[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46483-46492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4331]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(C-533-825)


Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Film, Sheet, and Strip from India

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on 
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from 
India. This CVD review covers two companies. The period of review (POR) 
is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. For information on the 
net subsidy rate for the reviewed companies, see the ``Preliminary 
Results of Administrative Review'' section of this notice. If the final 
results remain the same as the preliminary results of this review, we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 
countervailing duties as detailed in the ``Preliminary Results of 
Administrative Review'' section of this notice. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results. (See the ``Public 
Comment'' section of this notice.)

EFFECTIVE DATE:  August 10, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen, at (202) 482-2769, or 
Howard Smith, at (202) 482-5193, AD/CVD Operations Office IV, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 1, 2002, the Department published a CVD order on PET film 
from India. See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from India, 67 FR 44179 
(July 1, 2002) (PET Film Order). On July 1, 2004, the Department 
published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 2004). On July 29, 2004, 
Jindal Polyester Limited/Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal) 
and Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex),

[[Page 46484]]

Indian producers and exporters of subject merchandise, requested that 
the Department conduct an administrative review of the CVD order on PET 
film from India with respect to their exports to the United States. On 
July 30, 2004, Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of 
America, Toray Plastics (America), and SKC America, Inc. (petitioners), 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the 
CVD order on PET film from India with respect to Polyplex, Jindal, 
Ester Industries Ltd. (Ester), Garware Polyester Limited (Garware), 
Flex Industries Ltd. (Flex), SRF Ltd. (SRF), and MTZ Polyesters Ltd. 
(MTZ). Also on July 30, 2004, Garware requested that the Department 
conduct an administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from 
India with respect to its exports to the United States. On August 30, 
2004, the Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD 
order on PET film from India covering Polyplex, Jindal, Ester, Garware, 
Flex, SRF and MTZ, for the period from January 1, 2003, through 
December 31, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 
52857 (August 30, 2004).
    On July 29, 2004, Jindal also requested that the Department conduct 
a changed circumstances review of the CVD order on PET film from India 
in order to determine whether Jindal Poly Films Limited is the 
successor-in-interest to Jindal Polyester Limited. On September 13, 
2004, the Department decided not to initiate the requested CVD changed 
circumstances review, and instead decided to examine the name change in 
the instant CVD administrative review of Jindal. See letter from the 
Department to Jindal regarding the request for a changed circumstances 
review, on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the 
main Commerce building.
    The Department issued questionnaires to the Government of India 
(GOI) and all seven respondents. On September 24, 2004, petitioners 
withdrew their requests for reviews of all seven respondents. On 
November 1, 2004, Garware withdrew its request to be reviewed. The 
Department has rescinded its review of all of the named respondents 
except Jindal and Polyplex. See the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' 
section below.
    On November 4, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  
351.301(d)(4)(i)(B), petitioners timely submitted a new subsidy 
allegation. Petitioners alleged that respondents received 
countervailable benefits in the form of duty exemptions under the GOI's 
Advance License Program (ALP). The Department initially determined on 
December 10, 2004, that petitioners had failed to sufficiently support 
their allegation, but provided petitioners with an additional 10 days 
in which to provide further support of their allegation. See Memorandum 
to Holly A. Kuga, through Howard Smith, from the team regarding ``New 
Subsidy Allegation'' (December 10, 2004). On December 20, 2004, 
petitioners provided further support of their allegation. On January 4, 
2005, Jindal submitted comments opposing the petitioners' allegation. 
On March 28, 2005, the Department determined that the petitioners had 
sufficiently supported their allegation, and initiated an investigation 
of the ALP. See Memorandum to Holly A. Kuga, through Howard Smith, from 
the team regarding ``Advance License Program'' (March 28, 2005) (ALP 
Initiation Memorandum). Throughout this administrative review, the 
Department has issued supplemental questionnaires to Jindal, Polyplex, 
and the GOI, and petitioners have submitted comments regarding the 
respondents' questionnaire responses.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of the order, the products covered are all gauges of 
raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. 
Excluded 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 thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 
3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is 
dispositive.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As provided in 19 CFR Sec.  351.213(d)(1), ``the Secretary will 
rescind an administrative review under this section, in whole or in 
part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 
90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the 
requested review.'' Petitioners withdrew their review request, in its 
entirety, within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of 
initiation of the instant administrative review. Additionally, Garware 
filed a timely withdrawal of its request to be reviewed. Because no 
other interested parties requested an administrative review of Garware, 
Ester, MTZ, SRF, or Flex, the Department is rescinding the instant 
administrative review of these companies. Although petitioners withdrew 
their request for a review of Jindal and Polyplex, these two companies 
timely requested reviews of their sales and thus, the Department has 
not rescinded its reviews of Jindal and Polyplex.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

    Under 19 CFR Sec.  351.524(d)(2)(i), we will presume the allocation 
period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) 
prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service for renewable physical 
assets of the industry under consideration (as listed in the Internal 
Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range 
System, and as updated by the Department of the Treasury). This 
presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these 
tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical 
assets of the company or industry under investigation. Specifically, 
the party must establish that the difference between the AUL from the 
tables and the company-specific AUL or country-wide AUL for the 
industry under investigation is significant, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  
351.524(d)(2)(ii). For assets used to manufacture plastic film, such as 
PET film, the IRS tables prescribe an AUL of 9.5 years.
    In the investigative segment of this proceeding, the Department 
used a company-specific AUL of 18 years for Polyplex. Because there is 
no new evidence on the record that would cause the Department to 
reconsider this decision, in this review, the Department will continue 
to use an AUL of 18 years in allocating Polyplex's non-recurring 
subsidies.
    This is the first segment of this proceeding in which Jindal has 
participated. Since 1995, Jindal has depreciated its assets using a 
straight-line methodology over either 18 or 13.72 years. Pursuant to 19 
CFR Sec.  351.524(d)(2)(iii), Jindal calculated a company-specific AUL 
of 17 years. See Jindal's May 16, 2005, submission at exhibit 76. 
Absent any record evidence to the contrary, we have preliminarily 
determined to use an AUL of 17 years in allocating Jindal's non-
recurring subsidies.

Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate

Benchmark for Short-Term loans

    In accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  351.505(a)(3)(i) and consistent 
with

[[Page 46485]]

the underlying investigation, for programs requiring the application of 
a short-term benchmark interest rate, we used as the benchmark the 
company-specific, weighted average short-term interest rate on 
comparable commercial loans, as reported by the respondents. Where the 
company did not report any comparable commercial short-term loans, we 
used a short term national average interest rate as our benchmark.
    In calculating the benefit for rupee-denominated, pre- and post-
shipment export financing loans, we used as a benchmark the weighted-
average interest rate paid by the company on its inland bill 
discounting loans. In the most recently completed review of this 
proceeding, the Department determined that inland bill discounting 
loans are more comparable to pre- and post-shipment export financing 
loans than other types of short-term loans. See Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 69 FR 51063 (August 17, 2004) (First 
PET Film Review - Final), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, in the section entitled ``Benchmark Interest Rates for 
Short-term Loans,'' and the Department's position in Comment 3. There 
is no information on the record of this review that would cause the 
Department to reconsider its decision regarding the pre-and post-
shipment export financing loan benchmarks.
    For Jindal's and Polyplex's pre-shipment and post-shipment export 
financing loans that are denominated in U.S. dollars, we used a dollar-
denominated short-term interest rate as our benchmark in accordance 
with 19 CFR Sec.  351.505. This is consistent with the approach taken 
in the previous segment of this proceeding. See First PET Film Review - 
Final (where we used U.S. dollar-denominated working capital demand 
loans (WCDL) as the benchmark).
    Polyplex reported two types of company-specific commercial short-
term U.S. dollar-denominated loans: (1) WCDLs and (2) a short-term loan 
from the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI). WCDLs and pre- 
and post-shipment export financing loans are used to finance both 
inventories and receivables, whereas the IDBI loan is not used in this 
manner. In accordance with our regulations, we have continued to use 
the weighted-average interest rate of the WCDLs as the benchmark 
interest rate for Polyplex's pre-shipment and post-shipment export 
financing loans that are denominated in U.S. dollars.
    Jindal did not report any U.S. dollar-denominated short-term loans 
for the POR. As the Department has been unable to identify an 
appropriate national average dollar-denominated short-term interest 
rate for India, for this preliminary determination we have used as our 
benchmark a national average dollar-denominated short-term interest 
rate for the United States, as reported in the International Monetary 
Fund's publication International Financial Statistics (May 2004). This 
is consistent with the approach taken in Bottle-Grade PET Resin Final.

Determination

Discount Rates

    For programs requiring a rupee-denominated discount rate, or the 
application of a rupee-denominated, long-term benchmark interest rate, 
we used, where available, a discount or benchmark rate equal to the 
company-specific, weighted-average interest rate on all comparable 
commercial long-term, rupee-denominated loans.
    For those years for which we did not have company-specific 
information, we relied on a comparable rupee-denominated, long-term 
benchmark interest rate from the immediately preceding year as directed 
by 19 CFR Sec.  351.505(a)(2)(iii). When there were no comparable 
rupee-denominated, long-term loans from commercial banks during either 
the year under consideration, or the preceding year, we used national 
average interest rates pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  351.505(a)(3)(ii) for 
private creditors as reported in the publication, International 
Financial Statistics (2003). This is consistent with the approach taken 
in this and other proceedings. See First PET Film Review - Final and 
the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, in the section 
entitled ``Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate.'' See also, Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Bottle-Grade 
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin From India, 70 FR 13460 (March 
21, 2005) (Bottle-Grade PET Resin Final Determination). The Department 
applied rates from International Financial Statistics for 1995 for 
Jindal.

Programs Preliminarily Determined To Confer Subsidies

1. Pre-shipment and Post-shipment Export Financing

    The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), through commercial banks, provides 
short-term pre-shipment financing, or ``packing credits,'' to 
exporters. Upon presentation of a confirmed export order or letter of 
credit to a bank, companies may receive pre-shipment loans for working 
capital purposes, i.e., for purchasing raw materials, warehousing, 
packing, and transporting merchandise destined for exportation. 
Companies may also establish pre-shipment credit lines upon which they 
may draw as needed. Limits on credit lines are established by 
commercial banks and are based on a company's creditworthiness and past 
export performance. Credit lines may be denominated either in Indian 
rupees or in a foreign currency. Companies that have pre-shipment 
credit lines typically pay interest on a quarterly basis on the 
outstanding balance of the account at the end of each period. 
Commercial banks extending export credit to Indian companies must, by 
law, charge interest at rates determined by the RBI.
    Post-shipment export financing consists of loans in the form of 
discounted trade bills or advances by commercial banks. Exporters 
qualify for this program by presenting their export documents to the 
lending bank. The credit covers the period from the date of shipment of 
the goods to the date of realization of the proceeds from the sale to 
the overseas customer. Under the Foreign Exchange Management Act of 
1999, exporters are required to realize proceeds from their export 
sales within 180 days after the date of shipment. Post-shipment 
financing is, therefore, a working capital program used to finance 
export receivables. In general, post-shipment loans are granted for a 
period of no more than 180 days. If the loans are not repaid within the 
due date, the exporters lose the concessional interest rate on this 
financing.
    In the investigation, the Department determined that the pre-and 
post-shipment export financing programs conferred countervailable 
subsidies on the subject merchandise because: (1) provision of the 
export financing constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to 
section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act); 
(2) provision of the export financing confers benefits on the 
respondents under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act because the interest 
rates given under these programs are lower than commercially available 
interest rates; and, (3) these programs are specific under section 
771(5A)(B) of the Act because they are contingent upon export 
performance. See Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET 
Film), 67 FR 34905 (May 16, 2002) (PET Film Final Determination) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (PET Film Final 
Determination - Decision Memorandum), at the section entitled

[[Page 46486]]

``Pre-shipment and Post-shipment Export Financing.'' No new information 
or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented to warrant 
reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, for the purpose of 
these preliminary results, we continue to find this program 
countervailable.
    The benefit conferred by the pre-and post-shipment loans is the 
difference between the amount of interest the company paid on the 
government loan and the amount of interest it would have paid on a 
comparable commercial loan. Because pre-shipment loans are tied to a 
company's total exports, we calculated the subsidy rate for these loans 
by dividing the total benefit by the value of each respondent's total 
exports during the POR. Because post-shipment loans are tied to 
shipments to a particular country, we divided the total benefit from 
the post-shipment loans used in sales to the United States by the value 
of each respondent's total exports of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. See 19 CFR Sec.  351.525 (b)(4). On this basis, 
we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided to 
Polyplex and Jindal from pre-shipment export financing to be 0.10 and 
0.12 percent ad valorem, respectively. We also preliminarily determine 
the net countervailable subsidy provided to Polyplex and Jindal from 
post-shipment export financing to be 0.21 and 0.15 percent ad valorem, 
respectively.

2. Advance License Program

    Under the Advance License Program (ALP), exporters may import, duty 
free, specified quantities of materials required to produce products 
that are subsequently exported. Companies, however, remain contingently 
liable for the unpaid duties until they have exported the finished 
products. The quantities of imported materials and exported finished 
products are linked through standard input-output norms (SIONs) 
established by the GOI. See GOI response to question seven in the April 
21, 2005, submission. During the POR, Polyplex and Jindal used advance 
licenses to import certain goods duty free.
    In the underlying investigation, the Department found that the ALP 
contained the same features as the ALP examined in Hot-Rolled from 
India, where the Department determined that advance licenses, which 
provided for duty exemptions on imported inputs consumed in the 
production process, were not countervailable because the system was 
reasonable and effective for the purposes intended, as required under 
section 351.518 of the Department's regulations. See PET Film 
Investigation Final at the section entitled ``Programs Determined Not 
to Confer Subsidies;'' see also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
India, 66 FR 49635 (September 28, 2001) (Hot-Rolled Final 
Determination). Petitioners, however, filed a timely new subsidy 
allegation with respect to the ALP, claiming that the ALP has undergone 
a number of significant changes since the underlying investigation, and 
requested that the Department investigate the new version of the 
program. After considering petitioners' allegation, the Department 
initiated an investigation of the revised ALP. For a discussion of the 
Department's decision to initiate an investigation of this program, See 
ALP Initiation Memorandum.
    During the course of investigating the ALP in this administrative 
review, the Department requested that the GOI submit information 
regarding both the de jure changes in the policies and procedures 
related to the ALP and the industry-specific SIONs that are used to 
determine the amount of imported material required to produce each unit 
of exported PET film. With respect to the overall program, the 
Department requested information on the ALP laws and procedures as well 
as information regarding auditing and tracking activities, domestic 
suppliers, and deemed exports. With respect to the SIONs, the 
Department requested that the GOI report the date on which the PET film 
SIONs were calculated, provide copies of the documents evidencing the 
calculation of the PET film SIONs, and identify any requirements that 
the GOI review or revise the SIONs.
    While the GOI asserted that the changes between the old 1997-2002 
and the new 2002-2007 Export/Import Policy guidelines (under which the 
ALP regulations are enumerated) were minor, our analysis of the 
provisions in effect during the POR indicate that there are a number of 
aspects of the system that undermine its reasonableness and 
effectiveness. For instance, the GOI could not provide the Department 
with requested information demonstrating that certain aspects of the 
ALP were implemented and monitored as intended. The Department 
requested information on whether the GOI has ever carried out an 
examination or verification of any producer receiving an Advance 
License to ensure that inputs listed in the SIONs are actually consumed 
in the production of exported goods (see question 31 in the GOIs April 
21, 2005, submission). Moreover, the Department noted that if the GOI 
has carried out such an examination, it should identify when the 
examination took place and the results of the examination. Despite the 
Department's request, the GOI did not cite to any specific examination 
or verification of a producer in any industry. The Department also 
asked whether the GOI conducts audits that track inputs and exports 
under the ALP. While the GOI indicated that it monitors certain 
movements of inputs, it did not demonstrate that a mechanism exists to 
evaluate SIONs to determine whether they remain reasonable over time 
(see question 35 in the GOIs April 21, 2005, submission). In fact, the 
GOI reported that there were no requirements that it review the SIONs 
and explained that if a company applies for the creation of a SION and 
the GOI fails to review the SION within four months of the application, 
the SION takes effect and all companies in the industry may use the 
untested SION. However, in its May 16, 2005, supplemental questionnaire 
response, the GOI stated that new regulations have been introduced as 
an attempt to address the lack of a requirement that the SIONs be 
reviewed periodically. See GOI response to questions one and five in 
the May 16, 2005, submission.
    With respect to other systemic issues, the Department asked the GOI 
to provide information demonstrating that companies benefitting under 
the ALP are subject to penalties for claiming excessive credits or not 
meeting their export requirements. The GOI could not identify the 
number of companies in 2003 (or even one company) that either failed to 
meet export commitments under the ALP or was penalized for failing to 
meet the export requirements under the ALP. Additionally, the GOI was 
unable to provide any specific information regarding the number of 
companies that applied for, or received, an extension of time to meet 
their export commitment. In response to these systemic inquiries, the 
GOI acknowledged that it was unable to document that it had performed 
any such activities to ensure compliance with the program, noting that 
it does not maintain these sorts of records centrally. See the GOI's 
answers to questions 39 through 46 of its April 21, 2005, supplemental 
questionnaire response and its answers to questions 26 through 31 of 
its May 16, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response.
    Furthermore, the record indicates that the ALP allows companies to 
meet their export requirements without physically exporting through the 
use of deemed exports. In reviewing the ten categories

[[Page 46487]]

of sales/transactions considered deemed exports, we note that several, 
if not most, of the allowable categories do not appear to have even a 
tangential link to exports. According to the GOI, eight of the deemed 
export categories are considered categories of sales ``similar to those 
of physical exports for the purpose of the ALS'' (Advance License 
System). See GOI's answers to questions 53-55 of the GOIs April 21, 
2005, submission. However, these allowable categories under the ALP 
include sales to entities such as domestic fertilizer plants, power 
plants and refineries, UN-funded projects, nuclear power projects, and 
``any project or purpose in respect of which the Ministry of Finance, 
by a notification, permits the import of such goods at zero customs 
duty.'' See Exhibits 12 and 13 of the GOIs April 21, 2005, submission.
    With respect to the PET film SIONs applied during the POR, the GOI 
could not produce documentation indicating: (1) when the PET film SIONs 
were originally calculated; (2) any documentation demonstrating that 
the process outlined in its regulations was actually applied in 
calculating the original PET film SIONs; or (3) any of the supporting 
documents used in calculating those SIONs. Further, the GOI reported 
that there were no requirements that it review the SIONs, although, as 
noted above, the GOI did provide information about possible changes to 
the ALP that took place after the POR, which may be relevant in 
subsequent administrative reviews.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  351.519(a)(4), the Department will 
consider the entire amount of an exemption to confer a benefit unless: 
(1) the government in question applies a system or procedure to confirm 
which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported products 
and in what amounts, and the system or procedure is reasonable and 
effective for the purposes intended, or (2) absent a system that is 
reasonable and effectively applied, the government in question has 
carried out an examination to determine which inputs are consumed in 
the production of the exported products and in what amounts. As 
discussed above, in light of the changes to the ALP in the Export/
Import Policy guidelines that affected this administrative review 
period, the Department has reevaluated the ALP in its entirety to 
determine whether it meets the regulatory requirements enumerated 
above. The evidence on the record of this review does not demonstrate 
that the GOI applies a system or procedure to confirm which inputs are 
consumed in the production of the exported products and in what 
amounts, and that the ALP is reasonable and effective for the purposes 
intended. The GOI has failed to provide information demonstrating that 
the ALP was monitored and regulated effectively during the POR, as 
evidenced by the lack of information related to verification or 
implementation of extensions or penalties. In addition, the system 
allows for the availability of ALP benefits for a broad category of 
deemed exports that are not linked to the actual exportation of the 
subject merchandise, and provides for government discretion to bestow 
benefits under the program even more broadly. Finally, SIONs are a 
critical element of the ALP system, linking the amount of materials 
that may be imported duty-free to the exported finished products that 
have been produced with such inputs. The GOI could not provide the 
Department with its SION calculations for PET film or any documentation 
describing that the process outlined in its regulations was actually 
applied in calculating the original PET film SIONs. Thus, the 
Department cannot conclude that the system the GOI has in place with 
respect to the ALP is reasonable or is applied in a manner that is 
effective for the purposes intended.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the Advance License 
Program confers countervailable subsidy because: (1) a financial 
contribution, as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, is 
provided under the program, as the GOI provides the respondents with an 
exemption of import duties; (2) the GOI does not have in place and does 
not apply a system that is reasonable and effective for the purposes 
intended under 19 CFR Sec.  351.519(a)(4), to confirm which inputs, and 
in what amounts, are consumed in the production of the exported 
products, and thus the entire amount of import duty exemption earned by 
the respondent constitutes a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the 
Act; and (3) this program is contingent upon export and, therefore, is 
specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. However, if a party in a 
future proceeding is able to provide information with respect to the 
systemic deficiencies identified above, the Department will reevaluate 
the ALP to determine whether those deficiencies have been overcome.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  351.524(c), exemptions of import duties on 
imports consumed in production provide a recurring benefit. Thus, we 
treated the benefit provided under the ALP as a recurring benefit. To 
calculate the subsidy rate, we subtracted from the total amount of 
exempted duties under the ALP during the POR as an allowable offset the 
actual amount of application fees paid for each license in accordance 
with section 771(6) of the Act (in order to receive the benefits of the 
ALP, companies must pay application fees). We then divided the 
resulting net benefit by the total value of exports of PET film. We 
preliminarily determined the net countervailable subsidy provided to 
Polyplex and Jindal under the ALP to be 0.63 and 6.82 percent ad 
valorem, respectively.

3. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)

    The EPCGS provides for a reduction or exemption of customs duties 
on imports of capital goods used in the production of exported 
products. Under this program, producers may import capital equipment at 
reduced rates of duty by attempting to earn convertible foreign 
currency equal to four to five times the value of the capital goods 
within a period of eight years. If the company fails to meet the export 
obligation, the company is subject to payment of all or part of the 
duty reduction, depending on the extent of the export shortfall, plus 
penalty interest.
    In the underlying investigation, we determined that the import duty 
reduction provided under the EPCGS is a countervailable export subsidy 
because (1) it provides a financial contribution pursuant to section 
771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, (2) which also constitutes a benefit under 
section 771(5)(e). Because this program is contingent upon export 
performance, it is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. See 
PET Film Final Determination; see also Hot-Rolled Final Determination, 
and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum, at the section 
entitled ``Analysis of Programs.'' No new information or evidence of 
changed circumstances has been provided in this review to warrant a 
reconsideration of this determination.
    In cases where the GOI has formally waived import duties on capital 
equipment, we treat the full amount of the waived duty as a grant 
received in the year in which the GOI officially granted the waiver.
    Normally, exemptions and excessive rebates of indirect taxes are 
considered to be recurring benefits and are recognized in the year of 
receipt. See 19 CFR Sec.  351.524(c)(1). However, the Department's 
regulations recognize that, under certain circumstances, it may be 
appropriate to allocate these types of benefits over a number of years. 
See 19 CFR Sec.  351.524(c)(2). See also Countervailing Duties; Final 
Rule, 63 FR 65348, 65393 (November 25, 1998) (CVD

[[Page 46488]]

Preamble). In prior segments of this proceeding, we determined that the 
benefit received from the waiver of import duties under the EPCGS is 
tied to the purchase of capital assets and it is therefore appropriate 
to treat the waiver of duties as a non-recurring benefit. See PET Film 
Final Determination; see also Hot-Rolled Final Determination. No new 
information or evidence of changed circumstances have been presented in 
this administrative review to warrant reconsideration of these 
determinations.
    In their questionnaire responses, Polyplex and Jindal reported all 
of their imports of capital equipment under EPCGS licenses and the 
application fees they paid to obtain those EPCGS licenses. In the 
investigation, we considered such fees to be an ``. . . application 
fee, deposit, or similar payment paid in order to qualify for, or to 
receive, the benefit of the countervailable subsidy.'' Therefore, these 
fees may be deducted from the value of the benefit when calculating the 
amount of the countervailable subsidy. See section 771(6)(A) of the 
Act. See also Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination 
and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 
and Strip (PET film) from India, 66 FR 53389 (October 22, 2001) 
(unchanged by the final determination). Nothing has changed in this 
administrative review to warrant reconsideration of that determination.
    Polyplex and Jindal reported that they imported machinery under the 
EPCGS in the years prior to and during the POR. For the imported 
machinery for which Polyplex has met its export requirements, the GOI 
has completely waived import duties. For some of its machinery imports, 
however, Polyplex has not yet completed its export requirements as 
required under the program. Further, Jindal has not yet completed its 
export requirements for any of its imports of capital machinery. 
Therefore, although Polyplex and Jindal received an exemption from 
paying import duties when the capital machinery was imported, for 
certain licenses the final waiver on the obligation to repay the duties 
has not yet been granted by the GOI.
    To calculate the benefit received from the waiver of the 
respondents' import duties on their capital equipment imports where the 
company's export obligation had been met, we considered the total 
amount of duties waived (net of application fees) to be the benefit. 
Further, consistent with the approach followed in the underlying 
investigation, we determined the year of receipt of the benefit to be 
the year in which the GOI formally waived the respondent company's 
outstanding import duties. See PET Film Final Determination. Next, we 
performed the ``0.5 percent test,'' as prescribed under 19 CFR Sec.  
351.524(b)(2) for each year in which the GOI granted the respondent an 
import duty waiver. Those waivers with face values in excess of 0.5 
percent of each respondent's total export sales in the year in which 
the waivers were granted were allocated over Jindal's and Polyplex's 
company-specific AULs, while waivers with face values less 0.5 percent 
of each respondent's total export sales were expensed in the year of 
receipt. See ``Subsidies Valuation Information'' section above.
    Although Polyplex submitted a notice to the GOI indicating that it 
may have met an export obligation on one of its EPCGS licenses, this 
notice was dated after the end of the POR. Consistent with our approach 
in the underlying investigation, the prior administrative review, and 
in the Hot-Rolled Final Determination, we will treat benefits under the 
EPCGS as a grant only when the GOI has issued a formal waiver 
applicable to the POR stating that the recipient has completed its 
export obligations and is waived from paying the outstanding import 
duties. See PET Film Final Determination. The statement from the GOI 
included in Exhibit 1 of Polyplex's March 21, 2005, questionnaire 
response is dated February 4, 2005. Because this date falls after the 
instant POR, the Department finds that the letter does not demonstrate 
that Polyplex met an export obligation with respect to the relevant 
license during the POR.
    As noted above, import duty reductions that Polyplex and Jindal 
received on the imports of capital equipment for which they have not 
yet met export requirements, may have to be repaid to the GOI if the 
export requirements under the licenses are not met. Consistent with our 
practice and prior determinations, we will treat the unpaid import duty 
liability as an interest-free loan. See 19 CFR Sec.  351.505(d)(1); see 
also First PET Film Review - Final.
    The amount of the unpaid duty liabilities to be treated as an 
interest-free loan is the amount of the import duty reduction or 
exemption for which the respondent applied, but, as of the end of the 
POR, had not been finally waived by the GOI. Accordingly, we find the 
benefit to be the interest that Polyplex and Jindal would have paid 
during the POR had they borrowed the full amount of the duty reduction 
or exemption at the time of importation. See PET Film Final 
Determination; see also Hot-Rolled Final Determination. Pursuant to 19 
CFR Sec.  351.505(d)(1), the benchmark for measuring the benefit is a 
long-term interest rate because the event upon which repayment of the 
duties depends (i.e., the date of expiration of the time period to 
fulfill the export commitment) occurs at a point in time more than one 
year after the date of importation of the capital goods (i.e., under 
the EPCGS program, the time period for fulfilling the export commitment 
expires eight years after importation of the capital good).
    The benefit received under the EPCGS is the total amount of 
benefits received on waived duties and the total amount of benefits 
conferred on Polyplex and Jindal in the form of contingent liability 
loans. To calculate the net countervailable subsidy rate under this 
program, we divided the total benefits received by Jindal and Polyplex 
respectively on all EPCGS licenses containing imports of capital goods 
used in the production of subject merchandise during 2003 by the total 
value of each company's export sales of subject and non-subject 
merchandise PET film. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net 
countervailable subsidy for Polyplex and Jindal under the EPCGS to be 
3.86 and 2.23 percent ad valorem, respectively.

4. Income Tax Exemption Scheme 80HHC

    Under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, the GOI allows exporters 
to exclude profits derived from export sales from their taxable income. 
In prior proceedings, the Department found this program to be a 
countervailable export subsidy, because it provided a financial 
contribution in the form of a tax exemption, which also constitutes a 
benefit. The program is specific because the subsidy is contingent upon 
export performance. See sections 771(5)(D) and (E) and 771(5A)(B) of 
the Act; see also Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India: Final Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 31515 (May 18, 
2000) and First PET Film Review - Final. No new information or evidence 
of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to 
warrant reconsideration of this finding.
    To calculate the benefit under this program, we first calculated 
the total amount of income tax each company would have paid had it not 
claimed a tax deduction under section 80HHC during the POR and 
subtracted from this amount the income taxes actually paid.

[[Page 46489]]

We then divided this benefit by the free-on-board (fob) value of each 
company's total exports consistent with 19 CFR Sec.  351.525(b)(2). On 
this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy 
for Polyplex and Jindal under section 80HHC to be 2.64 and 0.25 percent 
ad valorem, respectively.

5. Capital Subsidy

    Polyplex received a capital infusion of Rs. 2,500,000 in 1989 from 
the GOI. This subsidy was discovered at verification during the 
investigation. See PET Film Final Determination. The Department 
determined at that time that there was insufficient time to establish 
whether the program is specific under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act. 
Thus, the Department stated its intention to reexamine the program in a 
future administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  351.311(c)(2). 
See PET Film Final Determination - Decision Memorandum at the section 
entitled ``Programs Determined Not To Confer Subsidies.'' Based on the 
information obtained during verification in the investigation, the 
Department determined that a financial contribution was provided by the 
GOI, pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, and a benefit, in the 
amount of the capital subsidy, was received by Polyplex under section 
771(E) of the Act.
    In the first administrative review, the Department sent 
questionnaires to the GOI, and Polyplex, seeking information that would 
allow it to determine whether the capital subsidy program is specific 
under section 771(5A) of the Act. Neither party was able to provide any 
information regarding the subsidy. As facts available, the Department 
determined that the subsidy was specific.
    In the instant review, the Department again sent questionnaires to 
the GOI, and Polyplex, seeking information that would allow it to 
determine whether the program is specific under section 771(5A) of the 
Act. As in the first review, Polyplex and the GOI reported that they 
were unable to provide any information regarding the specificity of 
this program due to the considerable amount of time that has elapsed 
since the provision of the subsidy. As no new information or evidence 
of changed circumstances has been presented to warrant reconsideration 
of our determination in the previous segment of this proceeding, for 
the purpose of these preliminary results, we continue to find, as facts 
available, that the subsidy is specific under section 771(5A)(A) of the 
Act. See First PET Film Review - Final.
    Because the benefit is provided through a capital infusion, 
pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  351.524 (c), this is a non-recurring benefit. 
Thus, in calculating the subsidy rate for this program, we performed 
the ``0.5 percent test,'' as prescribed under 19 CFR Sec.  
351.524(b)(2). Because the grant exceeded 0.5 percent of Polyplex's 
total sales in 1989, the year in which the capital infusion was 
received, the benefits were allocated over 18 years, the company-
specific AUL. In allocating the benefits, we used the Department's 
standard allocation methodology for non-recurring subsidies under 19 
CFR Sec.  351.524(d). To calculate the net subsidy to Polyplex from 
this capital subsidy, we divided the benefit allocated to the POR by 
the company's total sales during the same period. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided to 
Polyplex under this program to be 0.01 percent ad valorem.

6. Benefits for Export Oriented Units

    For the first time in this proceeding, one of the respondents in 
this review, Jindal, reported that it has been designated as an export 
oriented unit (EOU). Companies that are designated as an export 
oriented unit may receive the following types of assistance in exchange 
for committing to export all of the products they produce, excluding 
rejects and certain domestic sales, for five years: (1) duty-free 
importation of capital goods and raw materials; (2) reimbursement of 
central sales taxes (CST) paid on materials procured domestically; (3) 
purchase of materials and other inputs free of central excise duty; and 
(4) receipt of duty drawback on furnace oil procured from domestic oil 
companies. Jindal reported receiving benefits through the duty-free 
importation of capital goods, the reimbursement of CST paid on raw 
materials and capital goods procured domestically, and the purchase of 
materials and other inputs free of central excise duty. Jindal did not 
import raw materials or purchase furnace oil under the EOU program.
    The Department previously determined that the EOU program is 
specific, within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act, because 
the receipt of benefits under this program is contingent upon export 
performance.
a. Duty-Free Importation of Capital Goods
    Under this program, an EOU is entitled to import, duty-free, 
capital goods used in the production of exported goods in exchange for 
committing to export all of the products they produce with the 
exception of sales in the Domestic Tariff Area over five years. The 
Department previously determined that the duty-free importation of 
capital goods provides a financial contribution and confers benefits 
equal to the amount of exemptions and reimbursements of customs duties 
and certain sales taxes (see sections 771(5)(D) and (E) of the Act). 
See Bottle-Grade PET Resin Final Determination.
    Jindal reported that it imported capital goods under this program, 
but as the EOU only commenced commercial production after the POR, 
Jindal had not yet been able to meet the export contingency and will 
owe the unpaid duties if the export requirements are not met. Upon 
Jindal meeting its export contingency, the Department will treat the 
unpaid duties as a grant. In the meantime, consistent with 19 CFR Sec.  
351.505(d)(1), until the contingent liability for the unpaid duties is 
officially waived by the GOI, we consider the unpaid duties to be an 
interest-free loan made to Jindal at the time of importation. We 
determined the benefit to be the interest that Jindal would have paid 
during the POR had it borrowed the full amount of the duty reduction or 
exemption at the time of importation. Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  
351.505(d)(1), the benchmark for measuring the benefit is a long-term 
interest rate because the event upon which repayment of the duties 
depends (i.e., the date of expiration of the time period to fulfill the 
export commitment) occurs at a point in time that is more than one year 
after the date of importation of the capital goods (i.e., under the EOU 
program, the time period for fulfilling the export commitment is more 
than one year after importation of the capital good). We used the 
weighted-average interest rate on all comparable commercial long-term, 
rupee-denominated loans for the year in which the capital good was 
imported as the benchmark. See the ``Benchmarks for Loans and Discount 
Rate'' section above for a discussion of the applicable benchmark.
    The benefit for each year is the total amount of non-payment of 
interest on the unpaid duties. To calculate the subsidy rate, we 
divided the total amount of benefits under the program during 2003 by 
Jindal's total value of export sales. We preliminarily determined the 
net countervailable subsidy provided to Jindal through duty-free 
importation of capital goods under the EOU program to be 6.68 percent 
ad valorem.

[[Page 46490]]

b. Reimbursement of CST Paid on Materials Procured Domestically
    Jindal was reimbursed the CST paid on raw materials and capital 
goods procured domestically. The benefit associated with domestically 
purchased materials is the amount of reimbursed CST received by Jindal 
during the POR. Normally, tax benefits are considered to be recurring 
benefits. The benefit, however, associated with capital goods is tied 
to the capital assets of Jindal. Thus, we have determined that it is 
appropriate to treat the reimbursement of CST on capital goods as a 
non-recurring benefit pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  351.524 (c)(2)(iii). 
Consequently, the benefit associated with capital goods is either the 
CST reimbursements received during the POR, or an allocated portion 
thereof, if the amount received is 0.5 percent or more of total sales 
for the year in which the benefit was received. See 19 CFR Sec.  
351.524(b)(2). The Department previously determined that the 
reimbursement of CST paid on materials procured domestically provides a 
financial contribution and confers benefits equal to the amount of 
exemptions and reimbursements of customs duties and certain sales taxes 
(see sections 771(5)(D) and (E) of the Act). See Bottle-Grade PET Resin 
Final Determination.
    To calculate the benefit for Jindal, we divided the total amount of 
benefits under the program by the total value of export sales during 
the POR. We preliminarily determined the countervailable subsidy 
provided to Jindal through the reimbursement of CST under the EOU 
program to be 0.08 percent ad valorem for Jindal.

State of Maharashtra Programs

1. Sales Tax Incentives

    The State of Maharashtra (SOM) provides a package of incentives to 
privately-owned (i.e., not 100% owned by the GOI) manufacturers to 
induce them to invest in certain areas of Maharashtra. One incentive is 
the exemption or deferral of state sales taxes. Specifically, companies 
are exempted from paying state sales taxes on purchases, and from 
collecting state sales taxes on sales, or, as an alternative, they may 
defer payment of the collected state sales tax for ten to twelve years. 
After the deferral period expires, companies are required to remit the 
deferred sales taxes to the SOM in equal installments over five or six 
years. The total amount of the sales tax exempted or deferred is based 
upon the size of the capital investment, and the area in which the 
capital is invested.
    During the investigation, the Department determined that this 
program is specific, within the meaning of sections 771(5A)(D)(i) and 
(iv) of the Act, because benefits under this program are limited to 
privately-owned companies that are located within designated 
geographical regions within the SOM. In addition, the Department 
determined that the SOM provided a financial contribution under section 
771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act through the taxes not collected on purchases. 
Finally, in accordance with section 771(5)(E) of the Act, a benefit was 
conferred to the extent that the taxes paid as a result of this program 
are less than the taxes that would have been paid in the absence of the 
program. See PET Film Final Determination; see also 19 CFR Sec.  
351.510(a)(1). No new information or evidence of changed circumstances 
has been provided in this review to warrant a reconsideration of these 
determinations.
    Jindal reported that, under this program, it was exempted from 
paying sales taxes on purchases and from collecting sales taxes on 
sales. Given, however, that the exemption from collecting sales taxes 
on sales did not result in Jindal paying any less taxes from its own 
funds, we determined that the only benefit and financial contribution 
conferred was the amount of sales taxes exempted on purchases. This is 
consistent with the approach taken in the investigation segment of this 
proceeding. See PET Film Final Determination - Decision Memorandum at 
the section entitled ``State of Maharashtra Programs: Sales Tax 
Incentives.''
    Because tax exemptions are considered recurring benefits, pursuant 
to 19 CFR Sec.  351.524(c), we treated the benefit provided under this 
program as a recurring benefit. We calculated the subsidy rate by 
dividing the total amount of exempted sales taxes on purchases during 
the POR by the value of Jindal's total sales during the POR. On this 
basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy 
provided to Jindal through this program to be 1.35 percent ad valorem.

2. Electricity Duty Exemption Scheme

    Another incentive provided by the SOM is the refund of taxes on 
electricity charges. This refund is available to manufacturers located 
in certain regions of Maharashtra. During the investigation segment of 
this proceeding, the Department determined that this program is 
specific, within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, 
given that the benefits of this program are limited to companies 
located within designated geographical regions within the SOM. See PET 
Film Final Determination - Decision Memorandum at the section entitled 
``State of Maharashtra Programs: Electricity Duty Exemption Scheme.'' 
In addition, the Department determined that the SOM provided a 
financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, because 
it has forgone revenue that otherwise would be due. Finally, in 
accordance with section 771(5)(E) of the Act, a benefit was conferred 
in the amount of the refund of taxes on electricity for which Jindal 
was eligible during the POR. No new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances has been provided in this review to warrant a 
reconsideration of these determinations.
    We treated the benefit that Jindal received under this program as a 
recurring benefit and calculated the subsidy rate by dividing the total 
amount of tax refunds for which Jindal was eligible during the POR by 
the total value of Jindal's sales during the POR. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided to 
Jindal through this program to be 0.01 percent ad valorem.

State of Uttar Pradesh Programs

    Sales Tax IncentivesThe State of Uttar Pradesh (SUP), like the SOM, 
provides a sales tax incentive for manufacturers that make capital 
investments in the state. This incentive, established by section 4-A of 
the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, consists of either an exemption or 
deferral of state sales taxes. Specifically, companies are exempted 
from paying state sales taxes on purchases, and from collecting state 
sales taxes on sales, or, as an alternative, they may defer payment of 
the collected state sales tax. Eligibility for this program is also 
based on companies employing certain percentages of specific castes, 
tribes, classes, and minorities, while thirteen specified industries 
are not eligible for any benefits under this program.
    During the investigation, the Department determined that this 
program is specific, within the meaning of sections 771(5A)(D)(iv) of 
the Act, given that the benefits of this program are limited to 
industries not otherwise excluded, and the benefits are based, in part, 
on the area in which companies invest capital. In addition, the 
Department determined that the SUP provided a financial contribution 
under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, and that a benefit exists under 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act to the extent that the taxes paid as a 
result of this program are less than the taxes that would have been 
paid in the absence of the program. See

[[Page 46491]]

PET Film Final Determination. No new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances has been provided in this review to warrant a 
reconsideration of these determinations.
    Polyplex reported that, under this program, it was exempted from 
paying sales taxes on purchases and collecting sale taxes on sales. 
Given, however, that the exemption from collecting sales taxes on sales 
did not result in Polyplex paying any less taxes from its own funds, we 
determined that the only financial contribution and benefit conferred 
was the amount of sales taxes exempted on purchases. This is consistent 
with the approach taken in the investigation phase of this proceeding. 
See PET Film Final Determination - Decision Memorandum at the section 
entitled ``State of Utter Pradesh Programs: Sales Tax Incentives.''
    We calculated the subsidy rate by dividing the total amount of 
exempted sales taxes on purchases during the POR by the total value of 
Polyplex's sales during the POR. We preliminarily determined the net 
countervailable subsidy provided to Polyplex through this program to be 
0.21 percent ad valorem.

Programs for Which Additional Information Is Needed

A. Sales Tax Incentive Programs

    Aside from the sales tax incentive programs for which the 
Department initiated reviews, it came to the Department's attention 
during this review segment that Polyplex also did not pay sales taxes 
on purchases under other sales tax incentive programs. Pursuant to 19 
CFR Sec.  351.311(b) we sought additional information regarding these 
other sales tax incentive programs from Polyplex.\1\ While Polyplex was 
able to supply the names of some of the sales tax incentive programs in 
question, the value of the purchases on which it paid no taxes, and the 
sales tax rate it would have paid, Polyplex stated that it was unable 
to provide further details regarding the programs because it is the 
seller, not Polyplex, that requests and applies for the sales tax 
incentives. The Department has requested further details regarding the 
programs from the GOI. However, as the existence of these programs only 
came to the attention of the Department shortly prior to these 
preliminary results, the GOI is unable to provide the information 
necessary in time to allow the Department to make a preliminary 
determination of whether the programs are countervailable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 19 CFR Sec. 351.311(b) provides that where the Department 
discovers a practice that appears to be countervailable and the 
practice was not alleged or examined in the proceeding, the 
Department will examine the practice if sufficient time remains 
prior to the final results of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used

A. Export Oriented Units Programs not used
1. Duty-Free Import of Raw Materials
2. Duty Drawback on Furnace Oil Procured from Domestic Oil Companies
B. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS)
C. The Sale and Use of Special Import Licenses (SILs) for Quality and 
SILs for Export Houses, Trading Houses, Star Trading Houses, or 
Superstar Trading Houses (GOI Program)
D. Exemption of Export Credit from Interest Taxes
E. Loan Guarantees from the GOI
F. Capital Incentive Schemes (SOM and SUP Program)
G. Waiving of Interest on Loan by SICOM Limited (SOM Program)
H. Infrastructure Assistance Schemes (State of Gujarat Program)

Preliminary Results of Administrative Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated 
individual subsidy rates for Polyplex and Jindal for 2003. We 
preliminarily determine the total net countervailable subsidy rate is 
7.67 percent ad valorem for Polyplex, and 17.69 percent ad valorem for 
Jindal.
    If the final results of this review remain the same as these 
preliminary results, the Department will instruct CBP, within 15 days 
of publication of the final results, to liquidate shipments from 
Polyplex and Jindal of PET film from India entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 
2003, at 7.67 percent ad valorem of the free on board (f.o.b.) invoice 
price for Polyplex and 17.69 percent ad valorem of the f.o.b. invoice 
price for Jindal. Also, the rate of cash deposits of estimated 
countervailing duties will be set at 7.67 percent and 17.69 percent ad 
valorem for all shipments of PET film made by Polyplex and Jindal, 
respectively, from India entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this 
administrative review.
    Because the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) replaced the 
general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in 
favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the 
procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those 
for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in 
antidumping cases, except as provided in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the 
Act. A requested review will normally cover only those companies 
specifically named. See 19 CFR Sec.  351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 Sec.  
351.212(c), for all companies for which a review was not requested, 
duties must be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and cash deposits 
must continue to be collected at the rate previously ordered. As such, 
the countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable to a company can 
no longer change, except pursuant to a request for a review of that 
company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and The Torrington Company v. 
United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council v. 
United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 CFR Sec.  
353.22(e), the pre-URAA antidumping regulation on automatic assessment, 
which was identical to 19 CFR Sec.  355.22(g)). Therefore, the cash 
deposit rates for all companies except those covered by this review 
will be unchanged in the results of this review.
    We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-
reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide 
rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates 
that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order 
are those established in the most recently completed administrative 
proceeding conducted under the URAA involving those companies. See PET 
Film Order. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until 
a review of a company assigned these rates is requested.

Name Change

    In determining whether Jindal Polyester Limited changed its name to 
Jindal Poly Films Limited, we reviewed documents submitted on the 
record, including: (1) Jindal's Annual Report for 2003-2004, which 
shows that the name was changed to reflect the increased share of film 
business in the company's sales; (2) the official certification of name 
change registration issued by the Registrar of Companies in India; and 
(3) the ``Certified True Copy of the Resolution Passed by the Members 
of Jindal Poly Films Limited.'' Based upon our review of the 
information on the record, we preliminary determine that Jindal 
Polyester Limited has changed its name to Jindal Poly Films Limited.
    If the final results of this review remain unchanged, we intend to 
update our instructions to CBP to reflect this

[[Page 46492]]

name change; Jindal Poly Films Limited will receive Jindal Polyester 
Limited's cash deposit ad valorem rate.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection 
with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the 
public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  351.309, 
interested parties may submit written comments in response to these 
preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case 
briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication 
of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in 
case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time 
limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the 
Department. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue and 
(2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or 
rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department with copies of 
the public version of those comments on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs 
must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  
351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  351.310, within 30 days of 
the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request 
a public hearing regarding arguments to be raised in the case and 
rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, 
if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of 
rebuttal briefs, that is, thirty-seven days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results.
    Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure 
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no 
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer 
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date 
the case briefs are due under 19 CFR Sec.  351.309(c)(ii). The 
Department will publish the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of arguments made in any 
case or rebuttal briefs.
    These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 1, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-4331 Filed 8-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S