[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2489-2491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1310]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[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 August 30, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results 
of its 1993-94 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Japan (60 FR 45141). 
The review covers one manufacturer/exporter. The review period is 
August 1, 1993, through July 31, 1994. 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: January 26, 1996.

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 August 30, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 45140) the preliminary results of its 1993-94 
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 Tariff Act 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, 1993, through July 31, 1994.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received a case brief from Daikin.

Issue Raised by Daikin

    Daikin claims that, in calculating foreign market value, the 
Department incorrectly deducted from the unit price an amount 
representing a price adjustment. Daikin argues that this 

[[Page 2490]]
adjustment should have been added to the unit price. Daikin notes that 
in previous reviews it reported a price decrease, which needed to be 
deducted from the unit price. However, in the current review, Daikin 
reported a price adjustment, which can be either a price increase, 
reported as a positive number, or a price decrease, reported as a 
negative number. As such, Daikin requests that the Department add the 
reported price adjustment to the unit price, which effectively adds 
price increases and deducts price decreases.
    DOC Position: We agree with Daikin. We erroneously deducted 
Daikin's reported price adjustment from the unit price. Daikin reported 
both price increases and price decreases, and, for these final results, 
we added the price adjustment to the unit price to correctly account 
for both price increases and price decreases.

Home Market Consumption Tax

    Although no party raised this as an issue, in light of the Federal 
Circuit's decision in Federal Mogul v. United States, CAFC No. 94-1097, 
we have changed our treatment of home market consumption taxes. Where 
merchandise exported to the United States is exempt from the 
consumption tax, we will add to the U.S. price the absolute amount of 
such taxes charged in the comparison sales in the home market. This is 
the same methodology that we adopted following the decision of the 
Federal Circuit in Zenith v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 
(1993), and which was suggested by that court in footnote 4 of its 
decision. The Court of International Trade (CIT) overturned this 
methodology in Federal Mogul v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 
(1993), and we acquiesced in the CIT's decision. We then followed the 
CIT's preferred methodology, which was to calculate the tax to be added 
to U.S. price by multiplying the adjusted U.S. price by the foreign 
market tax rate; we made adjustments to this amount so that the tax 
adjustment would not alter a ``zero'' pre-tax dumping assessment.
    The foreign exporters in the Federal Mogul case, however, appealed 
that decision to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the CIT and held 
that the statute did not preclude the Department from using the 
``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology to calculate tax-neutral dumping 
assessments (i.e., assessments that are unaffected by the existence or 
amount of home market consumption taxes). Moreover, the Federal Circuit 
recognized that certain international agreements of the United States, 
in particular the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the 
Tokyo Round Antidumping Code, required the calculation of tax-neutral 
dumping assessments. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the CIT 
with instructions to direct the Department to determine which tax 
methodology it will employ.
    We have determined that the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology 
should be used. First, as we have explained in numerous administrative 
determinations and court filings over the past decade, and as the 
Federal Circuit has now recognized, Article VI of the GATT and Article 
2 of the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code required that dumping assessments 
be tax neutral. This requirement continues under the new Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade. Second, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) explicitly 
amended the antidumping law to remove consumption taxes from the home 
market price and to eliminate the addition of taxes to U.S. price, so 
that no consumption tax is included in the price in either market. The 
Statement of Administrative Action (p. 159) explicitly states that this 
change was intended to result in tax neutrality.
    While the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology is slightly different 
from the URAA methodology, in that section 772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA 
law required that the tax be added to U.S. price rather than subtracted 
from home market price, it does result in tax-neutral duty assessments. 
In sum, we have elected to treat consumption taxes in a manner 
consistent with our longstanding policy of tax neutrality and with the 
GATT.

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
        Manufacturer/exporter                 Period          (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daikin Industries....................     08/01/93-07/31/94        53.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from 
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 
50343 (September 27, 1993). These deposit requirements 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.


[[Page 2491]]

    Dated: December 14, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-1310 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P