[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45140-45142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21554]



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

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.

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

[[Page 45141]]


SUMMARY: In response to requests by one respondent and the petitioner, 
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, 1993, through July 31, 1994. 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: August 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, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 3, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (59 FR 
39543) of the antidumping duty order on granular PTFE resin from Japan 
(53 FR 32287, August 24, 1988). Respondent, Daikin Industries, Ltd., 
and petitioner, E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Company, requested an 
administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a) (1993). On 
September 16, 1994, the Department published a notice of initiation of 
this review (59 FR 47609). The period of review is August 1, 1993, 
through July 31, 1994. The Department is now conducting this review 
pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Tariff Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute 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 Industries, Ltd. (Daikin). The period of review is August 1, 
1993, through July 31, 1994.

United States Price

    In calculating United States price (USP), the Department determined 
both purchase price 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 purchase price 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, 60 FR 33188 (June 27, 1995); 
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 purchase price transactions in accordance with section 
353.41(b) of our regulations.
    DAI also maintains an inventory of subject merchandise in the 
United States. Where the date of importation preceded the date of sale 
and DAI's role included warehousing responsibilities in addition to 
routine selling functions, we regarded sales of such merchandise as ESP 
sales in accordance with section 353.41(c) of our regulations.
    We based purchase price 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. 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 a 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. 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. Where 
possible we compared all U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise 
sold in Japan. For U.S. sales in which identical merchandise was not 
sold during the relevant contemporaneous period, we used as FMV 
contemporaneous sales of the product that was most similar to the 
merchandise involved in the U.S. sale, in accordance with section 
771(16) of the Tariff Act. We matched similar products based on 
physical characteristics and product specifications provided by Daikin 
in its 

[[Page 45142]]
questionnaire response dated February 24, 1995.
    In accordance with our practice, we disregarded sample sales as 
being outside the ordinary course of trade. See Granular 
Polytetrafluroethylene Resin From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review, 58 FR at 50345 (September 27, 1993). 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.
    Where applicable, we made deductions for inland freight, discounts, 
post-shipment price adjustments, and physical differences in 
merchandise. To adjust for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) 
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. Home market movement expenses 
incurred between the warehouse and the customer after the sale were 
treated as direct COS deductions. For comparison to purchase price 
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 section 353.56(b)(1) of our 
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 section 
353.56(b)(2) of our regulations, we also 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. 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 
section 353.56(b)(1) and under the ESP offset provision of section 
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 margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
              Manufacturer/exporter                  Period    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daikin Industries...............................    08/01/93-           
                                                     07/31/94     69.10 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 44 days from the date of publication. Case briefs and 
other written comments from interested parties may be submitted not 
later than 30 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 37 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 percentage 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 company will be the rate we establish 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, 60 FR at 33189). 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: August 16, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-21554 Filed 8-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P