[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 159 (Thursday, August 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47485-47486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-13592]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-533-824)


Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from 
India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 12, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain polyethylene terephthalate film, 
sheet and strip (PET film) from India. See Certain Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Preliminary Results and 
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
18715 (April 12, 2006) (Preliminary Results). This review covers three 
producers/exporters of PET film, MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. (MTZ), Jindal Poly 
Films Limited\1\ (Jindal), and Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex). 
The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. 
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the 
preliminary dumping margin calculation for one respondent, Jindal. The 
final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firms are listed 
below in the section entitled ``Final Results of Review.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Formerly Jindal Polyester Limited.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 17, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok (MTZ), Drew Jackson 
(Polyplex), or Kavita Mohan (Jindal), AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4162, (202) 482-4406, or 
(202) 482-3542, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 12, 2006, the Department published the Preliminary Results 
in the Federal Register and invited interested parties to comment on 
those results. In response to the Department's invitation to comment on 
the Preliminary Results of this review, Jindal, Polyplex, and MTZ filed 
case briefs with the Department on May 12, 2006. Petitioners\2\ did not 
submit case briefs. No interested parties submitted rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioners are Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi 
Polyester Film Of America, Toray Plastics (America), Inc., and SKC 
America, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this 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 currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this 
order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in the case briefs are addressed in the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner,

[[Page 47486]]

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated 
concurrently herewith (the Decision Memorandum), which is adopted 
herein, by reference. Attached, as an appendix to this notice, is a 
list of the comments the Department received from interested parties, 
all of which are discussed in the Decision Memorandum. The Decision 
Memorandum is on file in the Central Record Unit, Room B-099 of the 
Herbert C. Hoover Building, and may be accessed on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we made the following 
changes in the comparison and margin calculation programs for Jindal. 
For a full discussion of these changes, see the Decision Memorandum and 
the memorandum to the File from Kavita Mohan, International Trade 
Analyst, concerning ``Analysis Memorandum for Jindal Poly Films 
Limited,'' dated concurrently with this notice.

Jindal

1. We converted domestic inventory carrying costs into U.S. dollars.
2. We calculated importer-specific assessment rates.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2004, 
through June 30, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films Limited...........................                2.32
MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd..................................                0.00
Polyplex Corporation Ltd............................                0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  351.212(b). The Department calculated 
importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of 
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales to an importer to the total entered value of the examined sales 
to that importer. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above 
de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent ad valorem or greater), the Department 
will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly on the 
entered value of all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. 
See 19 Sec.  CFR 351.106(c)(2). The Department will issue appropriate 
assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication 
of the final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies 
included in these final results of review for which the reviewed 
companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United 
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 
entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Cash Deposits

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). In the 
instant matter: (1) the cash deposit rate for Jindal will be the rate 
shown above; (2) since the dumping margins for MTZ and Polyplex are de 
minimis, no cash deposit will be required for MTZ or Polyplex; (3) for 
previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (4) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 
(LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (5) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by any segment of this 
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 5.71 percent, 
which is the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation 
(24.14 percent), adjusted for the export subsidy rate found in the 
companion countervailing duty investigation. These cash deposit rates, 
when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review. See section 751(a)(2)(C) of 
the Act.

Notification to Parties

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR Sec.  351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing 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 the antidumping duties occurred and 
the concomitant assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice is 
also the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative 
protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or 
destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in 
accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  351.305. 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.
    The Department is publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 10, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

Comment 1: Whether the Department Erroneously Employed Its Practice of 
Zeroing Negative Margins
Comment 2: Whether the Department Made a Currency Conversion Error in 
Calculating Jindal's Dumping Margin
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Continue to Require MTZ to 
Submit Sales Data From the Window Periods Extending Beyond the Period 
of Review
Comment 4: Whether it is Necessary to Distinguish Between MTZ's Sales 
of Prime and Non-prime Merchandise in Calculating Normal Value
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Adjust Polyplex's U.S. Prices 
for Duty Drawback
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Have Compared PET Film Based 
on the Specific Thickness of the Film Rather Than Thickness Ranges
[FR Doc. E6-13592 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S