[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2007-2009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-883]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-703]


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 10 , 2002, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its thirteenth 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Granular 
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from Italy. The review covers one 
producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Ausimont SpA, and its 
U.S. affiliate, Ausimont USA (Ausimont). The period of review (POR)

[[Page 2008]]

is August 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001. Based on our analysis of 
comments received, these final results differ from the preliminary 
results. The final results are listed below in the Final Results of 
Review section.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicki Schepker or Keith Nickerson, at 
(202) 482-1756 or (202) 482-3813, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Office V, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 10, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of the thirteenth administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on PTFE resin from Italy. See 
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy, 67 FR 57376 
(September 10, 2002) (Preliminary Results). On September 17, 2002, we 
received from Ausimont its response to sections B and D of the 
supplemental questionnaire.
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On 
October 10, 2002, we received case briefs from both the petitioner, 
E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Company (Dupont) and Ausimont. On October 17, 
2002, we received rebuttal briefs from both Dupont and Ausimont. The 
Department rejected, and requested resubmission of, DuPont's rebuttal 
brief on October 28, 2002, because that brief advanced a new argument 
not present in the petitioner's case brief and not responsive to 
arguments in the respondent's case brief. The petitioner resubmitted 
its rebuttal brief on November 1, 2002. Additionally, on October 31, 
2002, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to 
Ausimont. Ausimont submitted its response to this questionnaire on 
November 14, 2002, and the petitioner submitted comments on Ausimont's 
response on November 25, 2002.
    A public hearing was held on December 9, 2002, at which the parties 
discussed the issues contained in the case and rebuttal briefs, as well 
as Ausimont's second supplemental questionnaire response and the 
petitioner's November 25, 2002, comments.

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 Final Affirmative Determination; 
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy, 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 U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description 
of the scope remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs, and post-briefing 
submissions, by parties to this administrative review are addressed in 
the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum) from 
Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, 
to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated 
January 8, 2003, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to 
this notice, as an appendix, is a list of the issues which parties have 
raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. 
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this 
review and the corresponding recommendations in this memorandum, which 
is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main 
Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov. The 
paper copy and the electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we made the following 
adjustments to the calculation methodology in determining the final 
dumping margins in the proceeding:
[sbull] We were unable to calculate the margin for a substantial 
quantity of unreported further manufactured sales and, therefore, we 
applied adverse facts available to the quantity of unreported sales. 
See Comment 1 of the Decision Memorandum.
[sbull] In calculating both the costs of production for the cost test 
and the constructed export price (CEP) profit ratio, we used a general 
and administrative (G&A) expenses rate based on adverse facts 
available. See Comment 2 of the Decision Memorandum.
[sbull] We treated home market ``off spec'' sales, which were reported 
after the preliminary results, as non-prime merchandise, and did not 
compare them to U.S. sales of prime merchandise. See Comment 4 of the 
Decision Memorandum.
[sbull] For home market sales with missing inland freight expenses, as 
facts available, we applied the freight expense from the most similar 
sale in terms of customer, product, quantity and destination. See Final 
Results Calculation Memorandum to Constance Handley from Vicki Schepker 
and Keith Nickerson, dated January 8, 2003, (Calculation Memorandum) 
also on file in the CRU.
[sbull] We used Ausimont's POR costs, reported after the preliminary 
results, in the final results calculation. See Calculation Memorandum.
[sbull] For further manufactured sales, we used the revised further 
manufacturing costs provided in Ausimont's November 14, 2002, 
supplemental questionnaire response. See Comment 6 of the Decision 
Memorandum.
[sbull] We made adjustments to packing, variable and total cost, and 
indirect selling expense variables, where appropriate, to reflect 
proper currencies and units of measure. See Calculation Memorandum.
    These adjustments are discussed in the Decision Memorandum and in 
the Calculation Memorandum.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an interested party 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject 
to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title.'' In addition, section 
776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an 
interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the Department 
may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as 
the facts otherwise available. The statute also provides that such an 
adverse inference may be based on secondary information, including 
information drawn from the petition, a final determination in an 
investigation, any previous administrative review, or any other

[[Page 2009]]

information placed on the record. In this case, the Department has 
applied partial facts available for a quantity of unreported sales and 
the general and administrative expense ratio. (See the Decision 
Memorandum at comments 1 and 2).

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average margin exists for the period of August 1, 2000, 
through July 31, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-Average
                Exporter/Manufacturer                  Margin Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ausimont SpA.........................................              12.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject 
merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. Where 
the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis we will 
instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on that 
importer's entries of subject merchandise. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service 
within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.
    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) 
of the Act: (1) for the exporter/manufacturer covered by this review, 
the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for 
merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this 
review but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in 
the most recent final results in which that producer or exporter 
participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review 
or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, the 
cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the 
merchandise in these final results of review or in the most recent 
final results in which that producer participated; and (4) if neither 
the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or in 
any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 
46.46 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the less-than-
fair-value investigation (53 FR 26096, July 11, 1988). These deposit 
requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a 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 in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 8, 2003.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

1. Unreported further manufactured sales
2. Calculation of the CEP profit ratio
3. Application of the special rule
4. Treatment of sales of off-spec merchandise
5. Treatment of negative margins
6. Packing expenses for further manufactured sales
7. Issuance of draft final results
8. Factory overhead and G&A expenses for further manufactured sales
[FR Doc. 03-883 Filed 1-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S