
    Department's Position: In accordance with section 776(c) of the 
Tariff Act, the Department uses BIA in cases where a party refuses to 
respond to the questionnaire, is unable to produce information 
requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise 
significantly impedes the proceedings. The Department uses a two-tiered 
approach in its choice of BIA. For uncooperative respondents or 
respondents who substantially impede the proceedings (first tier), the 
Department uses the higher of (1) the highest rate for any company from 
the original investigation or any prior administrative review or (2) 
the highest rate found in the current review for any company. For 
respondents which attempt to cooperate (second tier), the Department 
uses the higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to that firm 
for the subject merchandise or (2) the highest calculated rate in the 
current review for any firm (see Antifriction Bearings (Other than 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts thereof from France, et al., 58 FR 
39729, July 26, 1993).
    Accordingly, whether Diafoil is characterized as uncooperative or 
unresponsive, in accordance with the current statute, we must apply 
BIA. In accordance with our two-tier BIA policy, Diafoil's rate will be 
14 percent, the highest rate for any company from the original 
investigation (see Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
from Japan, 56 FR 25660, June 5, 1991).
    Comment 2: TPA states that since Diafoil refused to answer the 
Department's questionnaire and in light of the substantial difference 
between Diafoil's current deposit rate and its new BIA rate, the 
Department should publish immediately a determination establishing a 
new BIA deposit rate for future entries of PET film produced or 
exported by Diafoil.
    TPA claims that nothing in the antidumping law, or in the 
Department's regulations, requires that the Department wait until the 
conclusion of its review before establishing a new deposit rate for a 
foreign producer or exporter that has utterly refused to participate in 
the proceeding.
    Department's Position: Deposit rates can only be changed after 
conducting an administrative review, in accordance with Section 751 of 
the Tariff Act. Our regulations require that we issue preliminary 
results of review and allow parties to ask for disclosure of the 
calculation methodology, submit written argument and rebuttal comments 
and the opportunity to ask for hearings (19 CFR 353.22 and 353.38).
    Comment 3: Toray argues that for these final results the Department 
should calculate two margins for this review: one for the period 
preceding issuance of the antidumping duty order (i.e., November 30, 
1990, through May 31, 1991) and a second for Toray's sales in the first 
12 months following issuance of the order (i.e., June 1, 1991, through 
May 31, 1992). Toray maintains that the Department should instruct 
Customs to use the margin from the latter period as the basis for 
Toray's cash deposits on future entries.
    Toray states that because antidumping duties are intended to be 
remedial, rather than punitive, in nature, they should reflect a 
respondent's current pricing practices. Accordingly, the Department's 
final results in this review should demonstrate that Toray has 
eliminated or substantially reduced its dumping margin in the period 
following publication of the antidumping duty order. Toray argues that 
the Department's regulations implicitly require the calculation of a 
separate, weighted-average margin for a respondent's first full year of 
sales under an order. If the Department fails to do this, Toray 
contends, it frustrates the intent of its own regulations by 
effectively extending the qualifying period for company-specific 
revocations to four years, thereby making necessary additional 
administrative reviews that otherwise might have been made unnecessary 
by respondents' good faith efforts to amend their pricing practices 
immediately after a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. Toray 
further contends that the courts have held that a respondent's 
weighted-average dumping margin should reflect a respondent's current 
pricing practices.
    The petitioners, E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., Hoeschst 
Celanese Corporation, and ICI Americas Inc., argue that the 
Department's consistent practice during the first administrative review 
is to use the period between the date provisional measures were first 
applied and the month before the first anniversary date of the 
antidumping duty order. This is a reasonable exercise of the 
Department's administrative discretion in implementing section 751 of 
the [[Page 32135]] Tariff Act, which does not offer any guidance to the 
Department regarding the period covered by the first administrative 
review.
    The petitioners note that the Department has consistently utilized 
this approach in determining the appropriate period for the first 
administrative review. Furthermore, the Department has consistently 
calculated assessment and deposit rates based on sales over the entire 
period. Petitioners further argue that in such situations the courts 
have consistently supported an agency's implementation of a statute, 
citing Timken Co. v. United States, 14 CIT 753 (1990); Mart Corp. v. 
United States, 486 U.S. 281 (1988); and Zenith Radio Corp. v. United 
States, 437 U.S. 443, 450 (1978). Petitioners observe that none of the 
cases cited by Toray in its brief relates at all to the Department's 
first administrative review procedures or in any way attributes any 
punitive or retaliatory characteristics to them. Further, petitioners 
note that Toray cites no judicial precedent that supports its position 
that the Department's current first administrative review period is not 
``current'' or is ``unfair.''
    Therefore, petitioners conclude, the Department has properly 
determined that one-year review periods are appropriate only after the 
first administrative review, which normally covers a period closer to 
18 months. By honoring Toray's request, petitioners argue that the 
Department would in fact be ignoring dumping which occurs earlier in 
the review period, an action which would be inconsistent with the 
Tariff Act and would be ``punitive'' to the domestic industry.
    Department's Position: There is no statutory guidance regarding the 
period to be covered by the first administrative review or the period 
on which to base cash deposit rates. However, the Department's 
regulations identify the period to be covered by a first administrative 
review as ``the period from the suspension of liquidation * * * to the 
end of the month immediately preceding the first anniversary month'' 
(see 19 CFR 353.22(b)(2)). As a matter of administrative practice, the 
Department has consistently calculated assessment and deposit rates 
based on the entire period of review. To do otherwise would invite 
manipulation by parties who, depending on their point of view, could 
argue that one division or another of the POR would be more favorable 
to their interests. The Department considers the first review period to 
be ``current'' even if it exceeds twelve months.
    Finally, we are not persuaded by Toray's argument that the 
Department, by not dividing the first POR into pre- and post-order 
periods, undermines its own company-specific revocation procedures, 
which are based on three consecutive years of no dumping. Respondents 
can begin practicing pricing discipline as soon as the Department 
initiates an investigation. Certainly at the time of the preliminary 
determination, when suspension of liquidation occurs, respondents are 
made aware of the Department's methodology and can begin to change 
their prices accordingly.
    Comment 4: TPA claims that, in accordance with the Department's 
methodology, recently upheld in Outokumpu Copper Rolled Products AB v. 
United States, 829 F.Supp. 1371, 1379-80 (CIT, 1993) (Outokumpu), many 
of Teijin's U.S. sales should be treated as exporter's sales price 
(ESP) transactions.
    TPA asserts that, in Outokumpu, the Court held that the Department 
could apply a ``purchase price'' analysis to ``closed consignment'' 
sales (where the exporter's U.S. subsidiary held merchandise for 
``just-in-time'' delivery) if, first, the U.S. subsidiary performs 
strictly ministerial functions, and, second, any warehousing operation 
undertaken by the U.S. subsidiary reflects the parties' ``customary 
commercial channels.'' TPA contends that Teijin does not meet either of 
these criteria. First, according to TPA, Teijin has three separate U.S. 
companies that account for a significant portion of U.S. sales under 
review. Further, TPA claims that Teijin's questionnaire response makes 
clear that the company's U.S. subsidiaries are engaged in a wide range 
of sales and post-sale activities, including marketing and acting as a 
selling agent. Similarly, TPA notes that Teijin has reported technical 
service expenses, as well as indirect expenses, by all three U.S. 
subsidiaries for the maintenance of sales staff. Finally, TPA claims 
that Teijin's sales do not follow the ``customary commercial channels'' 
utilized by Teijin and its U.S. subsidiaries.
    Teijin responds that its U.S. sales are properly analyzed as 
purchase price transactions and disputes TPA's argument that, based on 
criteria upheld by Outokumpu, Teijin's sales should be treated as ESP 
sales. First, during the LTFV investigation, the Department verified 
that the merchandise did not enter the physical inventory of the 
subsidiary. Second, Teijin's subsidiaries continue to perform only 
ministerial functions, processing sales-related documentation and 
serving as a communication link, in connection with U.S. sales of PET 
film. Finally, Teijin argues that TPA's attempt to portray Teijin's 
U.S. operations as more substantial or ``substantially restructured'' 
are misinformed.
    Department's Position: During the LTFV investigation, the 
Department verified that Teijin's U.S. sales were final before 
importation and did not enter inventory in the United States. 
Accordingly, Teijin's sales qualified as purchase price sales. In this 
review, Teijin again asserts that its U.S. subsidiaries perform only 
ministerial functions and that its U.S. sales during the POR do not 
enter inventory in the United States. In this review, TPA offers no 
specific support for its position except to question certain selling 
expenses. Further, nothing appears in the record of this review to show 
that there is anything different from the investigation that would 
distinguish any of the sales as ESP sales. We disagree with TPA's 
comment that Teijin's questionnaire response makes it clear that it and 
its U.S. subsidiaries are engaged in activities that would force the 
Department to conclude that Teijin's sales should be analyzed as ESP 
sales. Also, we considered these sales to be in the customary 
commercial channels in the investigation, and TPA has provided no 
evidence to the contrary. Finally, in our verification of Teijin's 
response during the LTFV investigation, we found no additional expenses 
such as technical services, advertising, or warranties on U.S. sales. 
Accordingly we have accepted Teijin's claim for purchase price analysis 
for the final results of administrative review.
    Comment 5: TPA argues that the Department should reject Teijin's 
suggested model match because the methodology is distortive and 
deficient. TPA argues that the correct methodology is to first match 
PET film products by their end-use and subsequently by their polymers 
and gauges because this is the most accurate and administrable model 
match methodology. TPA maintains that each of PET film's five primary 
end-use categories requires common physical and performance 
characteristics that determine the commercial utility and value of the 
product and that are unique to that class.
    Teijin responds that, notwithstanding its strong belief that 
physical characteristics represent the most appropriate matching 
methodology, in compliance with the Department's requests, it has 
provided the Department with alternative product concordances with and 
without end-use as a matching criteria. Therefore, in spite of Teijin's 
[[Page 32136]] position that physical characteristics represent the 
most appropriate matching methodology, Teijin maintains that the 
Department has a complete record upon which to base its final results.
    Department's Position: In developing product-specific model match 
methodologies, the statutory preference is for the matching of 
identical merchandise (see section 771(16)(A) of the Tariff Act). Where 
this identical matching is not possible, the most similar matches are 
preferred (see section 771(16)(B)).
    During the review, we solicited comments from all parties on 
matching criteria for comparing similar merchandise in the absence of 
sales of identical merchandise in the U.S. and home markets. Based on 
submissions from petitioners and respondents, no single physical 
characteristic appears to be a defining criterion for all types of PET 
film.
    In the case of PET film, we have determined that it is appropriate 
to use groups of physical characteristics based on end-use as an 
organizational tool to establish similar categories of merchandise. 
This methodology was adopted because of the unique circumstances of 
this case, such as the complexity of the subject merchandise, the 
difficulty in determining the most similar models in a consistent 
manner, and the fact that it is evident that end use plays a role in 
the determination of the merchandise's physical dimensions.
    Therefore, we have matched by physical characteristics within these 
categories to find matches of the most similar merchandise. We also 
have determined that it would be inappropriate to match across 
categories because this could result in more dissimilar matches rather 
than in comparisons of the most similar merchandise. In these final 
results we used Teijin's alternative model-matching concordance with 
broad end-use categories.
    Comment 6: The petitioners comment that the Department's 
preliminary treatment of consumption tax for both Teijin and Toray was 
not in full conformity with current Department practice. Namely, they 
argue that, in calculating the consumption tax adjustments, the 
Department failed to include all of the expenses incurred after the 
point at which the Japanese government applies the home market 
consumption tax.
    Both Teijin and Toray support the Department's use of a methodology 
that provides for tax neutrality in the dumping calculation. Toray, 
however, takes no position with respect to petitioners' claims 
regarding the imputation of the Japanese consumption tax for the 
preliminary results.
    Department's Position:
    We agree with petitioners that the tax adjustment must be made at 
the same point in the chain of commerce in each market and we have 
adjusted for taxes in accordance with our practice as outlined in 
Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 1994.
    Comment 7: TPA asks the Department to ensure that Teijin has 
properly reported all U.S. and home market sales, or reject Teijin's 
questionnaire response in its entirety. In particular, TPA argues that 
there is no legal basis for Teijin's original request that the 
Department exclude from its review sales of certain unique grades of 
PET film, including sandblasted film, embossed film, further-processed 
film, ``experimental'' film, film sold on a yen-per-square meter basis, 
and film sold on a yen-per-piece basis. Similarly, TPA asks the 
Department to ensure that Teijin has reported all of its provisions of 
sample merchandise in the United States.
    Teijin responds that: (1) It has fully reported all U.S. and home 
market sales; (2) it has fully reported all grades of PET film, and its 
questionnaire responses clearly indicate that these sales have been 
included in its computer files; and (3) its supplemental questionnaire 
response states explicitly that certain sample sales, which had 
originally been omitted in error, were included in the computer 
listing.
    Department's Position: We have reviewed Teijin's responses and have 
determined that they are complete and that all grades of PET film and 
all sample sales have been reported. Although Teijin originally 
excluded the types of film noted by TPA, the company included these 
film types in its supplemental response. Accordingly, we will continue 
to rely on Teijin's submissions for the final results of administrative 
review.
    Comment 8: TPA argues that Teijin has refused to comply with the 
Department's questionnaire in numerous critical respects, in addition 
to the specific issues discussed in other comments:
     Teijin has not provided affiliation and distribution 
agreements that TPA claims are essential to a proper understanding of 
its U.S. operations, particularly with respect to Teijin's joint 
venture with Du Pont;
     Teijin has failed to identify the proper dates of sale;
     Teijin's submissions do not adequately describe the basis 
for qualification or payment of rebates; and
     Teijin has failed to report, or incorrectly reported, 
numerous U.S. and home market expenses, such as technical services, 
warranty claims, advertising, sales promotion, and packing costs.
    Accordingly, in the absence of complete and accurate data, TPA 
maintains that the Department should apply BIA in its final margin 
calculations.
    Teijin responds that it has provided complete and accurate data to 
the Department.
    Department's Position: We have reviewed Teijin's submissions and 
are satisfied that Teijin's response is complete and responsive to our 
questionnaire. Specifically:
     Teijin has provided to the Department sufficient 
information regarding its U.S. affiliations and distribution system for 
us to determine that Teijin reported its sales to the first unrelated 
customer.
     Teijin's dates of sale, including such instances as 
informal orders, blanket purchase agreements, and shipments during 
ongoing price negotiations, were properly reported. Namely, Teijin 
reported the date of sale as the date upon which the substantive terms 
of the contract (especially price and quantity) are set. Consistent 
with this reporting requirement, the date of sale reported by Teijin in 
most cases was the purchase order confirmation date. Where this was not 
the case, Teijin reported the date upon which price and quantity were 
firmly established as the date of sale. In no case was the reported 
date of sale later than the date of shipment.
     Teijin's submissions adequately describe the basis for 
qualification and payment of rebates as related to customer loyalty, 
purchase volume and market conditions, and identifies each of its home 
market and U.S. rebates on a customer- and sale-specific basis, 
precisely the standard articulated by TPA in its brief.
     There is nothing in the record to substantiate TPA's 
assertions that Teijin's U.S. and home market expenses have been 
reported incorrectly. Teijin asserts that it incurred no warranty 
expenses in the United States during the period of review and that it 
did not incur any technical service, advertising, sales promotion or 
other expenses directly related to its U.S. sales of PET film.
    Therefore, we have relied on Teijin's response for these final 
results.
    Comment 9: TPA argues that the Department cannot rely upon Teijin's 
questionnaire response without verifying the data. TPA notes that where 
[[Page 32137]] the Department has ``good cause'' to verify a 
respondent's submission, it has a concomitant legal obligation to do 
so, citing Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 771 F.Supp. 389 (CIT, 
1991). TPA notes that it timely requested that the Department verify 
Teijin's questionnaire response in this review and that the 
circumstances establish ``good cause'' for verification.
    TPA argues that this review raises significant factors and issues 
never before considered by the Department: cost data regarding 
adjustments for differences in merchandise where similar merchandise is 
used for comparison to U.S. sales; Teijin's radical restructuring of 
its U.S. operations; Teijin's failure to fully respond and its 
internally inconsistent responses; and the fact that the Department's 
prior verification revealed significant unreported expenses and other 
discrepancies in the data submitted by Teijin.
    Teijin responds that the Department correctly declined to verify 
Teijin's response. Teijin argues that TPA has failed to show that the 
requisite ``good cause'' for verification exists in this review. 
Further, Teijin contends that the Department found that TPA did not 
demonstrate ``good cause'' for verification in large measure because 
the respondent had passed verification in the LTFV investigation and 
had furnished a ``substantial amount of detail and documentation'' in 
the administrative review questionnaire response (see Small Business 
Telephone Systems, 57 FR 8299). Similarly, Teijin argues that the 
``new'' facts cited by TPA in support of the claim for verification are 
insufficient to establish the necessary good cause. In this regard, 
Teijin argues, this review is identical to that in Antifriction 
Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from 
France, et al. (58 FR 28360, June 24, 1992), in which the Department 
rejected the petitioner's basis for requesting that the Department 
conduct a more thorough verification of respondents' cost accounting 
system, on the basis of several factors, including the respondent's 
past verification history and the Department's evaluation of the 
credibility of the data submitted.
    Department's Position: In accordance with 19 CFR 353.36(a)(1)(b), 
because we verified Teijin during the LTFV investigation, we were not 
required to verify in this administrative review unless good cause was 
shown. We agree with Teijin that no good cause was shown during this 
review to compel the Department to verify Teijin's response. The 
decision not to verify fully accords with past Department practice in 
this regard (see Certain Small Business Telephone Systems and 
Subassemblies Thereof from Korea, 57 FR 8298, March 9, 1992). Further, 
because we verified the overwhelming amount of the information 
submitted in the original investigation and because we have determined 
Teijin's response in this review to be complete and credible, we have 
also accepted the new cost data as submitted during the review.
    Comment 10: The following clerical errors were noted by various 
parties:
    (1) The petitioners comment that the Department's test for use of 
annual versus monthly weighted-average prices was mathematically 
incorrect due to misplaced parentheses. Toray comments that the error 
in the annual average test had no impact on the calculations. Teijin 
agrees that the Department should correct the clerical error in 
Teijin's POR-averaging program.
    (2) The petitioners comment that the Department failed to convert 
yen-denominated sales and adjustments into dollar-denominated values in 
certain of Toray's U.S. sales. Toray agrees with the petitioners that 
the Department should ensure that all of its conversions of both 
currencies and units of measure are correct. Further, Toray suggests 
that the Department should ensure that it properly converts Toray's 
reported cost of production into dollars and that it properly converts 
all quantities to kilograms.
    (3) The petitioners argue that certain U.S. sales by Toray were 
incorrectly excluded from the Department's analysis because these sales 
could not be matched with any such or similar home market sales, and 
the Department lacked the requisite cost data to construct values for 
those sales. Petitioners note that the Department is obligated to 
analyze all U.S. sales unless it can be shown that their inclusion 
distorts the Department's dumping calculation. Therefore, petitioners 
maintain that the Department should include these transactions in its 
analysis of Toray's U.S. sales using the highest margin for any 
reviewed U.S. sale by Toray as BIA.
    Toray agrees with petitioners that the Department should include 
various U.S. sales that were excluded in the preliminary results as 
having no foreign market value (FMV), but argues that BIA need not be 
used because Toray's responses contain the information necessary for 
the Department to make the appropriate price comparisons.
    (4) Teijin notes that the Department inadvertently included home 
market sales outside the POR in its preliminary margin calculation. 
Since this is contrary to the Department's stated intention to use only 
sales made during the POR, Teijin suggests that this clerical error 
should be corrected for the final results by eliminating the sales 
prior to November 30, 1990 and after May 31, 1992, from the home market 
sales database.
    (5) TPA argues that Teijin's pre-sale foreign inland freight 
expense was subtracted twice from FMV. TPA contends that Teijin 
reported this expense twice, both separately and as part of its overall 
inland freight expense. TPA notes that the Department is double-
counting an expense that should not be deducted at all, citing Ad Hoc 
Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United 
States, 13 F.3d 398, 402 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Ad Hoc Committee).
    Teijin states that the Department should continue to deduct 
Teijin's freight costs from FMV for the final results, but should, 
however, correct its inadvertent subtraction of the pre-sale inland 
freight figure in calculating FMV.
    (6) TPA argues that if the Department relies on a purchase price 
analysis for its final results of review, Teijin's U.S. and home market 
indirect expenses should not be deducted, as they were in the 
preliminary results of review.
    (7) Teijin notes that the Department incorrectly read Teijin's U.S. 
credit insurance expense field, improperly increasing the U.S. credit 
expense by 1000 times the actual cost by inadvertently omitting the 
decimal point.
    (8) Teijin argues that in the absence of an identical match in the 
home market data base, the Department should use the most similar match 
in calculating FMV, instead of second most similar as was inadvertently 
done for the preliminary results.
    Department's Position: We agree with all eight comments and have 
recalculated our results accordingly. Specifically:
    (1) We corrected the clerical error noted.
    (2) We corrected the clerical error noted.
    (3) We have included the Toray sales inadvertently omitted from the 
preliminary results of review. We were able to make appropriate matches 
and, therefore, did not need to resort to BIA.
    (4) All Teijin's sales inadvertently excluded in the preliminary 
results of review have been included and matched with FMVs for these 
final results, with the exception of sales outside the POR.
    (5) We agree with TPA that Teijin's pre-sale foreign freight was 
reported separately and also was included in an overall freight total 
and, therefore, was incorrectly deducted twice. Further, we 
[[Page 32138]] agree with TPA that, because this is a purchase price 
situation and because Teijin has not made an adequate claim for an 
adjustment under the circumstance-of-sale (COS) provision of 19 CFR 
353.56, in accordance with the Federal Circuit's decision in Ad Hoc 
Committee, it is not appropriate to deduct pre-sale inland freight at 
all and have adjusted our calculations accordingly.
    (6) Teijin's U.S. and home market indirect expenses have not been 
deducted for the final results of review.
    (7) We corrected the clerical error noted.
    (8) We have used identical or first most similar matching for our 
final results of review.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we have determined that the following 
margins exist for the period November 30, 1990, through May 31, 1992:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
               Manufacturer/producer/exporter                 (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toray......................................................         2.24
Teijin.....................................................         2.03
Diafoil....................................................        14.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between U.S. price and FMV may vary from the percentages 
stated above. Upon completion of the review the Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of these final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of PET film entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after that publication date, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, and will remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review: (1) 
The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those 
outlined above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies 
not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be their 
previously established company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is 
not a firm covered in this review, previous reviews, or the original 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
that established 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 6.32 percent, which 
is the all other rate established in the LTFV investigation, in 
accordance with the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) decisions in 
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and 
Federal Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. the United 
States 822 F Supp. 782 (CIT 1993).
    This notice serves as a final 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of APO is a sanctionable violation.
    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: June 14, 1995.
Paul L. Joffe,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-15072 Filed 6-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P