[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 90 (Monday, May 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25826-25828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12318]
[[Page 25826]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-703]
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administration Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, the Department of
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on gramdular polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy. This
review covers Ausimont SpA. The period of review is August 1, 1996,
through July 31, 1997.
We have preliminary determined that sales of
polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy have been at less then normal
value. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATES: May 11, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Kris Campbell, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4162 or (202) 482-3813, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are
to the regulations provided in 19 CFR Part 351, as published in the
Federal Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27296).
Background
On August 30, 1988, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on granular polytetrafluoroethylene
resin (PTFE) from Italy (53 FR 33163). On August 4, 1997, the
Department of published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' of this antidumping duty order for the period
of August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997 (62 FR 41925). On August 28,
1997, we received a timely request for review from E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Company (the petitioner). The review request named one
respondent, Ausimont SpA and Ausimont USA Inc. (collectively,
Ausimont). On September 25, 1997, we published the notice of initiation
of this review (62 FR 50292).
We issued a questionnaire to Ausimont on September 24, 1997,
followed by a supplemental questionnaire on February 23, 1998. On
December 19, 1997, the petitioner submitted a timely request for
verification of Ausimont's response.
Verification
In accordance with section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we conducted a
verification of Ausimont's response from April 6 through April 14,
1998, in Bollate, Italy, and in Thorofare, New Jersey (see Verification
of the Responses of Ausimont SpA and Ausimont U.S.A. in the 1996/97
Administrative Review of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from
Italy, May 4, 1998).
Scope of the Review
The product covered by this review is granular PTFE resin, filled
or unfilled. This order also covers PTFE wet raw polymer exported from
Italy to the United States. See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin
from Italy; Final Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty
Order, 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993). This order excludes PTFE
dispersions in water and fine powders. During the period covered by
this review, such merchandise was classified under item number
3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS). We are providing this HTS number for convenience and Customs
purposes only. The written description of the scope remains
dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
We compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value
(NV), as described in the Constructed Export Price and Normal Value
sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we
compared the CEPs of individual transactions to contemporaneous monthly
weighted-average prices of sales of the foreign like product.
We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales of products
sold in the U.S. and the comparison market that were identical with
respect to the following characteristics: type, filler, percentage of
filler, and grade. Where we were unable to compare sales of identical
merchandise, we compared U.S. sales with comparison market sales of the
most similar merchandise based on the characteristics listed above, in
that order of priority. With respect to U.S. sales of imported wet raw
polymer that further manufactured into finished PTFE resin (see
Constructed Export Price, below), we limited our price-based
comparisons to comparison market sales of wet raw polymer.
Where there were no appropriate comparison market sales of
comparable merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in the United
States to constructed value (CV), in accordance with section 773(a)(4)
of the Act.
Constructed Export Price
For all sales to the United States, we calculated constructed
export price (CEP) as defined in section 772(b) of the Act because all
sales to unaffiliated parties were made after importation of the
subject merchandise into the United States through Ausimont U.S.A.,
respondent's affiliate. We based CEP on the packed, delivered prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States (the starting price). We
made deductions for movement expenses, in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, including international freight marine
insurance, brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight, other
transportation expenses, and U.S. customs duties.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted
selling expenses incurred by the affiliated seller in connection with
economic activity in the United States. These expenses include credit,
warranty, technical service, inventory carrying costs, and indirect
expenses incurred by Ausimont USA.
With respect to sales involving imported wet raw polymer that was
further manufactured into finished PTFE resin in the United States, we
deducted the cost of such further manufacturing in accordance with
section 772(d)(2) of the Act. We determined that the special rule for
merchandise with value added after importation under section 772(e) of
the Act did not apply to such sales because the value added in the
United States by the affiliated person did not exceed substantially the
value of the subject merchandise.
Finally, we made an adjustment for the profit allocated to the
above-referenced selling and further manufacturing expenses, in
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
[[Page 25827]]
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales of granular PTFE resin in the home market to serve as a viable
basis for calculating normal value (NV), we compared Ausimont's volume
of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S.
sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a) of
the Act. Because the aggregate volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product was greater than five percent of the respective
aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we
determined that the home market provides a viable basis for calculating
NV. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act,
we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first
sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
We determined home prices net of price adjustments (early payment
discounts and rebates). Where applicable, we made adjustments for
packing and movement expenses, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)
(A) and (B) of the Act. In order to adjust for differences in packing
between the two markets, we deducted home market packing costs from NV
and added U.S. packing costs. We also made adjustments for differences
in costs attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the
merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, and for
other differences in the circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made a COS adjustment for home
market credit expense.
As noted above, we determined normal value based on CV where there
were no appropriate home market sales for comparison with the U.S.
sale. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We
included the cost of materials and fabrication, selling, general and
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit. In accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the
amounts incurred and realized by Ausimont in connection with the
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course
of trade for consumption in Italy. For selling expenses, we used the
weighted-average home market selling expenses. We included U.S. packing
pursuant to section 773(e)(3) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made
adjustments to CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, for
differences in the COS. Specifically, we made a COS adjustment by
deducting home market credit. We also made a CEP-offset adjustment to
NV for indirect selling expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act as discussed below.
Level of Trade/CEP Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales at the same level of trade
in the comparison market as the level of trade of the U.S. sales. The
NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison
market. For CEP sales, such as those made by Ausimont in this review,
the U.S. level of trade is the level of the constructed sale from the
exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than that of the U.S. sales, we examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the
producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales
are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Finally, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP
level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in
the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732
(November 19, 1997).
In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained
information from Ausimont about the marketing stage involved in the
reported U.S. sales and the home market sales, including a description
of the selling activities performed by Ausimont for each channel of
distribution. In identifying levels of trade for CEP and for home
market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the CEP,
after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the
Act, and those reflected in the home market starting price before
making any adjustments. We expect that, if claimed levels of trade are
the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar.
Conversely, if a party claims that levels of trade are different for
different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller
should be dissimilar.
The record evidence before us in this review indicates that the
home market and the CEP levels of trade have not changed from the 1995-
96 review.\1\ As in prior segments of the proceeding, we determined
that for Ausimont there was one home market level of trade and one U.S.
level of trade (i.e., the CEP level of trade). In the home market,
Ausimont sold directly to fabricators. These sales primarily entailed
selling activities such as inventory maintenance, technical services,
strategic and economic planning, market research, computer assistance
and business system development assistance, personnel training,
engineering services, and delivery services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 62 FR 48592, September 16, 1997 (final results) and 62
FR 26283, May 13, 1997 (preliminary results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining the level of trade for the U.S. sales, we only
considered the selling activities reflected in the price after making
the appropriate adjustments under section 772(d) of the Act. (See, e.g.
Certain Stainless Wire Rods From France: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 61 FR 47874, 47879-80 (Sept. 11, 1996). The CEP
level of trade involves minimal selling functions (e.g., invoicing).
Based on a comparison of the home market level of trade and this CEP
level of trade, we find the home market sales to be at a different
level of trade from, and more remote from the factory than, the CEP
sales.
As noted above, all of the Ausimont's home market sales were at a
single level of trade which is different from the CEP level of trade.
Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act directs us to make an adjustment for
difference in levels of trade where such differences affect price
comparability. However, we were unable to quantify such price
differences from information on the record. Because we have determined
that the home-market level of trade is more remote from the factory
than the CEP level of trade but the data necessary to calculate a
level-of-trade adjustment are unavailable, we made a CEP-offset
adjustment to NV pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York. Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the
Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign
[[Page 25828]]
currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate involves a
fluctuation. In accordance with our practice, we have determined as a
general matter that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate
differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as
the rolling average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we
determine a fluctuation exists, we substitute the benchmark for the
daily rate. See Policy Bulletin 96-1 Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434
(March 8, 1996).
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ausimont S.p.A........................ 08/01/96-07/31/97 40.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the
first workday thereafter. Case briefs and/or written comments from
interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the
date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments,
limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed
not later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who
submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each
argument: (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. The Department will issue the final results of the
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of
issuance of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the inability to
link sales with specific entries prevents calculation of duties on an
entry-by-entry basis, we have calculated an importer-specific ad
valorem duty assessment rate for the merchandise based on the ratio of
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined
sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used
to calculate these duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all
entries of that particular importer made during the POR. (This is
equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping duties, which
are calculated by taking the difference between NV and CEP, by the
total CEP value of the sales compared, and adjusting the result by the
average difference between CEP and customs value for all merchandise
examined during the POR.) Individual differences between CEP and NV may
vary from the percentage stated above. Upon completion of this review,
the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
Customs. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping dumping duties on entries of merchandise
covered by the determination and for future deposits of estimated
duties.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for
all shipments of PTFE resin from Italy 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 Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Ausimont will be
the rate established in the final results of administrative review; (2)
for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in
this review but covered in the original less than fair value (LTFV)
investigations or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to
be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final
results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-
specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a previous review, or the original investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the
manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of this review or
the LTFV investigation; 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 46.46 percent, the ``all others'' rate established
in the LTFV investigation (50 FR 26019, June 24, 1985).
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility 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 the 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 Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 CFR
353.22(1996).
Dated: May 4, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-12318 Filed 5-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M