[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 87 (Monday, May 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24565-24572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9840]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-549-825)


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than 
Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 2008.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET 
Film) from Thailand is not being, nor likely to be, sold in the United 
States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Interested parties are 
invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey or Angelica Mendoza, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0193, or (202) 482-3019, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 17, 2007, the Department initiated the antidumping duty 
investigation of PET Film from Thailand. See Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from Brazil, the People's Republic of 
China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates: Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 72 FR 60801 (October 26, 2007) (Notice 
of Initiation).
    The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise 
issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit 
comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the Notice of 
Initiation. See Notice of Initiation. On November 15, 2007, Avery 
Dennison Fasson Roll North America (Avery Dennison) requested that the 
Department find ``release liner,'' a PET film product treated on one or 
both sides with a specially-cured silicon coating, is outside the scope 
of these investigations. Petitioners (DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi 
Polyester Film of America, Inc., SKC, Inc. and Toray Plastics 
(America), Inc. (collectively, petitioners)) objected to Avery 
Dennison's request on November 29, 2007; petitioners re-submitted their 
objections with amended bracketing on December 14, 2007, and the 
document was accepted for the record on that date.
    On August 28, 2007, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of PET Film from Brazil, China, Thailand, and 
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are materially injuring the U.S. 
industry and the ITC notified the Department of its findings. See 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Brazil, China, 
Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates Case Number: 731-TA-1131-1134, 
72 FR 67756, (November 30, 2007) (Preliminary ITC Determination).
    Polyplex (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. (Polyplex Thailand) and 
Polyplex (Americas) Inc. (PA) (collectively Polyplex) was issued an 
antidumping duty questionnaire on November 29, 2007. The Department 
received the Section A response from Polyplex on January 4, 2008 (AQR), 
and received the Sections B and C responses from Polyplex on January 
18, 2008 (BCQR).
    On January 23, 2008, petitioners requested that the Department 
postpone the preliminary determination by 50 days. The Department 
published an extension notice on February 11, 2008, which set the new 
deadline for the preliminary determination at April 25, 2008. See 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, the 
People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates: 
Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, 73 FR 7710 (February 11, 2008).
    Petitioners filed comments on Polyplex's Sections A, B and C 
responses on February 13, 2008. The Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire regarding Polyplex's Sections A, B and C responses on 
February 19, 2008. Also on February 19, 2008, based on a timely 
allegation filed by petitioners on February 6, 2008, the Department 
initiated a sales-below-cost investigation for Polyplex, finding 
reasonable grounds to believe that Polyplex made comparison market 
sales of PET Film at prices below its cost of production (COP). See 
``Sales Below Cost of Production'' section below for further 
information. Consequently, the Department requested that Polyplex 
respond to Section D of the Department's antidumping duty 
questionnaire. We received Polyplex's Section D response on March 11, 
2008.
    On March 12, 2008, Polyplex filed its response to the Department's 
supplemental questionnaire regarding Sections A-C (SABCQR). 
Additionally on March 12, 2008, a U.S. customer of Polyplex filed a 
response to Department questions regarding this U.S. customer's 
relationship with Polyplex Thailand.
    On March 14, 2008, the Department requested a SAS version of 
Polyplex's comparison market, United States market, and cost datasets 
submitted with its SABCQR, which Polyplex did on March 17, 2008. See 
the Department's March 17, 2008, Memorandum to the File.
    On March 21, 2008, petitioners filed a targeted dumping allegation 
on sales made by Polyplex in the U.S., and also filed section D 
comments. On March 24, 2008, the Department issued a section D 
supplemental questionnaire to Polyplex. On March 31, 2008, Polyplex 
filed comments on petitioners' targeted dumping allegation.
    The Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to 
Polyplex concerning the company's Sections A, B, C, and D responses and 
information regarding the value added to PET Film by one U.S. customer 
on April 1, 2008.
    On April 7, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum in which it 
determined that Polyplex Thailand was affiliated with one of Polyplex 
Thailand's U.S. customers that produces non-subject merchandise using 
PET Film. See Affiliation section below. Because the name of this 
customer is proprietary we will refer to it here as ``Company A.''
    In light of our finding of affiliation, on April 7, 2008, the 
Department requested that Polyplex Thailand and Company A respond to 
Section E (Cost of Further Manufacture or Assembly Performed in the 
United States) of the Department's November 29, 2007, antidumping 
questionnaire in regard to the PET Film

[[Page 24566]]

further processed by the U.S. customer after importation.
    On April 8, 2008, Polyplex submitted its section D supplemental 
questionnaire response.
    Upon review of petitioners' targeted dumping allegation, we 
determined that further information was needed in order to adequately 
analyze petitioners' allegation, and issued a targeted dumping 
supplemental questionnaire to petitioners on April 8, 2008.
    On April 9, 2008, Polyplex submitted a letter requesting that the 
Department not collect section E information because the value added by 
Company A substantially exceeds the value of the PET Film input. 
Because the application of the Department's standard further 
manufacture methodology pursuant to section 772(d)(2) of the Act would 
be particularly burdensome based on the special facts of this case, 
Polyplex requested that the Department apply section 772(e) of the Act 
(the ``special rule'') and base the margin for Company A sales on 
prices of other subject merchandise sold by Polyplex Thailand and PA to 
companies other than Company A pursuant to the special rule.
    On April 11, 2008, Polyplex filed its second supplemental 
questionnaire response regarding Sections A, B, C, and D. Petitioners 
filed their targeted dumping supplemental questionnaire response on 
April 16, 2008. Also on April 16, 2008, petitioners submitted comments 
regarding the Department's methodology for calculating the margin for 
sales made to Company A in light of the Department's affiliation 
determination. Because there was a need for supplemental information 
regarding this allegation, we did not have sufficient time to analyze 
the targeted dumping allegation prior to the April 25, 2008, deadline 
for issuance of the preliminary determination. We intend to address 
this allegation in full upon receipt of a satisfactory response by 
petitioners to our request for additional information. Similarly, we 
will address in full petitioner's April 16, 2008, comments regarding 
the Department's methodology for calculating the margin for sales made 
to Company A in light of the Department's affiliation determination for 
the final determination.
    April 17, 2008, the Department telephoned counsel to Polyplex and 
requested that Polyplex resubmit its April 11, 2008, section D 
supplemental cost dataset to correct certain errors identified by the 
Department. Polyplex resubmitted its cost database on April 18, 2008, 
correcting the errors in question. See the Department's April 17, 2008, 
Memorandum to the File.
    Also on April 17, 2008, Polyplex submitted a request for extension 
in filing its response to Section E (Cost of Further Manufacture or 
Assembly Performed in the United States) of the Department's November 
29, 2007, antidumping questionnaire from April 21, 20008, until May 2, 
2008. The Department granted this request on April 21, 2008. See the 
Department's April 18, 2008, Memorandum to the File.
    On April 23, 2008, the Department requested a SAS version of the 
cost dataset Polyplex originally submitted with its April 18, 2008, 
section D supplemental questionnaire response. Polyplex submitted a SAS 
version of its cost dataset on April 24, 2008. See the Department's 
April 23, 2008, Memorandum to the File.

Period of Investigation

    The period of period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2006, to 
June 30, 2007.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are all gauges of raw, 
pre-treated, or primed PET Film, whether extruded or co-extruded. 
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 more than 0.00001 
inches thick. Also excluded is Roller transport cleaning film which has 
at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers 
of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. PET Film is 
classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and purposes of Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP), our written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.

Party Comments on Scope and Model Matching

    On October 30, 2007, the Department asked all parties in this 
investigation and in the concurrent antidumping duty investigations of 
PET Film from Brazil, the People's Republic of China (PRC), and the 
United Arab Emirates (UAE), for comments on the appropriate product 
characteristics for defining individual products. In addition, the 
Department requested that all parties in this investigation and in the 
concurrent antidumping duty investigations of PET Film Brazil, the PRC, 
and the UAE submit comments on the appropriate model matching 
methodology. See Letter from Robert James, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Enforcement 7, dated October 7, 2007.
    We received comments from petitioners on November 6, 2008, 
requesting that the Department include the grade of PET Film in the 
model match criteria. Additionally, petitioners requested that the 
Department include a field identifying whether PET Film has been 
coextruded. In its November 29, 2007, questionnaire, the Department 
requested that Polyplex report the grade of the PET Film, but did not 
request a field identifying whether the PET Film is coextruded. For 
purposes of this preliminary determination, the Department has 
determined that it is unnecessary to change the proposed product 
characteristics and model matching methodology with regard to 
coextrusion. For purposes of distinguishing subject merchandise, the 
Department will take into account the grade of the PET Film, as 
advocated by petitioners in their submission.
    On November 15, 2007, Avery Dennison requested that the Department 
find that ``release liner,'' a PET Film product treated on one or both 
sides with a specially-cured silicon coating, is outside the scope of 
these investigations. Petitioners filed a submission objecting to Avery 
Dennison's request on November 29, 2007; petitioners re-submitted their 
objections with amended bracketing on December 14, 2007, and the 
document was accepted for the record on that date. Petitioners argue 
that release liner is ``PET film that clearly falls within the scope of 
these investigations.'' See Petitioners' December 14, 2007, submission 
at 1 and 2. Avery Dennison responded to petitioners' comments on 
February 1, 2008.
    In accordance with section 731(i) of the Act, we have determined 
that the descriptions of the merchandise contained in the petition and 
in our Notice of Initiation support the conclusion that release film is 
of the same class or kind of merchandise covered by the scope of the 
proposed antidumping duty order. See also generally 19 CFR 
351.225(k)(1). The product descriptions in the petition and in the 
Department's Notice of Initiation specifically exclude finished films 
with a ``performance enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 
0.00001 inches thick.'' There is nothing in the proposed scope language 
of either the petition or our Notice of Initiation that excludes 
products bearing a performance enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of 
less than 0.00001 inches from the scope of the order. Moreover, there 
is no language in either the proposed scope language of the

[[Page 24567]]

petition or our Notice of Initiation that limits the scope of the 
investigation to ``PET base film,'' (i.e., PET film prior to the 
application of in-line coatings), as Avery Dennison suggests. In 
addition, release liner shares the chemical composition of PET film 
described in the proposed scope of the petition and Notice of 
Initiation.
    One of the purposes of a less than fair value investigation is to 
decide the merchandise specifically covered by the scope of the 
ultimate antidumping duty order. Based upon the foregoing, we have 
preliminarily determined that release film is of the same class or kind 
of merchandise as that described in the Petition and in the 
Department's Notice of Initiation. Thus, we have determined that 
release film is covered by the scope of the antidumping investigation 
of PET film from Thailand. For a full discussion of this issue, see the 
memorandum titled ``Antidumping Duty Investigations on Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from Brazil, the 
People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates,'' 
from Micheal J. Heaney, Senior Case Analyst, to Stephen J. Claeys, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated April 25, 
2008, issued concurrently with this notice.
    We have relied on four criteria to match U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: 
grade, specification, thickness, and surface treatment. Where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in 
the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the 
characteristics listed above.

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. The Department determined that there were six Thai 
producers/exporters of PET Film that made shipments to the United 
States during the POI. In the Department's Respondent Selection 
Memorandum, we determined that, in light of resource constraints, it 
would not be practicable in this investigation for us to examine all 
known producers or exporters of subject merchandise. See the November 
28, 2007, Memorandum to Deputy Assistant Secretary Stephen J. Claeys, 
titled ``Antidumping Duty Investigation on Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Film, Sheet, and Strip from Thailand (A-549-825): Respondent 
Selection'' (Respondent Selection Memorandum). Further, no party to 
this case argued for the examination of all companies. Accordingly, 
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the Department determined 
that it would investigate only a limited number of exporters or 
producers. Section 77A(c)(2) allows the Department to select 
respondents either through a sample of exporters, producers, or types 
of products that is statistically valid based on the information 
available at the time of selection, or by using the exporters and 
producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise 
that can reasonably be examined.
    In selecting the respondents in this investigation, we determined 
that it is most appropriate to choose the largest producers/exporters 
in order to cover the greatest possible export volume, pursuant to 
section 777A(c)(2)(1)(B) of the Act. The petition and the Department 
identified a single producer and exporter of PET Film from Thailand, 
Polyplex, who accounted for the overwhelming majority of subject 
merchandise exported to the United States during the POI. Therefore, we 
concluded that we would review only Polyplex's exports for purposes of 
this investigation. See Respondent Selection Memorandum.

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states the 
Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the 
producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business, as the date of sale. The regulations further provide that the 
Department may use a date other than the date of the invoice if the 
Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date 
on which the material terms of sale are established. See 19 CFR 
351.401(i).
    Polyplex reported the sales invoice date as the date of sale for 
all sales in the comparison market and the U.S. market, except for 
export price (EP) sales, in which case Polyplex reported the bill of 
lading date as the date of sale. See BCQR at B-17 and C-16, 
respectively.
    In the comparison market, Polyplex stated on pages 27-29 of its AQR 
that changes in price and quantity sometimes occur after the production 
order is issued up until the time of shipment, and that changes did 
occur during the POI. See page 10 of Polyplex's April 11, 2008, 
submission. Additionally, Polyplex stated that for accounting purposes 
it recognizes a sale based on date of invoice.
    For EP sales, Polyplex stated on page 6 of its April 11, 2008, 
submission that changes occur between the order date and invoice. 
Additionally, on page 29 of its AQR, Polyplex stated that it issues a 
commercial invoice to the Thai Customs Department for export approval 
and to obtain an export entry number. Polyplex stated that it does not 
book the sale in its accounting system until the goods are cleared by 
Thai customs (i.e., Polyplex's receipt of the bill of lading from Thai 
customs).
    For constructed export price (CEP) sales, Polyplex provided invoice 
date as the sale date based on the invoice from its U.S. affiliate to 
the first unaffiliated U.S. customer or to Company A discussed below in 
the section U.S. Sales of Further-Manufactured PET Film. See page C-16 
of Polyplex's sections BCQR. Similar to the explanation for EP sales, 
Polyplex stated on page 6 of its April 11, 2008, submission that 
changes occur between the order date and invoice.
    Based on the responses of Polyplex, and having no record evidence 
that would indicate otherwise, we preliminarily determine that the 
sales invoice date is the appropriate date of sale for the comparison 
market and for CEP sales in the U.S. market, while bill of lading date 
is the appropriate date of sale for Polyplex's EP sales. For a further 
discussion of this issue, see Polyplex Preliminary Analysis Memo.

Affiliation

    On April 7, 2008, the Department determined that Polyplex Thailand 
and PA are affiliated with Company A pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b). Due to the proprietary nature of this 
issue, see the Department's Memorandum to the File, from Stephen 
Bailey, Case Analyst, and Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, through 
Richard Weible, Director Office 7, dated April 7, 2008 (``Affiliation 
Memo'').
    Due to this affiliation, as noted above, on April 7, 2008, the 
Department requested that Polyplex Thailand and Company A respond to 
Section E (Cost of Further Manufacture or Assembly Performed in the 
United States) of the Department's November 29, 2007, questionnaire for 
purchases of PET Film from Polyplex Thailand and PA.

U.S. Sales of Further-Manufactured PET Film

    During the POI, Polyplex Thailand and its U.S. affiliate, PA, sold 
PET Film to Company A, which further manufactured the PET Film into 
non-subject merchandise. Company A did not sell PET Film directly 
acquired from

[[Page 24568]]

Polyplex Thailand or PA in the United States during the POI, but rather 
further processed the material and resold it as non-subject 
merchandise. After examining the various relationships between Polyplex 
Thailand, PA, and Company A, the Department, as noted above, has 
preliminarily determined that Company A is affiliated with both 
Polyplex Thailand and PA. As noted above, on April 9, 2008, Polyplex 
requested that the Department not collect section E information because 
the value added by Company A substantially exceeds the value of the PET 
Film input. Polyplex requested that the Department instead apply the 
special rule found at section 772(e) of the Act and base the margin for 
Company A's sales of further-manufactured goods on prices of other 
subject merchandise sold by Polyplex Thailand and PA to companies other 
than Company A.
    Polyplex's Argument For Use of the Special Rule
    Polyplex notes that the special rule, as discussed in section 
772(e) of the Act, provides that where the subject merchandise is 
imported by a person affiliated with the exporter or producer and the 
value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely to 
exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, the 
Department shall determine the CEP for such merchandise using either 1) 
the price of identical subject merchandise sold by the exporter or 
producer to an unaffiliated person, or 2) the price of other subject 
merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person. 
If there is not a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable 
basis for comparison under subsets 1 or 2, or the Department determines 
that neither of the prices described is appropriate, then the CEP may 
be determined on any other reasonable basis.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\With respect to the specified alternative methods the 
Department may use after invoking the special rule, the Statement of 
Administrative Action notes:
    The alternative methods for establishing export price are: (1) 
the price of identical subject merchandise sold by the exporter or 
producer to an unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of other 
subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an 
unaffiliated person. There is no hierarchy between these alternative 
methods of establishing the export price. If there is not a 
sufficient quantity of sales under either of these alternatives to 
provide a reasonable basis for comparison, or if the Department 
determines that neither of these alternatives is appropriate, it may 
use any other reasonable method to determine constructed export 
price, provided that it provides to interested parties a description 
of the method chosen and an explanation of the basis for its 
selection. Such a method may be based upon the price paid to the 
exporter or producer by the affiliated person for the subject 
merchandise, if the Department determines that such a price is 
appropriate.
    See URAA, Statement of Administrative Action, H. Doc 316, Vol. 
1, 103d Cong., (1994) (SAA) at 826.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In arguing for application of the special rule, Polyplex notes the 
following: 1) Company A's value-added substantially exceeds the value 
of the PET Film input, 2) Company A made a ``very substantial'' number 
of further manufactured products that contained PET Film (both subject 
and non-subject merchandise) during the POI, 3) Company A sold further 
manufactured products containing PET Film in a very high number of 
invoices and line items during the POI, 4) Company A manufactured the 
further manufactured product at many plants in the United States, and 
5) Company A purchased PET Film from many producers during the POI, and 
cannot identify the producer of the PET Film used in the further 
manufactured product based on its books and records. See page 4 of 
Polyplex's April 9, 2008, submission. Polyplex maintains that all of 
the above-mentioned facts were present in the Indian investigation of 
PET Film, of which Polyplex Corporation, Ltd. (India) (Polyplex India), 
was the respondent. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From 
India, 67 FR 34899 (May 16, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 13 (PET Film from India Decision Memo).
    Polyplex contends that the facts in the instant investigation are 
similar to the facts in Silicon Metal from Brazil, where the Department 
also applied the special rule. See Silicon Metal From Brazil: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 40980 (August 6, 
2001) (Silicon Metal from Brazil). In Silicon Metal from Brazil: 1) the 
U.S. affiliate of the respondent also further manufactured the subject 
merchandise it purchased from respondent into numerous products; 2) the 
respondent was unable to trace the subject merchandise purchased by the 
affiliate to the manufactured product since the subject merchandise was 
purchased from different producers and commingled in the production 
process; and 3) products containing subject merchandise were processed 
at a variety of plants both in the United States and overseas, making 
it difficult to assess the value added solely in the united States. 
Polyplex notes that in Silicon Metal from Brazil, the Department 
applied the special rule due to the burden placed on the Department in 
calculating a dumping margin for the subject merchandise imported by 
the U.S. affiliate.
    Polyplex argues that the Department has also applied the special 
rule in Lemon Juice from Mexico. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and of Critical 
Circumstances in Part: Lemon Juice from Mexico, 72 FR 20830 (April 26, 
2007). In Lemon Juice from Mexico, Polyplex maintains that the 
Department applied the special rule because ``the value added in the 
United States is likely to exceed substantially the value of the 
subject merchandise and that is a sufficient quantity of U.S. sales of 
non-further-processed merchandise to provide a reasonable basis for 
comparison to normal value.'' See Lemon Juice from Mexico, 72 FR 20833. 
Polyplex contends that similar to Lemon Juice from Mexico, the 
Department should apply the special rule for Company A's purchases of 
subject merchandise from Polyplex Thailand and PA.
    Polyplex proposes two alternate special rule methodologies. First, 
Polyplex suggests that the Department base the margin for further 
manufactured sales on the price of other subject merchandise sold to 
unaffiliated U.S. customers, i.e., all other sales excluding sales to 
Company A. Polyplex contends that this methodology was used by the 
Department in other special rule decisions in the past. Alternatively, 
Polyplex suggests that Department rely on the ``arm's length prices'' 
from Polyplex and PA (Polyplex's U.S. sales affiliate) to Company A.
    Petitioner's Comments on Use of the Special Rule
    In its April 16, 2008, comments, petitioners argue that the 
Department should asses the dumping margin on sales to Company A using 
the margin calculated on sales of the identical grade of merchandise 
sold to customers in the targeted group of customers. Because of the 
timing of petitioner's comments so close to the preliminary 
determination date, we did not have sufficient time to analyze 
petitioner's comments prior to the April 25, 2008, deadline for 
issuance of the preliminary determination. We intend to address this 
allegation in full for purposes of the final determination.
    Department's Analysis For Use of the Special Rule
    The information on the record indicates that the value added in the 
United States substantially exceeds the value of the subject 
merchandise and that any potential accuracy gained by applying the 
standard methodology is likely outweighed by the burden of its 
application. Specifically, the significant

[[Page 24569]]

number of models of further manufactured products produced and sold by 
Company A during the POI and the inability of Company A to identify the 
source of the PET film used in a particular further manufactured 
product greatly complicates the analysis required to apply the standard 
methodology. Furthermore, the fact that Company A is unable to identify 
the source of the PET film used in a particular further manufactured 
product, and both Polyplex Thailand and PA sold PET film to Company A, 
further complicates the analysis by requiring the Department to develop 
assumptions about the adjustments that need to be made in order to 
calculate net U.S. price.
    Given the forgoing, and the fact that there is a sufficient 
quantity of non-further processed subject merchandise sales to 
unaffiliated parties in the United States to provide a reasonable basis 
for comparison under the special rule, we have determined that it is 
appropriate to apply the special rule of section 772(e) of the Act in 
this case.
    In this proceeding, we have determined that it is appropriate to 
base the dumping margins for Polyplex's further manufactured sales on 
the weighted-average dumping margins calculated on sales of other 
subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated U.S. customers.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PET Film from Thailand were made in 
the United States at less than normal value (NV), we compared the EP or 
CEP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed 
Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below. In accordance with 
section 777A(d)(i) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average 
prices for NV and compared these to the weighted-average of EP (and 
CEP), when appropriate.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. Pursuant to 
section 772(a) of the Act, we used the EP methodology when the 
merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside the United 
States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States prior to importation and when CEP was not otherwise warranted 
based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP for those sales 
where a person in the United States, affiliated with the foreign 
exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made the sale to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of the subject 
merchandise. See section 772(b) of the Act. We based EP and CEP on the 
packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United 
States and the applicable terms of sale, where appropriate.
    We calculated EP based on prices charged to the first unaffiliated 
U.S. customer. We used the bill of lading date as the date of sale.\2\ 
We based EP on the packed free on board (FOB) prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchasers outside Thailand. We made deductions for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 
including foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, and foreign 
brokerage and handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the Department's Sales Analysis Memorandum for a further 
discussion of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We calculated CEP based on prices charged to the first unaffiliated 
U.S. customer after importation, where appropriate. We used the sale 
invoice date as the date of sale. We based CEP on the gross unit price 
from PA to its unaffiliated U.S. customers, making adjustments where 
necessary for billing adjustments, pursuant to section 772(c)(1) of the 
Act. Where applicable, the Department made deductions for movement 
expenses (foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign 
brokerage and handling, international freight, U.S. movement from 
warehouse to customer, U.S. customs duty and brokerage, marine 
insurance and warehousing), in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the 
Act and section 351.401(e) of the Department's regulations. In 
accordance with sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act, we also 
deducted, where applicable, U.S. direct selling expenses, including 
credit expenses, U.S. indirect selling expenses, and U.S. inventory 
carrying costs incurred in the United States and Thailand associated 
with economic activities in the United States. We also deducted CEP 
profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability and Comparison Market Selection
    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared 
respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to 
the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, because Polyplex Thailand had an 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that 
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market is viable 
for comparison purposes. Accordingly, we calculated NV for Polyplex 
based on sales prices to Thai customers.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
    Based on our analysis of the petitioners' allegation, we found that 
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Polyplex 
Thailand's sales of PET Film in the home market were made at prices 
below its COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we 
initiated a sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether 
Polyplex Thailand's sales were made at prices below its COP. See 
Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, AD/CVD Operations, 
from The Team entitled ``The Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the 
Cost of Production for Polyplex Public Company Ltd. and Polyplex 
Americas, Inc.'' dated February 19, 2008.
    1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
respondent's COP based on the sum of its costs of materials and 
conversion for the foreign like product, plus an amount for general and 
administrative (G&A) expenses and financial expenses. See the ``Test of 
Comparison Market Sales Prices'' section below for the treatment of 
comparison market selling expenses.
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by Polyplex in its 
section D questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses for 
the COP calculation with the exception of the financial expense ratio. 
We have recalculated the financial expense ratio to include the net 
amount of the foreign exchange gains and losses recognized by 
Polyplex's parent company in its 2006-2007 consolidated financial 
statements and exclude the interest income offset related to interest 
charges collected from customers for late payment.
    For a complete discussion of the changes made to the cost 
information submitted by Polyplex, see Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, 
Director, Office of Accounting, titled ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Determination - Polyplex (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. and Polyplex 
(Americas) Inc.,'' dated April 25, 2008 (Polyplex Cost Calculation 
Memo).
    2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices

[[Page 24570]]

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, 
as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine 
whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this 
comparison, we used the COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. 
The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, direct 
and indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses.
    3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than COP, 
we determined that such sales have been made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales 
were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring 
during the entire POI. In such cases, because we compared prices to 
POI-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of 
Polyplex's sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, 
such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a 
reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used 
the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
    We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers 
in Thailand and matched U.S. sales to NV. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for discounts, rebates, movement expenses, and packing 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. When comparing U.S. sales 
with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, 
merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.411(a) and (b). We based this adjustment on the difference 
in the variable cost of manufacturing for the foreign like product and 
subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). We also made adjustments 
for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) as appropriate (i.e., 
commissions and credit), in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.
    In addition, for comparisons made to CEP sales, we only deducted 
Thai credit expenses from comparison market prices, because U.S. credit 
expenses were deducted from U.S. price, as noted above and in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on constructed value (CV). 
Accordingly, for PET Film for which we could not determine the NV based 
on comparison-market sales, either because there were no useable sales 
of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable products failed 
the COP test, we based NV on the CV.
    Section 773(e) of the Act provides that the CV shall be based on 
the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported 
merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing 
costs. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication, selling and 
administrative (SG&A), and interest based on the methodology described 
in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section, above.
    We based profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by 
Polyplex in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like 
product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the 
comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)A) of the
    Act.
    We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, 
we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred 
on home market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, 
CV.
E. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. 
The LOT in the comparison market is the LOT of the starting-price sales 
in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, the LOT of the 
sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. With respect to 
U.S. prices for EP transactions, the LOT is also that of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the first 
unaffiliated importer. See section 351.412(c)(i) of the Department's 
regulations. For CEP, the LOT is that of the constructed sale from the 
exporter to the affiliated importer. See section 351.412(c)(ii) of the 
Department's regulations. See also Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Micron Technology).
    To determine whether comparison market sales were at a different 
LOT from U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. Under the Department's LOT practice, if 
the comparison market sales are at different LOTs, and the difference 
affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent 
price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison 
market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, the Department makes 
an LOT adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 
For CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
customer. We also analyze whether different selling activities are 
performed, and whether any price differences (other than those for 
which other allowances are made under the Act) are shown to be wholly 
or partly due to a difference in LOT between the CEP and NV. Under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we further make an upward or downward 
adjustment to NV for LOT if the difference in LOT involves the 
performance of different selling activities and is demonstrated to 
affect price comparability, based on a pattern of consistent price 
differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV 
is determined. Finally, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the LOT of the CEP, but the data available do not 
provide an appropriate basis to determine a LOT adjustment, we reduce 
NV by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the foreign 
comparison market on sales of the foreign like product, but by no more 
than the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred for CEP 
sales. See section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision).
    In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether 
the

[[Page 24571]]

LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. See Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 
1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions 
and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party 
claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the 
functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See 
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
    In the present investigation, Polyplex did not request a LOT 
adjustment. See BCQR at B-28. In order to determine whether the 
comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing 
process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in 
each market (i.e., the ``channel of distribution''), including selling 
functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of 
selling expenses for each type of sale.
    Polyplex reported two channels of distribution in the comparison 
market (i.e., Thailand), distributors and end-users. Polyplex reported 
its selling functions to both distributors and end-users in the 
comparison market as: technical services/support, customer interaction, 
sales calls, marketing research, order processing, price negotiation, 
credit/payment collection, delivery/freight, inventory maintenance 
(non-consignment sales), inventory maintenance (consignment sales), 
sales forecasting, sales promotion, and warranty. We examined the 
selling activities reported for each channel of distribution and found 
that Polyplex's level of selling functions to its comparison market 
customers did not vary significantly by channel of distribution. 
Specifically, Polyplex performed the same selling functions at a 
similar level of performance for sales in both comparison market 
channels of distribution (e.g., price negotiation, credit/payment 
collection, delivery/freight, inventory maintenance (non-consignment 
sales), sales forecasting, sales promotion, and warranty). See AQR at 
Exhibit 8 (i.e., selling functions chart) and Exhibit S1 of the SABCQR. 
We find that the only meaningful difference between the two channels in 
terms of the services provided in the stages of marketing (and the 
degree of performance of those services) is that Polyplex provides 
customer interaction, sales calls, and order processing services at a 
higher degree for its end-use customers than distributors. Id. We do 
not find these differences alone to be sufficient for finding more than 
one LOT. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the selling functions 
for the reported channels of distribution constitute one LOT in the 
comparison market.
    Polyplex reported that its EP and CEP sales to the United States 
were made through four channels of distribution: 1) CEP PA direct to 
customer drop ship sales (no warehousing) (channel 1); 2) CEP PA 
warehousing in customer's warehouse (consignment sales) (channel 2); 3) 
CEP PA warehousing in PA's warehouse (from inventory) (channel 3); and 
4) EP direct sales on an FOB basis (channel 4). For EP and CEP sales, 
we examined the selling activities related to each of the selling 
functions between Polyplex and its U.S. customers. Polyplex reported 
its selling functions to distributors (i.e., PA) and end-users in the 
United States as: technical services/support, customer interaction, 
sales calls, marketing research, order processing, price negotiation, 
credit/payment collection, delivery/freight, inventory maintenance 
(non-consignment sales), inventory maintenance (consignment sales), 
sales forecasting, sales promotion, and warranty. We examined 
Polyplex's selling functions for its U.S. sales and found that channels 
1, 2, and 3 (i.e., CEP sales to PA) are essentially the same channel 
with the same selling functions performed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Department notes that Polyplex's U.S. sales to Company A 
are being excluded from our analysis pursuant to the Department's 
Analysis For Use of the Special Rule section above. As such, 
Polyplex Thailand's EP sales, and certain CEP sales to Company A, 
will not be used in the margin analysis. The Department has 
conducted an LOT analysis for this preliminary determination because 
removing the sales in question is a preliminary decision and 
removing the sales in question does not affect the ultimate 
conclusion reached by the LOT analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in 
the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 
772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, 243 F.3d at 1314-1315. We 
reviewed the selling functions and services performed by Polyplex on 
CEP sales for the three channels of distribution relating to the CEP 
LOT, as described by Polyplex in its questionnaire response, after 
these deductions. Exhibit 8 of the AQR and Exhibit S1 of the SABCQR 
detail the selling functions performed for sales from Polyplex to PA 
and, then to distributors and end use customers. All three channels are 
included in the same selling function columns. Therefore, the 
Department finds that there are two channels of distribution in the 
United States, consisting of Polyplex's EP sales (i.e., channel 4) and 
Polyplex's CEP sales (i.e., channels 1, 2, and 3). We then compared the 
selling functions between Polyplex's CEP sales and Polyplex's EP direct 
U.S. sales.
    The Department finds that the two channels of distribution in the 
U.S. vary significantly. For instance, the selling functions provided 
by Polyplex to unaffiliated customers in the U.S. (i.e., EP direct 
sales to end-users) were usually at a medium level, while providing a 
high level of technical support. Polyplex provided a minimum level of 
sales calls, marketing research, inventory maintenance (non-consignment 
sales), while providing no sales promotion and warranty services. 
However, Polyplex usually provided no selling functions for sales to 
PA; only providing a minimum of technical services, order processing, 
delivery services, and moderate sales forecasting. See Exhibit A1 of 
Polyplex's March 12, 2008, supplemental questionnaire response. 
Therefore, we preliminary determine that Polyplex's U.S. sales are made 
at two LOTs (i.e., CEP and EP).
    We then compared the selling functions Polyplex provided in the 
comparison market LOT with the selling functions provided for the two 
U.S. LOTs. On this basis, we determined that the comparison market LOT 
is similar to Polyplex's U.S. LOT for EP sales. We made this 
determination based upon the minor differences that exist between 
Polyplex's comparison and U.S. EP sales, specifically the minimum level 
of sales calls and market research provided in the U.S. compared to 
medium to high level provided in the comparison market. See Exhibit A1 
of Polyplex's March 12, 2008, supplemental questionnaire response. 
Moreover, we find that the degree to which Polyplex provides these 
identical selling functions for its customers in both markets to be the 
same or similar (i.e., technical services, customer interaction, order 
processing, price negotiation, credit/payment collection, delivery/
freight, inventory maintenance (non-consignment sales), sales 
forecasting, and warranty). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
Polyplex is not entitled to a LOT adjustment with respect to these 
sales.
    According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset is 
appropriate when the LOT in the comparison market is at a more advanced 
stage than the LOT of the CEP sales and there are no data available to 
determine the existence of a pattern of price difference. Polyplex 
reported that it provided minimal selling functions and services for 
the one (CEP) LOT in the United States and that, therefore, the

[[Page 24572]]

comparison market LOT is more advanced than the CEP LOT. Based on our 
analysis of the channels of distribution and selling functions 
performed by Polyplex for sales in the comparison market and CEP sales 
in the U.S. market, we preliminarily find that the comparison market 
LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution when compared to CEP 
sales because Polyplex provides many more selling functions in the 
comparison market at a higher level of service as compared to selling 
functions performed for its CEP sales (i.e., technical services/
support, customer interaction, sales calls, marketing research, order 
processing, price negotiation, credit/payment collection, delivery/
freight, inventory maintenance (non-consignment sales), inventory 
maintenance (consignment sales), and sales promotion). See Exhibit S1 
of Polyplex's SABCQR. Thus, we find that Polyplex's comparison market 
sales are at a more advanced LOT than its CEP sales. There is one LOT 
in the comparison market, and there are no data available to determine 
the existence of a pattern of price difference, and we do not have any 
other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a 
LOT adjustment. Therefore, consistent with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the 
Act, we applied a CEP offset to NV for CEP comparisons.
    To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted from NV the comparison 
market indirect selling expenses from NV for comparison market sales 
that were compared to U.S. CEP sales. As such, we limited the 
comparison market indirect selling expense deduction by the amount of 
the indirect selling expenses deducted in calculating the CEP as 
required under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 based on the exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify all 
information upon which we will rely in making our final determination.

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margin in the preliminary 
determination is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                  Producer/Exporter                         Margin
                                                         (Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyplex (Thailand) Public Company Ltd..............                0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(b)(3) of the Act, the Department 
will disregard any weighted-average dumping margin that is zero or de 
minimis, i.e. less than 2 percent ad valorem. Based on our preliminary 
margin calculation, we will not direct the U.S. CBP to suspend 
liquidation of any entries of PET Film from Thailand as described in 
the ``Scope of Investigation'' section that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. The Department does not require 
any cash deposit or posting of a bond for this preliminary 
determination.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of the Department's preliminary determination. If the Department's 
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the 
later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 
45 days after our final determination whether imports of PET Film from 
Thailand are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the 
U.S. industry. We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis 
to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the 
Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of 
the final verification report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to 
the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days of 
the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(1) and (2). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, 
and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs 
submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to 
five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties 
submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a 
copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette. In accordance 
with section 774 of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.310, the Department will 
hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, 
provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a 
request for a hearing is made in this investigation, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.310(c) the hearing will tentatively be held two days after the 
rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 
in a room to be determined.
    Parties should confirm by telephone, the date, time, and location 
of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date.
    Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to 
participate in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written 
request to the Secretary of Commerce, Attention Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, APO/Dockets Unit 
Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be 
discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). At the hearing, oral presentations 
will be limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: April 25, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-9840 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S