[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 87 (Monday, May 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24547-24552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9844]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-520-803)


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United 
Arab Emirates: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY:  The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) 
preliminarily determines that Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 
and Strip (PET Film) from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is being, or 
is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are listed in 
the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. 
Pursuant to a request from an interested party, we are postponing our 
final determination to not later than 135 days after publication of the 
preliminary determination.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Kirby or Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3782 or (202) 482-2371, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This investigation was initiated on October 18, 2007. 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 (Notice of 
Initiation), 72 FR 60801 (October 26, 2007). On November 13, 2007, the 
United States International Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily 
determined that, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Act, there is a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of imports of PET Film from Brazil, China, 
Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates. See Investigation Nos. 731-TA-
1131-1134 (Preliminary): Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, 72 FR 
67756 (November 13, 2007) (ITC Preliminary Determination). The domestic 
interested parties are DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film 
of America, Inc., SKC, Inc. and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. 
(collectively, the petitioners). The respondent for this investigation 
is Flex Middle East FZE (Flex FZE).
    On November 27, 2007, the Department issued its sections A through 
E questionnaires to Flex FZE. On December 19, 2007, Flex FZE submitted 
its section A response. On January 18, 2008, Flex FZE submitted its 
sections B and C responses. On January 23, 2008, the petitioners made a 
timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(e) for a postponement of the preliminary determinations with 
respect to Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the 
United Arab Emirates. 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).
    On February 6, 2008, the petitioners submitted a timely allegation 
that home market sales were being made at prices below the cost of 
production and requested that the Department initiate a sales-below-
cost investigation of Flex FZE pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(d)(2)(B). On 
February 8, 2008, the Department issued its first supplemental 
questionnaire to Flex FZE. On February 27, 2008, Flex FZE submitted its 
response to the first supplemental questionnaire. On February 29, 2008, 
the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Flex FZE. 
On February 29, 2008, the Department initiated a sales-below-cost-
investigation of Flex FZE and requested that Flex FZE respond to the 
section D questionnaire. See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, 
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, from the Team, Petitioners' 
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Flex Middle East 
FZE (Flex FZE) (Cost Allegation Memorandum) (February 29, 2008), on 
file in the Central Record Unit, room 1117 of the main Department of 
Commerce building (CRU). On March 12, 2008, Flex FZE submitted its 
response to the second supplemental questionnaire. On March 14, 2008, 
Flex FZE submitted its response to the section D questionnaire.
    On March 21, 2008, the petitioners submitted an allegation pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.301(d)(5) that certain U.S. sales by Flex FZE were 
targeted for dumping. On March 27, 2008, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire for sections A through D to Flex FZE. On 
March 31, 2008, Flex FZE submitted comments regarding the petitioners' 
targeted dumping allegation. On April 1, 2008, the Department issued a 
letter to Flex FZE to clarify the March 27, 2008, supplemental 
questionnaire. On April 8, 2008, Flex FZE submitted its response to the 
sections A through D supplemental questionnaire. On April 11, 2008, the 
Department issued questions to the petitioners regarding its targeted 
dumping allegation. On April

[[Page 24548]]

21, 2008, the petitioners submitted a response to the Department's 
questions regarding the targeted dumping allegation.

Respondent Identification

    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. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department 
discretion, when faced with a large number of producers/exporters, to 
limit its examination to a reasonable number of such companies if it is 
not practicable to examine all companies. Where it is not practicable 
to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, this 
provision permits the Department to investigate either (A) a sample of 
exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid 
based on the information available to the Department at the time of 
selection or (B) producers/exporters accounting for the largest volume 
of the merchandise under investigation that can reasonably be examined. 
In the petition, the petitioners identified one potential producer and 
exporter of PET Film in the UAE: Flex FZE.
    Based on our analysis of import data obtained from U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP), we selected one producer/exporter, Flex FZE, 
as the mandatory respondent in this investigation because this company 
is the only producer of UAE subject merchandise exported to the United 
States during the POI. Therefore, the Department determined that Flex 
FZE is the sole producer and exporter of PET Film in the UAE. For a 
complete analysis of our respondent selection, see Memorandum to 
Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, ``Antidumping Duty 
Investigation on PET Film from the UAE - Respondent Selection,'' 
November 27, 2007 (Respondent Selection Memorandum). Therefore, 
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department has 
calculated an individual dumping margin for the selected producer/
exporter.

Postponement of Final Determination

    Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the 
Department's regulations requires that exporters requesting 
postponement of the final determination must also request an extension 
of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act 
from a four-month period to not more than six months. We received a 
request to postpone the final determination and extend the provisional 
measures from Flex FZE on April 18, 2008. Because this preliminary 
determination is affirmative, the request for postponement was made by 
an exporter who accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the 
subject merchandise, and there is no compelling reason to deny the 
respondent's request, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the 
final determination until the 135th day after the date of publication 
of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register and we will 
extend the provisional measures to not more than six months.

Period of Investigation

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

Scope of the 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 its 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 
Thailand, for comments on the appropriate product characteristics for 
defining individual products. In addition, the Department requested all 
parties in this investigation and in the concurrent antidumping duty 
investigations of PET Film from Brazil, the PRC, and Thailand, to 
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, 
2007, 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 or not the PET Film has 
been coextruded. In its November 29, 2007 questionnaire, the Department 
requested that respondent 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 the 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

[[Page 24549]]

inches from the scope of the order. Moreover, there is no language in 
either the proposed scope language of the 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.

Targeted Dumping

    On March 21, 2008, the petitioners submitted a timely allegation 
that Flex FZE engaged in targeted dumping during the POI in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.301(d)(5). On March 31, 2008, Flex FZE submitted 
comments in response to the petitioners' targeted dumping allegation. 
On April 11, 2008, the Department requested additional information from 
the petitioners regarding their targeted dumping allegation. The 
additional information requested was filed on April 21, 2008. 
Therefore, there was not sufficient time to analyze the information and 
fully consider the petitioners' allegation for this preliminary 
determination. The Department will issue a decision regarding targeted 
dumping for this investigation following the issuance of the 
preliminary determination, and will allow parties to comment on it 
prior to the final determination.

Date of Sale

    It is the Department's practice to use invoice date as the date of 
sale. The regulations further provide that the Department may use a 
date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that 
a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or 
producer establishes the material terms of sale (i.e., price and 
quantity). See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube and Conduit 
Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-92 (CIT 2001). Flex 
FZE reported invoice date as its date of sale for both its home market 
and U.S. market sales during the POI.
    Based on Flex FZE's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily 
determine that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale in both 
markets. Flex FZE stated in its February 26, 2008 supplemental 
questionnaire response that the company reported invoice date as the 
date of sale because that is the date when the price and quantity are 
finally set. In addition, Flex FZE stated that changes between the 
order date and the invoice date can occur, but records of these types 
of changes are not maintained electronically. In its February 26, 2008 
supplemental response, Flex FZE provided two examples for home market 
sales where changes occurred between order date and invoice date. We 
issued a supplemental questionnaire on March 31, 2008 requesting Flex 
FZE to provide information indicating changes between order date and 
invoice date for U.S. sales during the POI. Flex FZE responded that no 
such changes had occurred in the U.S. market during the POI.
    On April 25, 2008, the Department issued an additional supplemental 
questionnaire for further information regarding date of sale in the 
U.S. market. We intend to continue evaluating whether invoice date 
appropriately represents the date on which the material terms of sale 
are set in the U.S. market.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PET Film from the UAE were made in 
the United States at less than normal value (NV), we compared the 
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the 
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to the weighted-
average of CEP.

Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, pursuant to section 772(b) of 
the Act, we used CEP because all sales to the United States were made 
by Flex America Inc., Flex FZE's U.S. subsidiary, and Flex America Inc. 
made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
of the subject merchandise. We based CEP on the packed prices charged 
to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the 
applicable terms of sale. See Flex FZE's December 19, 2007 section A 
questionnaire response.
    The Department calculated Flex FZE's starting price as its gross 
unit price to its unaffiliated U.S. customers, making adjustments where 
necessary for billing adjustments and early payment discounts, pursuant 
to section 772(c)(1) of the Act. Where applicable, the Department made 
deductions for movement expenses (foreign inland freight, international 
freight, U.S. movement, U.S. customs duty and brokerage, and post-sale 
warehousing) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.401(e). In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act, 
we also deducted, where applicable, U.S. direct selling expenses, 
including warranty, credit expenses, U.S. commissions, and U.S. 
indirect selling expenses and U.S. inventory carrying costs incurred in 
the United States and in the UAE 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

Home Market Viability and Comparison Market Selection

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market (i.e., the UAE) to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
NV, we compared the 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)(II) of the Act, because 
the aggregate quantity (or, if quantity is not appropriate, value) of 
the foreign like product sold by Flex FZE in its home market is five 
percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise 
sold in the United States or for export to the United States, we 
determined that Flex FZE's sales of PET Film in the UAE were sufficient 
to find

[[Page 24550]]

the home market viable for comparison purposes. Accordingly, we 
calculated NV for Flex FZE based on sales prices to UAE customers.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on our analysis of the petitioners' allegation, we found that 
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Flex FZE's 
sales of PET Film in the home market were made at prices below its COP. 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we initiated 
a sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether Flex FZE had 
sales that were made at prices below its respective COPs. See Cost 
Allegation Memorandum.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Flex FZE's cost of materials and fabrication for 
the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative 
expenses (``G&A''), and interest expenses. We relied on the COP 
information provided by Flex FZE in its questionnaire response except 
in the following instances.
    Pursuant to section 773(f)(3) of the Act, we adjusted Flex FZE's 
reported cost of manufacturing to reflect the higher of the transfer 
price, the market price, and the affiliate's cost of production for PET 
chips purchased by Flex FZE from affiliated suppliers. In addition, 
pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act, we adjusted Flex FZE's 
reported cost of manufacturing to reflect the higher of the transfer 
price and the market price for chemicals purchased by Flex FZE from 
affiliated suppliers.
    We adjusted UFlex Limited's (UFlex Limited is Flex FZE's parent 
company) cost of goods sold used as the denominator in the calculation 
of the reported financial expense ratio to include depreciation expense 
and to exclude inter-unit purchases of raw materials which are 
eliminated on UFlex Limited's consolidated financial statements. For 
further details regarding these adjustments, see Memorandum from Ernest 
Gziryan to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Determination - Flex Middle East FZE'' (April 25, 2008).
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home market sales prices 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. The prices were 
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, direct and indirect 
selling expenses, and packing expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether, within an extended period of 
time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such 
sales were not made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of 
the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market 
sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not 
disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that 
the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the 
respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices less 
than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) they were 
made within an extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' 
in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) 
based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the 
POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. During the POI, none of Flex UAE's home market 
sales were disregarded. For further information on the results of Flex 
UAE's cost test, see Memorandum to the File, from Douglas Kirby through 
Dana Mermelstein, Analysis of Flex Middle East FZE, dated April 25, 
2008 (Flex FZE Preliminary Analysis Memorandum), on file in CRU.

Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers in the 
UAE and matched U.S. sales to NV. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for billing adjustments, discounts, rebates, movement 
expenses, and packing pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In 
addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

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 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. For CEP sales, the LOT is 
that of the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated 
importer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(ii). See also Micron Technology, Inc. 
v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    To determine whether comparison market sales are 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. If the comparison market sales are at a 
different LOT, 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 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 
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).

[[Page 24551]]

    In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether 
the 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 Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
    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 Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 
3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We reviewed the selling functions 
and services performed by Flex FZE on CEP sales for three channels of 
distribution relating to the CEP LOT, as described by Flex FZE in its 
questionnaire responses, after these deductions. We have determined 
that the selling functions performed by Flex FZE on its U.S. sales (all 
of which are CEP sales) are similar because for all U.S. sales, Flex 
FZE provides almost no selling functions to its U.S. affiliate, Flex 
America, in support of the three channels of distribution. See Flex UAE 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for additional information regarding 
Flex FZE's selling functions for CEP sales. Accordingly, because the 
selling functions provided by Flex FZE for CEP sales are minimal, and 
the selling functions provided by Flex America to unaffiliated 
customers in the United States in all three channels of distribution 
are substantially similar and are provided at the same degree of 
service, we preliminarily determine that there is one CEP LOT in the 
U.S. market.
    According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset is 
appropriate when the LOT in the home 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. Flex UAE 
reported that it provided minimal selling functions and services for 
the one (CEP) LOT in the United States and that, therefore, the 
comparison market LOT is more advanced than the CEP LOT. Based on our 
analysis of the channels of distribution and selling functions 
performed by Flex FZE 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 Flex FZE provides many more selling functions in the 
comparison market at a higher level of service as compared to the 
selling function it performs for its CEP sales. For a discussion of the 
proprietary information regarding Flex FZE's comparison market selling 
functions, see Flex FZE Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. Thus, we find 
that Flex FZE's comparison market sales are at a more advanced LOT than 
its CEP sales. In addition, we preliminarily determine there is only 
one LOT in the comparison market. Therefore, there are no data 
available to determine the existence of a pattern of price differences; 
nor do we 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 for comparison market sales that were 
compared to U.S. CEP sales. We limited the comparison market indirect 
selling expense deduction by the amount of the indirect selling 
expenses deducted in calculating CEP as required under section 
772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

Currency Conversions

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
France, 68 FR 47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003), remaining unchanged in 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 68 FR 69379 
(December 12, 2003). However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for the UAE dirham. Therefore, we made 
currency conversions from UAE dirhams to U.S. dollars based on the 
daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval 
Service. Factiva publishes exchange rates for Monday through Friday 
only. We used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday for 
conversion dates involving Saturday and Sunday, where necessary. See 
e.g., Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab Emirates: Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 3945 (January 23, 2008).

Verification

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

All-Others Rate

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all others rate is 
equal to the weighted average of the dumping margins of each respondent 
investigated, excluding zero or de minimis margins and any margins 
determined exclusively under section 776 of the Act. Flex UAE is the 
only respondent in this investigation for which the Department has 
calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for purposes of 
determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of 
the Act, we are using the rate calculated for Flex UAE as the all-
others rate, as referenced in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section 
below.

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                   Producer/Exporter                      Average Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flex Middle East FZE...................................   2.45[percnt]
All Others.............................................   2.45[percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of PET Film from the UAE that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping 
margin, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) the rate for 
the firm listed above will be the rate we have determined in this 
preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified 
in this investigation, but the producer is, the rate will be the rate 
established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate 
for all other producers or exporters will be the all others rate listed 
above. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in 
effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the 
Department's final determination is affirmative, the ITC

[[Page 24552]]

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 the UAE materially injure, or threaten 
material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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 from 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, 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, 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 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 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 briefs.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 25, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-9844 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S