[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62648-62653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30041]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-807]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From Korea: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of 
Intent Not To Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review and intent not to revoke in part

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

SUMMARY: On July 12, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 
strip (PET film) from the Republic of Korea (64 FR 37501). The review 
covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the 
United States and the period June 1, 1997 through May 31, 1998. We gave 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary 
results. Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
certain changes for the final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/
CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and

[[Page 62649]]

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4475 
or (202) 482-5222.

Applicable Statute:

    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. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 12, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping 
order on PET film from Korea. SKC Co., Ltd. and SKC America, Inc. 
(collectively SKC) submitted its case brief on August 11, 1998. E.I. 
DuPont de Nemours & Company and Mitsubishi Polyester Film, LLC 
(collectively Petitioners) submitted rebuttal comments on August 18, 
1999. The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Intent Not To Revoke

    On June 30, 1998, SKC requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), 
revocation of the order with respect to its sales of PET film from 
Korea. SKC certified that: (1) It sold the subject merchandise at not 
less than normal value (NV) for a period of at least three consecutive 
years, (2) in the future it will not sell the subject merchandise at 
less than NV, and (3) it agreed to its immediate reinstatement in the 
order if the Department determines that, subsequent to revocation, it 
sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
    In this case SKC does not meet the first criterion required for 
revocation. In this segment of the proceeding the Department has found 
that SKC sold subject merchandise at less than NV. Since SKC has not 
met the first criterion for revocation, i.e., zero or de minimis 
margins for three consecutive reviews, the Department need not reach a 
conclusion with respect to the second and third criteria. Therefore, on 
this basis, we have determined not to revoke the order on PET film from 
Korea with respect to SKC.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of all gauges of raw, 
pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 
strip, whether extruded or coextruded. The films excluded from this 
review are metallized films and other finished films that have had at 
least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a 
performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of 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 is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00.00. The HTS subheading is provided for 
convenience and for U.S. Customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.
    The review covers the period June 1, 1997 through May 31, 1998. The 
Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of 
the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act. Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily 
exchange rate to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars unless 
the daily rate involves a fluctuation. The Department considers a 
``fluctuation'' to exist when the daily exchange rate differs from the 
benchmark rate by 2.25 percent or more. The benchmark is defined as the 
moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we 
determine a fluctuation to have existed, we generally substitute the 
benchmark rate for the daily rate, in accordance with established 
practice. (An exception to this rule is described below.) (For an 
explanation of this method, see Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency 
Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8, 1996).)
    Our analysis of dollar-Korean-won exchange rates show that the 
Korean won declined rapidly in November and December 1997. 
Specifically, the won declined more than 40 percent over this two month 
period. The decline was, in both speed and magnitude, many times more 
severe than any change in the dollar-won exchange rate during recent 
years, and it did not rebound significantly in a short time. As such, 
we determine that the decline in the won during November and December 
1997 was of such magnitude that the dollar-won exchange rate cannot 
reasonably be viewed as having simply fluctuated at that time, i.e., as 
having experienced only a momentary drop in value relative to the 
normal benchmark. Accordingly, the Department used actual daily 
exchange rates exclusively in November and December 1997. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 30664, 30670 (June 8, 
1999).
    We recognize that, following a large and precipitous decline in the 
value of a currency, a period may exist wherein it is unclear whether 
further declines are a continuation of the large and precipitous 
decline or merely fluctuations. Under the circumstances of this case, 
such uncertainty may have existed following the large, precipitous drop 
in November and December 1997. Thus, we devised a methodology for 
identifying the point following a precipitous drop at which it is 
reasonable to presume that rates were merely fluctuating. Following the 
precipitous drop in November and December, we continued to use only 
actual daily rates until the daily rates were not more than 2.25 
percent below the average of the 20 previous daily rates for five 
consecutive days. At that point, we determined that the pattern of 
daily rates no longer reasonably precluded the possibility that they 
were merely ``fluctuating.'' (Using a 20-day average for this purpose 
provides a reasonable indication that it is no longer necessary to 
refrain from using the normal methodology, while avoiding the use of 
daily rates exclusively for an excessive period of time.) Accordingly, 
from the first of these five days, we resumed classifying daily rates 
as ``fluctuating'' or ``normal'' in accordance with our standard 
practice, except that we began with a 20-day benchmark and on each 
succeeding day added a daily rate to the average until the normal 40-
day average was restored as the benchmark. See Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 64 FR 56759, 56763, October 21, 1999.
    Applying this methodology in the instant case, we used daily rates 
from November 3, 1997 through January 13, 1998. We then resumed the use 
of our normal methodology, starting with a benchmark based on the 
average of the 20 reported daily rates from January 14, 1998. We used 
the normal 40-day benchmark from February 12, 1998 to the close of the 
review period.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed 
below.

Comment 1: Allocation of Scrap Costs

    Consistent with previous administrative reviews of this case, SKC

[[Page 62650]]

objects to the Department's equal allocation of scrap costs to A-grade 
and B-grade film. SKC contends that its allocation methodology is 
reasonable and consistent with widely accepted accounting concepts. In 
support of its argument, SKC cites to the March 8, 1996 case brief 
filed in the second and third administrative reviews of this case. (See 
Appendix 1 of SKC's August 11, 1999 case brief.)
    SKC states that allocating the cost of scrap film equally to A-
grade and B-grade films improperly overstates the cost of B-grade films 
while understating the cost of A-grade films. SKC contends that its 
methodology of initially allocating costs equally among A-grade film, 
B-grade film, and scrap, and then reallocating the cost of scrap to the 
cost of A-grade film is consistent with accepted cost accounting 
methodologies.
    SKC also asserts that its methodology is consistent with the 
Department's treatment of jointly produced products in numerous other 
antidumping proceedings, wherein the Department recognized that a pure 
quantitative, or physical measures approach to cost allocation is 
unreasonable where there is significant difference in the value of the 
jointly produced products.
    SKC cites Elemental Sulphur from Canada 61 FR 8239, 8241-8243 
(March 4, 1996) (Sulphur from Canada); Oil Country Tubular Goods from 
Argentina 60 FR 33539, 33547 (June 28, 1995) (OCTG from Argentina); 
Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, (60 FR 29553, 29560) (June 5, 
1995) (Pineapple from Thailand) in support of its position.
    SKC maintains that it is the Department's well-established practice 
to calculate costs in accordance with a respondent's normal cost 
accounting system unless the system results in an unreasonable 
allocation of costs, and cites Pineapple from Thailand as support for 
this assertion. SKC states that its reported cost of manufacturing 
(COM) data were calculated in accordance with its normal and long-
established management cost accounting system. SKC notes that in the 
first review of this case (covering the period November 30, 1990 
through May 31, 1992), the Department allocated all costs associated 
with the production of scrap film to A-grade film. SKC contends that 
this methodology was upheld by the Court of International Trade (CIT). 
(See E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., et al. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 
2d 1248, 1254 (Ct. Int'l. Trade 1998) (DuPont).
    Finally, SKC argues that the Department's allocation methodology is 
``no longer tenable'' in light of the decision reached by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) in Thai 
Pineapple Public. Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, No. 97-1424,-1437 
(Fed. Cir. July 28, 1999) (Thai Pineapple). SKC asserts that in Thai 
Pineapple the Court rejected the use of a weight based allocation 
methodology where that methodology was inconsistent with the company's 
own books and records, and where the cost allocation methodology used 
by the company was neither price-based nor circular. Based upon the 
foregoing, SKC concludes that the Department should allocate all scrap 
costs to A-grade film.
    Petitioners argue that the Department should continue to allocate 
scrap costs equally between A-grade and B-grade film, as the Department 
has done in the second (June 1, 1992 through May 31, 1993), third (June 
1, 1993 through May 31, 1994), fifth (June 1, 1994 through May 31, 
1995), and sixth (June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996) reviews of this 
case. Petitioners argue that allocating yield losses equally between A-
grade and B-grade film is consistent with the Federal Circuit's ruling 
in IPSCO v. United States, 965 F. 2d. 1056 (Fed Cir. 1992) (IPSCO). 
Petitioners note that the circumstances of this case are 
indistinguishable from IPSCO since A-grade and B-grade films are also 
produced ``simultaneously in a single production process.''
    Petitioners further contend that in accepting SKC's reported costs 
for the first review, the Department predicated its acceptance upon the 
understanding that SKC had equally assigned costs to A- and B-grade 
films. Petitioners note that SKC's allocation methodology assigns all 
scrap cost to A-grade film.
    Finally, petitioners assert that the facts in this case are 
distinguishable from those in Thai Pineapple. Petitioners contend that 
A-grade and B-grade film have identical production inputs, whereas in 
Thai Pineapple the production process differs for the various pineapple 
products involved. Because SKC's allocation methodology does not 
allocate scrap costs equally to A-grade and B-grade film, Petitioners 
assert that the Department should continue to reject SKC's allocation 
methodology.
Department's Position
    We agree with Petitioners and disagree with SKC. As we explained in 
the final results of previous reviews of this order, we have determined 
that A-grade and B-grade PET film have identical production costs. 
Accordingly, we continue to rely on an equal cost methodology for both 
grades of PET film in these final results. (See Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Final 
Results of Review and Notice of Revocation in Part 61 FR 35177, 33182-
83 (July 5, 1996) (Second and Third Reviews); Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final 
Results of Review and Notice of Revocation in Part 61 FR 58374, 58375-
76, (November 14, 1996) (Fourth Review), Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final Results of 
Review 62 FR 38064, 38065-66 (Fifth Review) and Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final 
Results of Review 63 FR 37334, 37335-36 (Sixth Review). Moreover, as 
noted in the final results of the second through sixth reviews, the CIT 
has also ruled that our allocation of SKC's production costs between A-
grade and B-grade film is reasonable. (See E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 
Inc. et al. v. United States, 932 F. Supp. 296 (CIT 1996).)
    As Petitioners have indicated, our acceptance of SKC's allocation 
of scrap costs in the first review of this case was based upon our 
understanding that SKC had properly allocated the costs of A-grade and 
B-grade film. In that review we did not verify SKC's cost data. We 
determined that no verification was necessary because SKC was verified 
in the original investigation. Based upon the evidence existing in the 
record during the proceeding, we accepted SKC's allocation methodology 
because we were satisfied that SKC had calculated actual costs 
consistent with the Federal Circuit's ruling in IPSCO. (See 
Polyethylene Terphthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of 
Korea, 60 FR 42835, 42839-40 (August 17, 1995).)
    During the second and third administrative reviews, however, we 
carefully examined SKC's allocation methodology and conducted a 
thorough verification of SKC's accounting records. We determined that 
the allocation methodology employed by SKC fails to capture the actual 
production costs of A-grade and B-grade film. Based upon this 
determination, we have consistently required SKC to allocate yield 
losses equally between A- and B-grade film since the second review of 
this case. Further, we have determined that A-grade and B-grade film 
undergo an identical production process that involves an equal amount 
of material and fabrication expenses. The only difference in the 
resulting A-and B-grade film is that at the end of the manufacturing 
process a quality inspection is performed during which

[[Page 62651]]

some of the film is classified as high quality A-grade product while 
other film is classified as lower quality B-grade film (see Fourth 
Review at 61 FR 58375).
    We continue to reject SKC's argument that DuPont affirmed its 
accounting methodology. DuPont does not require the Department to 
accept an allocation methodology that does not accurately capture the 
actual cost of A-grade and B-grade film. In DuPont the CIT concluded 
that the Department's acceptance of SKC's calculations was supported by 
substantial evidence. The Court further concluded that the calculations 
properly reflected SKC's actual costs of production. The CIT, however, 
did not affirm SKC's allocation methodology. It merely accepted the 
allocations resulting from the methodology because the record evidence 
indicated that those allocations reflected actual production costs as 
required by IPSCO.
    In contrast, in the five previous reviews of this case, the 
Department has determined that SKC's allocation methodology fails to 
capture the actual cost of A-grade and B-grade film. We continue to 
maintain that SKC's reliance on Sulphur from Canada, Pineapple from 
Thailand , and OCTG from Argentina is misplaced. In Sulphur from 
Canada, the Department accepted respondent's treatment of sulphur as a 
by-product of natural gas production and its consequent assignment of 
all production costs to natural gas production and none to sulphur 
production in its normal records. (See Sulphur from Canada 61 FR at 
8240-44 (comments 2 & 3).) The Department, instead, accounted only for 
the further processing costs of sulphur that respondent incurred after 
the sulphur gas was removed from the well. When accepting respondent's 
methodology, the Department conducted a relative value analysis of the 
sulphur and found that sulphur was an ``insignificant'' by-product of 
natural gas operations. (Id. At 8241.) The Department noted that Husky 
did not have the option of disposing of or selling sulphur gas in the 
state it is recovered from the well, because it is a poisonous 
substance and the respondent was required by law to process it to a 
safe form before disposing of it. (Id at 8244.)
    Likewise in OCTG from Argentina, respondent's production process 
produced two grades of pipe: primary and secondary. (See OCTG from 
Argentina, 60 FR at 33547.) However, because the secondary pipe was of 
such an inferior quality that it could not be sold for normal OCTG 
applications, the Department determined that the relative value of 
secondary pipe was ``insignificant'' compared to OCTG and primary pipe. 
Id Therefore, the Department allocated all common production costs to 
the primary pipe and subtracted the revenue received from the small 
amount of sales of secondary pipe from the total cost of manufacture of 
the primary pipe. See Id.
    In the instant case, A-grade and B-grade films are produced in the 
same production process, with the only difference between A-grade and 
B-grade films being a different end-quality categorization. B-grade 
film is commercially saleable as a form of PET film. Thus, unlike the 
situations in Sulphur from Canada and OCTG from Argentina, B-grade film 
is not an ``insignificant'' by-product of PET film production.
    Further, Pineapple from Thailand, may be distinguished from the 
instant case because Pineapple from Thailand concerned the appropriate 
cost methodology for products manufactured in a joint production 
process where the primary raw material, pineapple fruit, is split 
apart, with different parts of the raw material going through different 
production processes to produce canned pineapple fruit and other 
pineapple products, e.g., pineapple juice. (See Pineapple from 
Thailand, 60 FR at 29560-61.) A joint production process occurs when 
``two or more products result simultaneously from the use of one raw 
material as production takes place.'' (See Management Accountants 
Handbook, Keeler et al., Fourth Edition at 11:1.) A joint production 
process produces two distinct products and the essential point of a 
joint production process is that ``the raw material, labor, and 
overhead costs prior to the initial split-off can be allocated to the 
final product only in some arbitrary, although necessary manner.'' Id. 
The identification of different grades of merchandise does not 
transform the manufacturing process into a joint production process 
which would require the allocation of costs. In this case, since 
production records clearly identify the amount of yield losses for each 
specific type of PET film, our allocation of yield losses to the films 
bearing those losses is reasonable, not arbitrary. (See Fourth Review, 
61 FR at 58575-76.)
    It is the Department's practice to calculate costs in accordance 
with a respondent's management accounting system where that system 
reconciles to the respondent's normal financial and cost accounting 
records and results in a reasonable allocation of costs.(See Sixth 
Review, 63 FR at 37334). Management accounting deals with providing 
information that managers inside an organization will use. Managerial 
accounting reports typically provide more detailed information about 
product costs, revenue and profits. They are used to identify problems, 
objectives, or goals, and possible alternatives. In order to respond to 
the Department's questionnaires, SKC officials devised a management 
accounting methodology for allocating costs incurred in the film and 
chip production cost centers to individual products produced during the 
period of review. SKC adopted this cost accounting system to reflect a 
management goal (i.e., to respond to the Department.) Under this 
system, SKC assigns the yield loss from the production of A- and B-
grade films exclusively to the A-grade films. This methodology helps 
management to focus on the film types with low yields. However, 
notwithstanding SKC's management's concern that it accurately portray 
the cost of its A-grade products, this managerial accounting 
methodology is not appropriate for reporting the actual costs of A-and 
B-grade products. As previously noted, A-grade and B-grade films 
undergo an identical production process. B-grade film is made using the 
same materials, on the same equipment, at the same time as the A-grade 
film.
    Because A-grade and B-grade film are made from identical production 
inputs, SKC's reliance on Thai Pineapple is misplaced. As the Federal 
Circuit noted, the production process ``is entirely different for the 
various pineapple products produced.'' (See Thai Pineapple at 8.) In 
contrast, A- and B-grade PET films are, as in the IPSCO case, produced 
from an identical production process. Further, contrary to SKC's 
argument, the Federal Circuit's ruling in Thai Pineapple does not 
require the Department to revise its methodology in this case. In Thai 
Pineapple, the Federal Circuit upheld Commerce's acceptance of the 
allocation methodology in the foreign producer's normal books and 
records because that methodology reasonably reflected the foreign 
producer's cost of production. See Thai Pineapple at 12-14. The Federal 
Circuit stated:

    To the extent that the records of [the foreign producer] 
reasonably reflect the costs of production, Commerce may rely upon 
them. See NTN Beaning Corp., 74 F. 3d at 1206. Conversely, if the 
records are not reasonably reflective of cost, Commerce may 
appropriately deviate from them. See Thai Pineapple at 13.

    In this case, as explained above, the Department has found the 
accounting methodology employed by SKC in its

[[Page 62652]]

books does not reflect the actual costs of A- and B-grade products. 
Because A- and B-grade films undergo an identical production process 
using the same production inputs, the Department's allocation of scrap 
cost equally to A- and B-grade film is appropriate, and is consistent 
with the Federal Circuit's ruling in Thai Pineapple.

Comment 2: CEP Profit

    SKC asserts that the Department failed to account for imputed 
credit and domestic inventory carrying costs in its calculation of 
total profit in the CEP profit calculation. SKC contends that all 
imputed expenses should be included in U.S. selling expenses because 
(1) SKC has already offset the interest expense that the Department 
used in the calculation of total U.S. costs for these imputed expenses 
and (2) adjustments for these expenses are not otherwise reflected in 
the total costs that are deducted from total revenue to derive CEP 
profit.
    Petitioners agree with SKC that the Department incorrectly 
calculated CEP profit but disagree with SKC as to the nature of the 
Department's error. Petitioners claim that as a result of SKC's 
specific categorization of revenues and costs, SKC has excluded the 
portion of CV financing expense which reflects imputed credit and 
inventory carrying costs included in U.S. expenses. (These items are 
revenue amounts in the calculation of CEP.) Therefore, Petitioners 
argue, SKC's total expenses are categorically different than its U.S. 
expenses, and SKC's total expenses are understated by mixing elements 
of revenue and cost. Petitioners assert that the Department should (1) 
recalculate SKC's finance expense without adjustments for accounts 
receivable and finished goods inventory, and with no adjustment for 
certain interest income items, (2) exclude ``refunded customs duties'' 
from SKC's aggregate cost of sales, and (3) calculate U.S. expenses for 
purposes of calculating CEP profit as the sum of U.S. movement 
expenses, direct and indirect U.S. selling expenses, and U.S. further 
manufacturing cost.
Department's Position
    We have adhered to our established practice and used the actual 
revenues and expenses listed in SKC's audited financial statements to 
calculate CEP profit. Also, consistent with established practice, we 
have excluded imputed interest expenses from the calculation of the 
U.S. selling expenses as used in our CEP profit calculation and have 
employed the actual interest expenses incurred by SKC in accordance 
with section 772(f)(2)(D) of the Act. Because our revised calculation 
of interest expense includes no offset for imputed expenses, SKC's 
argument that imputed expenses should be included in the calculation of 
CEP profit is moot.
    In determining a company's costs for COP and CV purposes, we 
include an amount for interest expense. As with other cost elements, 
this cost is calculated on an annual basis. (See Certain Stainless Wire 
Rods from France: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 47874, 47882 (September 11, 1996).) In these final 
results, we have removed SKC's claimed deductions for imputed credit 
and inventory carrying cost from its reported interest expense 
calculation. This is consistent with our practice of using the same 
interest expense rate for both COP and CV, and basing that calculation 
upon the actual expenses shown on the financial statements. (See Notice 
of Final Determination at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from 
Italy, 61 FR 30326, 30333 (June 14, 1996).)
    We disagree with petitioners that the interest income used as an 
offset to interest expense should be disallowed. This interest income 
is short-term in nature and is an allowable offset to total interest 
expenses. Also, we do not accept petitioners' argument that SKC should 
not be allowed to adjust its cost of sales for ``refunded customs 
duties.'' The refunded duties are reflected in the cost of goods sold 
in SKC's financial statement. These refunded duties, however, are not a 
part of the model specific cost of manufacture to which the interest 
rate is applied. (Refunded duties are included as an adjustment to the 
sales price in the anti-dumping calculation.) Thus, in order to compute 
the interest expense rate on the same basis to which it is being 
applied, it is reasonable to add the refunded duties back to the cost 
of sales in the calculation of the interest expense rate.
    Finally, we disagree with Petitioners' claim that movement charges 
should be included in the U.S. expenses used to calculate CEP profit. 
Unlike the statutory provision that defines the ``total expenses'' to 
be used in calculating CEP profit, Congress explicitly identified the 
expenses that constituted total U.S. expenses in section 772(f)(2)(B) 
of the Act. Section 772(f)(2)(B) of the Act provides that total U.S. 
expenses used to compute CEP profit are limited to those appearing 
under section 772(d) (1) and (2) of the statute. Movement expenses do 
not appear under either one of those subsections, but rather are 
described under section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Statute. (See ITA Policy 
Bulletin 97.1, September 4, 1997 (CEP Policy Bulletin).) Therefore, in 
accordance with section 772(f)(2)(B) of the Act, we have not included 
movement expenses in our calculation of the total U.S. selling expenses 
used to allocate CEP profit.

Comment 3: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses and CEP Profit

    SKC contends that the Department should include the U.S. indirect 
selling expenses incurred in the home market in its calculation of CEP 
profit. SKC notes that the Department's CEP Policy Bulletin does not 
distinguish ``activities in the United States from other U.S. selling 
activities'' in calculating total profit. The Petitioners did not 
comment on this matter.
Department's Position
    We agree with SKC. Consistent with our established practice, we 
have not distinguished activities in the United States from other U.S. 
selling activities in our calculation of total profit that is then 
allocated to U.S. expenses. We have revised our calculations 
accordingly.

Comment 4: Indirect Selling Expenses for Further Manufactured Sales

    At the onset of verification, SKC submitted a corrected indirect 
selling expense rate for further manufactured sales. SKC contends that 
in its preliminary results, the Department erroneously applied the 
revised indirect selling expense rate to all U.S. sales rather than to 
the U.S. further manufuactured sales to which this calculation was 
limited. The Petitioner did not comment in this matter.
Department's Position
    We agree with SKC. We have revised our computer program and applied 
SKC's revised indirect selling expenses only to further manufactured 
sales.

Comment 5: U.S. Interest Revenue

    SKC contends that the Department erroneously set interest expense 
to zero for certain U.S. sales to Anacomp on which SKC earned interest 
revenue. Petitioners did not comment on this matter.
Department's Position
    We agree with SKC. In these final results we have revised our 
computer program and adjusted for the interest expense that SKC 
incurred on all of its sales to Anacomp.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine 
that a

[[Page 62653]]

margin of 0.69 percent exists for SKC for the period June 1, 1997 
through May 31, 1998.
    The U.S. Customs Service will assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service. We have calculated an 
importer specific assessment value for subject merchandise based on the 
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value of sales examined.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be required 
for all shipments of PET film from the Republic of Korea entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of these final results of this review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit for SKC shall be 0.69 
percent; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not 
covered in this review but covered in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation 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 
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 the most recent review or the LTFV 
investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is 
a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate 
will be 21.5 percent the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation.
    This notice serves as the final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 351.305(a). 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 terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice is in accordance with section 
751(a)(1) of the Act.

Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    Dated: November 9, 1999.
[FR Doc. 99-30041 Filed 11-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P