[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33188-33189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15610]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-707]


Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 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 January 30, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results 
of its 1992-93 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Japan (60 FR 5622). 
The review covers one manufacturer/exporter. The review period is 
August 1, 1992, through July 31, 1993. We gave interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. Based upon our 
analysis of the comments received we have changed the margin 
calculation. The final margin for Daikin Industries (Daikin) is listed 
below in the section ``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 30, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of its 1992-93 administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on granular PTFE resin from Japan. There 
was no request for a hearing. The Department has now conducted this 
review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Tariff Act).

Applicable Statutes and Regulations

    Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statutes and to the 
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

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. The review period is August 1, 1992, through July 31, 1993.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received a case brief from petitioner, E. I. Du 
Pont de Nemours & Company (Du Pont), and case and rebuttal briefs from 
Daikin.

Issues Raised by Du Pont

    Comment 1: Du Pont argues that, although the Department determined 
that Daikin's U.S. sales included both purchase price and exporter's 
sales price (ESP) transactions, the Department should treat all of 
Daikin's U.S. sales as ESP transactions. Du Pont claims that Daikin's 
wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, Daikin America, Inc. (DAI), is actively 
involved in all critical aspects of Daikin's U.S. sales process. Du 
Pont claims that DAI has become a full-fledged sales, marketing and 
technical services organization, and that DAI now runs Daikin's PTFE 
business in the United States. Du Pont claims that DAI's activities and 
responsibilities go beyond the more limited ``paper pusher'' role of a 
related party in purchase price transactions.
    Daikin argues that the Department correctly determined that some of 
Daikin's U.S. sales were purchase price sales, and that the facts 
surrounding Daikin's purchase price sales are easily distinguishable 
from those sales treated as ESP transactions. Daikin argues that, as in 
the first review, the Department applied its three-prong test for 
determining whether a transaction should be treated as a purchase price 
or as an ESP sale. Daikin notes that, as in the first review, the 
Department determined that sales meeting the criteria set forth in the 
test were properly treated as purchase price sales. See Granular 
Polyvtetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 50343 (September 27, 1993) (PTFE I).
    DOC Position: We agree with Daikin. In reaching our preliminary 
results of review, we examined DAI's role to determine whether Daikin's 
sales were purchase price or ESP. See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene 
Resin From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 60 FR 5622 (January 30, 1995). We applied a 
three-part test, as outlined in the preliminary results, and in PTFE I, 
58 FR at 50344. For certain sales, DAI merely facilitated the sales 
process, which was handled directly by Daikin in Japan. Daikin 
controlled pricing and selling decisions, while DAI acted as a 
communication link between Daikin and unrelated commission agents 
responsible for making sales. There is no evidence that would indicate 
that DAI performed more than routine selling functions with regard to 
these sales, which we therefore continue to regard as purchase price 
transactions.
    For other sales we found that DAI had inventoried the subject 
merchandise in warehouses in the United States based upon anticipated 
demand.
    We determined that these sales were ESP sales, which Daikin has not 
challenged.
    Comment 2: Du Pont claims that the Department failed to include 
several [[Page 33189]] ESP sales in the preliminary results. The 
Department analyzed ESP transactions with entry dates that fell within 
the period of review (POR). Du Pont argues that the Department's 
established policy is to analyze ESP sales by date of sale rather than 
date of entry, because ESP sales frequently enter the United States 
prior to the actual date of sale. Du Pont argues that the Department 
should revise its calculations to analyze ESP sales by sale date 
instead of entry date.
    Daikin agrees that the Department's calculations should be revised 
in order to capture all ESP transactions with sale dates during the 
POR.
    DOC Position: We agree. We erroneously analyzed ESP sales by entry 
date rather than sale date, as is our established practice. We have 
revised the calculations for these final results.

Issue Raised by Daikin

    Comment 3: Daikin argues that the Department should reduce the 
quantity sold on U.S. sales by the quantity of returned merchandise in 
order to account for losses incurred by Daikin for the replacement of 
defective merchandise, which, Daikin stated, cannot be resold. Daikin 
notes that, according to the Department's analysis memorandum, the 
Department intended to adjust the quantity sold by the quantity of 
returned merchandise.

Antidumping Duty Order on Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from 
Japan--Analysis Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Second Review of 
Daikin Industries (December 2, 1994) (Analysis Memorandum).

    Daikin states that such an adjustment is necessary in order to 
avoid double counting the costs and expenses associated with returned 
merchandise, because all expenses related to returns are reported under 
separate variables and are already incorporated in the margin 
calculation. According to Daikin, failure to make the adjustment would 
result in the same merchandise contributing a second time to an 
increase in dumping duties when the Department calculates duties for 
the returned quantity. Furthermore, Daikin argues that the Department 
routinely adjusts for returns by deducting the amount returned from the 
original transaction.
    DOC Position: We agree with Daikin. We intended to adjust the 
quantity of U.S. sales by deducting the quantity of returned defective 
merchandise. Analysis Memorandum at 2. The returned merchandise can be 
tied to the related sale by invoice number. We made a similar 
adjustment for returns associated with home market sales. We have 
revised our calculations for these final results to adjust U.S. sales 
quantities to account for returns.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of the comments received, we have revised our 
preliminary results and determine that the following margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
             Manufacturer/exporter                  Period     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daikin Industries.............................  08/01/92-07/       23.33
                                                 31/93.                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between United States price and foreign market value may 
vary from the percentage stated above. 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 these 
final results of administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:
    (1) The cash deposit rate for Daikin will be the rate shown above; 
(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 be 91.74 percent, the ``all 
others'' rate from the LTFV investigation, for the reasons explained in 
PTFE I
    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 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 disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely written notification 
of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an 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 21, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-15610 Filed 6-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P