[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7534-7535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1989]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-533-825]
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 10, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal Register its preliminary results
of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from India for the
period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. See Notice of
Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from India, 70 FR 46483 (August 10, 2005) (Preliminary Results).
The Department has now completed this administrative review in
accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act).
Based on information received since the Preliminary Results and our
analysis of the comments received, the Department has revised the net
subsidy rates for Jindal Polyester Limited/Jindal Poly Films Limited of
India (Jindal) and Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex), as discussed
in the ``Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
concerning the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India''
(Decision Memorandum) dated concurrently with this notice and hereby
adopted by this notice. The final net subsidy rates for the reviewed
company are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of
Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen at (202) 482-2769 or
Drew Jackson at (202) 482-4406, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 10, 2005, the Department published its Preliminary
Results in the Federal Register. We invited interested parties to
comment on the results. On September 12, 2005, Dupont Teijin Films,
Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, Toray Plastics (America) and SKC
America, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners), the Government of India
(the GOI), as well as Polyplex and Jindal, filed case briefs. Polyplex,
Jindal, and the petitioners filed rebuttal briefs on September 19,
2005.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those
producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review
was specifically requested. Accordingly, this review covers Jindal and
Polyplex, and evaluates sixteen programs. The period of review
(``POR'') is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order 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 currently 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 order is
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this review are addressed in the Decision Memorandum. A list of the
issues contained in the Decision Memorandum
[[Page 7535]]
is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete
discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit in room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy
and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Final Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated individual
subsidy rates for the producer/exporters, Jindal and Polyplex, subject
to this review. We determine the net subsidy for Jindal to be 15.07
percent ad valorem, and the net subsidy for Polyplex to be 9.24 percent
ad valorem.
Assessment and Cash Deposit Instructions
We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess
countervailing duties as indicated above. The Department will instruct
CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties as
detailed above, based upon the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of
the subject merchandise from the producer/exporters under review,
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date of publication of the final results of this administrative 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
will be the rate for that company established in the most recently
completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. See
Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from India, 67 FR 44179 (July 1, 2002).
These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of
a company assigned this rate is requested. In addition, for the period
January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, the assessment rates
applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by this order are the
cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry.
In the Preliminary Results we determined that Jindal Polyester
Limited had changed its name to Jindal Poly Films Limited. We stated
that if we found no reason to reverse this decision, we would update
our instructions to CBP to reflect this name change. No parties
commented on this and no other new information or evidence of changed
circumstances has been presented to warrant reconsideration of this
finding. Thus we plan to issue instructions to CBP to reflect this name
change.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 6, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. List of Issues
Comment 1: Whether the Advance License Program Provides a
Countervailable Subsidy
Comment 2: Sales Tax Incentives
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Exclude an IDBI Loan in
Calculating the Short-Term Benchmark
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Consider a Certain EPCGS
License as a Grant or as an Interest-Free Loan
Comment 5: Calculation of the Countervailing Duty Rate Under the
Advance License Program
Comment 6: Interest Rates Used to Calculate the Countervailing Duty
Rate Under the EPCGS Program
Comment 7: The Proper Allocation of EPCGS and EOU Benefits
Comment 8: Whether the Cash Deposit Rate Should Include the 80 HHC Tax
Exemption Countervailing Duty Rate
Comment 9: Inclusion of Benefits Received by Non-Producing Units in
Calculating Jindal's EOU Countervailing Duty Rate
Comment 10: Calculation of Jindal's Countervailing Duty Rate Under the
EOU Program
II. Background Information and Subsidies Valuation Information
III. Subsidies Valuation Information
IV. Analysis of Programs
A. Programs Conferring Subsidies
1. Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment Export Financing
2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS)
3. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)
4. Income Tax Exemption Scheme 80 HHC
5. Capital Subsidy
6. Sales Tax Incentives
I. State of Uttaranchal/Uttar Pradesh
II. State of West Bengal
III. State of Gujurat
IV. State of Madhya Pradesh
V. State of Maharashtra
VI. State of Himachal Pradesh
B. Programs Determined to Be Not Used
1. Export Oriented Units Programs not used
A. Duty Drawback on Furnace Oil Procured from Domestic Oil Companies
2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS)
3. 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)
4. Exemption of Export Credit from Interest Taxes
5. Loan Guarantees from the GOI
6. Capital Incentive Schemes (SOM and SUP Program)
7. Waiving of Interest on Loan by SICOM Limited (SOM Program)
8. Infrastructure Assistance Schemes (State of Gujarat Program)
V. Analysis of Comments
[FR Doc. E6-1989 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S