[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