[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 87 (Monday, May 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24552-24560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9845]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-570-924)


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 2008.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that polyethylene terephthalate 
film, sheet, and strip (``PET Film'') from the People's Republic of 
China (``PRC'') 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 shown in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of 
this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this 
preliminary determination. We will make our final determination 75 days 
after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, 
pursuant to section 735(a) of the Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Erin Begnal or Toni Dach, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1442 or 482-1655, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Initiation

    On September 28, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received petitions on imports of PET Film from Brazil, the PRC, 
Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates (``UAE'') (``petitions'') filed 
in proper form by Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film Inc., 
SKC Inc., and Toray Plastics (America) Inc., (collectively, 
``Petitioners''). See Antidumping Duty Petition: Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from Brazil, Republic 
of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates (September 28, 2007). 
These investigations were 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, 72 FR 60801 
(October 26, 2007) (``Initiation Notice'').
    On November 13, 2007, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination 
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United 
States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by 
reason of imports from Brazil, the PRC, Thailand, and UAE of PET Film. 
The ITC's determination was published in the Federal Register on 
November 30, 2007. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip From Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, 72 FR 
67756 (November 30, 2007); see also Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 
Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab 
Emirates: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1131-1134 (Preliminary), 
Publication 3962 (November 2007).

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, we 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 Initiation Notice. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    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 of less than 0.00001 
inches, 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

[[Page 24553]]

contained in the petition and in our Initiation Notice 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 Initiation Notice 
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 
Initiation Notice 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 petition or our Initiation Notice 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 Initiation 
Notice.
    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 Initiation Notice. Thus, we have determined that release 
film is covered by the scope of the AD investigation of PET Film from 
the PRC. 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 Michael J. 
Heaney, Senior Case Analyst, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, dated April 25, 2008, issued 
concurrently with this notice.

Respondent Selection

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it expected to 
select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') data of U.S. imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS'') number 3920.62.00.90. See Initiation Notice, 
72 FR at 60806. On November 16, 2007, the Department placed the CBP 
information on the record of the investigation, and set aside a period 
for interested parties to submit comments on the CBP information. On 
November 30, 2007, the Department received comments on respondent 
selection from Petitioners and DuPont-Hongji Films Foshan Co., Ltd. 
(``DPHJ''), a manufacturer of subject merchandise. On December 3, 2007, 
and December 11, 2007, the Department received additional comments on 
respondent selection from Petitioners and DPHJ, respectively. On 
December 26, 2007, the Department selected Jiangyin Jinzhongda New 
Material Co., Ltd. (``JJ New Material'') and Dupont Teijin Films China 
Limited (``DTFC'') as mandatory respondents. See Memorandum to Stephen 
J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration through 
James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9 and Scot T. 
Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9 from Erin 
Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, regarding, ``Selection of 
Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of 
China,'' dated December 26, 2007 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').

Separate Rates Applications

    Between December 14, 2007, and December 19, 2007, the Department 
received separate rate applications from eight companies, including one 
mandatory respondent, DTFC, and its affiliated producers DPHJ and 
DuPont Teijin Hongji Films Ningbo Co., Ltd. (``DTHFN''). We issued 
deficiency questionnaires to Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. (``Fuwei 
Films''), Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd. (``Green Packing''), 
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. (``Tianjin Wanhua''), Sichuan Dongfang 
Insulating Material Co., Ltd. (``Sichuan Dongfang''), and Shanghai 
Uchem Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Uchem'') (collectively, ``SR Applicants'') 
on March 14, 2008. We issued an additional deficiency questionnaire to 
Tianjin Wanhua on March 21, 2008. We received a response from Tianjin 
Wanhua on March 21, 2008, March 28, 2008, and April 3, 2008. We also 
received responses from Fuwei Films, Green Packing, Sichuan Dongfang, 
and Shanghai Uchem on March 28, 2008.

Product Characteristics & Questionnaires

    On October 30, 2007, the Department asked all parties in this 
investigation and in the concurrent antidumping duty investigations of 
PET Film from Brazil, Thailand, and the UAE, 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 
Brazil, Thailand, and the UAE to submit comments on the appropriate 
model matching methodology. See Letter from Robert James, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement 7, dated October 30, 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 the PET Film has been coextruded. In its December 
27, 2007, questionnaire, the Department requested that the 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 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. The Department also 
received untimely filed comments from the BOPET Association of China 
Plastics Processing Industry Association on November 30, 2007.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because the BOPET Association of China Plastics Processing 
Industry Association's comments were submitted after the 
Department's deadline for submission, the Department was unable to 
consider these comments for defining product characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 27, 2007, the Department issued to DTFC and JJ New 
Material its sections A, C, D, and E questionnaire,\2\ which included 
product characteristics used in the designation of CONNUMs and assigned 
to the merchandise under consideration. On January 22, 2008, the 
Department placed on the record of the investigation an email response 
from JJ New Material, indicating that it would not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire and would not participate in the 
investigation. Between January 11, 2008, and February 8, 2008, the 
Department received section A, C, and D questionnaire responses from 
the DuPont Group.\3\ The DuPont Group was

[[Page 24554]]

not required by the Department to submit a Section E response. The 
Department also issued supplemental questionnaires to the DuPont Group 
and received responses between February 25, 2008, and March 14, 2008. 
Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on the section C and D 
questionnaire responses of the DuPont Group on February 19, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section C 
requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests 
information on factors of production, and Section E requests 
information on further manufacturing.
    \3\ Although the original questionnaire was issued to DTFC, 
which was selected as a mandatory respondent, we received 
questionnaire responses on behalf of DTFC, the exporter of the 
subject merchandise, and its affiliated producers, DPHJ and DTHFN, 
collectively the ``DuPont Group.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    On January 18, 2008, the Department determined that India, 
Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See Letter to 
All Interested Parties, from Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 
9, AD/CVD Operations, regarding ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's 
Republic of China ,'' dated January 18, 2008, attaching Memorandum to 
Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from 
Carole Showers, Acting Director, Office of Policy, regarding 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 
Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for 
List of Surrogate Countries,'' dated January 16, 2008.
    On January 18, 2008, the Department requested comments on surrogate 
country selection from the interested parties in this investigation. 
Petitioners and the DuPont Group submitted surrogate country comments 
on February 1, 2008. No other interested parties commented on the 
selection of a surrogate country. For a detailed discussion of the 
selection of the surrogate country, see ``Surrogate Country'' section 
below.

Surrogate Value Comments

    On March 19, 2008, Petitioners and the DuPont Group submitted 
comments on surrogate information with which to value the factors of 
production in this proceeding.

Targeted Dumping

    On March 24, 2008, Petitioners filed an allegation of targeted 
dumping by the DuPont Group based on a pattern of export prices for 
comparable merchandise that differ significantly over periods of time. 
Petitioners also submitted the programming code they used in their 
targeted dumping allegations on March 24, 2008. On April 9, 2008, 
Petitioners submitted a letter withdrawing their targeted dumping 
allegation.

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On January 23, 2008, Petitioners made a timely request, pursuant to 
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, for a 50-day postponement of the 
preliminary determinations with respect to Brazil, the People's 
Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates. See also 19 
CFR 351.205(e). The Department published a postponement of the 
preliminary determination on February 11, 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).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 2007, through 
June 30, 2007. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, September, 
2007. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

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 HTSUS. While HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Non-Market-Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for 
the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME''). See Initiation Notice, 73 FR 
at 60804. The Department considers the PRC to be a NME country. See, 
e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
60632 (October 25, 2007). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 
the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country 
shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. No 
party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in 
this investigation. Therefore, we continue to treat the PRC as an NME 
country for purposes of this preliminary determination.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP'') 
valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to 
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) 
of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level 
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under 
the ``Normal Value'' section below.
    The Department's practice with respect to determining economic 
comparability is explained in Policy Bulletin 04.1,\4\ which states 
that ``Per capita GNI\5\ is the primary basis for determining economic 
comparability.'' The Department considers the five countries identified 
in its Surrogate Country List as ``equally comparable in terms of 
economic development.'' See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 2. Thus, we find 
that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are all 
at an economic level of development equally comparable to that of the 
PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate 
Country Selection Process, (March 1, 2004), (``Policy Bulletin 
04.1'') available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html.
    \5\ GNI stands for gross national income, which comprises GDP 
plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and 
property income) from nonresident sources. See, e.g., http://www.finfacts.com/ biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides some guidance on identifying 
comparable merchandise and selecting a producer of comparable 
merchandise. Based on the data provided by Petitioners, we find that 
India is a producer of identical merchandise. See Petitioners' February 
1, 2008, Comments on Surrogate Country at 2. Petitioners

[[Page 24555]]

provided a list of Indian companies that produce PET Film. Id. 
Additionally, Petitioners submitted on the record of the investigation 
worldwide export data for PET Film, detailed in the ITC Sunset Review 
of PET Film from India and Taiwan, Prehearing Report to the Commission 
on Investigation Nos. 701-TA-415 and 731-TA-933 and 934 (Review) 
(January 29, 2008), Tables IV-8 and IV-10. See Petitioners' February 1, 
2008, Comments on Surrogate Country at Attachment I. Because the 
Department was unable to find production data, we are relying on export 
data as a substitute for overall production data in this case. Of the 
five countries listed in the Surrogate Country List, only three 
countries, India, Thailand, and Indonesia are exporters of PET Film. 
Id. Consequently, at this time, the Philippines and Colombia are not 
being considered as appropriate surrogate countries for the PRC because 
they are not exporters of PET Film. Moreover, India, Thailand, and 
Indonesia are significant producers of identical merchandise. 
Specifically, during 2006 India exported 95,925,000 pounds of identical 
merchandise, while Thailand exported 75,447,000 pounds and Indonesia 
exported 67,723,000 pounds. Id.
    With respect to data considerations in selecting a surrogate 
country, it is the Department's practice that, ''. . . if more than one 
country has survived the selection process to this point, the country 
with the best factors data is selected as the primary surrogate 
country.'' See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 4. Currently, the record 
contains surrogate factor value data, including possible surrogate 
financial statements, only from India.
    Thus, the Department is preliminarily selecting India as the 
surrogate country on the basis that: (1) it is at a similar level of 
economic development to the PRC, pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) 
it is a significant producer of identical merchandise; and (3) we have 
reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of 
production. Thus, we have calculated normal value using Indian prices 
when available and appropriate to value DTFC's affiliated producers' 
factors of production. See Memorandum to the File through Scot T. 
Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Erin 
Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9, regarding ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of 
China: Selection of Factor Values,'' dated April 25, 2008 (``Surrogate 
Value Memorandum'').
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 
determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value the factors of 
production within 40 days after the date of publication of the 
preliminary determination.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days 
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such 
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 
The Department generally will not accept the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affiliatiion

    We preliminarily find the DuPont Group, comprised of DTFC, DPHJ, 
and DTHFN, to be affiliated parties within the meaning of section 
771(33)(E) of the Act, due to common ownership. Specifically, DTFC is 
an owner of DPHJ, and DPHJ and DTFC are owners of DTHFN. See DTFC's 
December 17, 2007, Separate Rate Application at Exhibit 12, DPHJ's 
December 17, 2007, Separate Rate Application at 18; DTHFN's December 
17, 2007, Separate Rate Application at 18, and the DuPont Group's 
January 11, 2008, Section A response at Exhibit A-3.

Separate Rates

    Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, the Department notified 
parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may 
obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. See Initiation 
Notice, 72 FR at 60804-60805. The process requires exporters and 
producers to submit a separate-rate status application. The 
Department's practice is discussed further in Policy Bulletin 05.1: 
Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, 
(April 5, 2005), (``Policy Bulletin 05.1'') available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.\7\ However, the standard for 
eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can 
demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto governmental 
control over its export activities) has not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Policy Bulletin 05.1, states: ``{w{time} hile continuing 
the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 
separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME 
investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the 
exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one 
rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which 
supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of 
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents 
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the 
pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the 
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the 
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to 
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The 
cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to 
merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a 
firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.'' See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country 
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. As 
discussed fully below, DTFC and the SR Applicants have provided 
company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate 
independently of de jure and de facto government control, and therefore 
satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate rate.
    We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a 
complete application is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's 
separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/
border-type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export 
prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 
72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls 
over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each

[[Page 24556]]

entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) 
(``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). In 
accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns 
separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the 
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export 
activities. Additionally, if the Department determines that a company 
is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate 
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent 
from government control.

Wholly Foreign-Owned

    In its separate rate application, DTFC\8\ reported that it is 
wholly foreign-owned and incorporated in Hong Kong. Additionally, Fuwei 
Films, a separate rate applicant, reported that it is wholly foreign-
owned in its separate-rate application. Therefore, because there is no 
PRC ownership of DTFC and Fuwei Films, i.e., they are wholly foreign-
owned, and we have no evidence indicating that they are under the 
control of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not necessary to 
determine whether these companies are independent from government 
control. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 
71104, 71104-05 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly 
foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a separate rate). Accordingly, 
we have preliminarily granted a separate rate to DTFC and Fuwei Films.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ DTFC's affiliated producers, DPHJ and DTHFN, submitted 
timely separate applications. DPHJ and DTHFN stated that during the 
POI, they sold the subject merchandise through their affiliated Hong 
Kong exporter, DTFC, who then resold the merchandise to the United 
States through its U.S. affiliate. Additionally, both DPHJ and DTHFN 
stated that neither company exported directly to the U.S. affiliate 
or to any unaffiliated U.S. customers directly. Therefore, we are 
considering DTFC as the exporter of the subject merchandise, and we 
did not consider the separate rate status of DPHJ and DTHFN on an 
individual basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly Chinese-
owned Companies

    Certain companies stated that they are either joint ventures 
between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese-owned 
companies (collectively ``PRC SR Applicants''). Therefore, the 
Department must analyze whether these respondents can demonstrate the 
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export 
activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The evidence provided by the PRC SR Applicants - Green Packing, 
Tianjin Wanhua, Sichuan Dongfang, and Shanghai Uchem - supports a 
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on 
the following: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with the individual exporters' business and export licenses; 2) there 
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and 3) and there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Shanghai Uchem Co., 
Ltd.'s February 11, 2008, Separate Rate Application (``Shanghai Uchem 
SRA'') and Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd.'s December 14, 
2007, Separate Rate Application (``Green Packing SRA'').

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22544-22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an 
analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether 
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control 
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
    We determine that, for the PRC SR Applicants, the evidence on the 
record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of 
governmental control based on record statements and supporting 
documentation showing the following: 1) each exporter sets its own 
export prices independent of the government and without the approval of 
a government authority; 2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its 
sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits 
or financing of losses; 3) each exporter has the authority to negotiate 
and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) each exporter has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. 
See, e.g., Shanghai Uchem SRA and Green Packing SRA.
    Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation 
by the PRC SR Applicants demonstrates an absence of de jure and de 
facto government control with respect to each exporter's exports of the 
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria 
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. See Memorandum to James C. 
Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, through Scot T. 
Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Toni 
Dach, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
regarding ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of 
China: Separate Rates Memorandum,'' dated April 25, 2008. As a result, 
for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we have granted a 
separate company-specific rate to DTFC. Additionally, we have granted 
the SR Applicants a weighted-average margin for the purposes of this 
preliminary determination.

Application of Facts Available Section

    776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to 
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form 
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 
and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be

[[Page 24557]]

verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, and subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) 
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary 
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements 
established by the administering authority'' if the information is 
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in 
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the 
statute requires the Department to use the information supplied if it 
can do so without undue difficulties.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse 
inference may include reliance on information derived from the 
petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or 
other information placed on the record.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 19 CFR 351.308(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Total Adverse Facts Available

The PRC-Wide Entity

    On December 26, 2007, the Department selected JJ New Material as 
one of the mandatory respondents, and on December 27, 2007, we issued 
our questionnaire to JJ New Material. On January 22, 2008, the 
Department placed on the record of the investigation an email response 
from JJ New Material, indicating that it would not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire and would not participate in the 
investigation. Thus, there is no information on the record of this 
investigation with respect to JJ New Material. Because JJ New Material 
was selected as a mandatory respondent and failed to demonstrate its 
eligibility for separate-rate status, it remains subject to this 
investigation as part of the PRC-wide entity.
    Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, we find 
that it is appropriate to apply a dumping margin for the PRC-wide 
entity using the facts otherwise available on the record, because the 
PRC-wide entity (including JJ New Material) withheld information 
requested by the Department and impeded the proceeding. Specifically, 
the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to the Department's 
questionnaires and withheld or failed to provide information in a 
timely manner or in the form or manner requested by the Department. 
Thus, the PRC-wide entity impeded the proceeding. Additionally, because 
this party failed to cooperate by refusing to respond to our requests 
for information, we find an adverse inference is appropriate pursuant 
to section 776(b) of the Act for the PRC-wide entity.

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate

    Because the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to our request for 
information, it has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in 
selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is 
appropriate pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act for the PRC-wide 
entity.
    Further, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use 
as adverse facts available (``AFA'') information derived from the 
petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a 
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the 
record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that 
is sufficiently adverse so ``as to effectuate the purposes of the 
adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely 
manner.''\10\ Moreover, the Department will select a rate that ensures 
``that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to 
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    \11\ See Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994) 
(``SAA'') at 870. See also Brake Rotors From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh 
Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper 
Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of 
the (a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest 
calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation.\12\ As AFA, we 
have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity a rate of 76.72 
percent, the highest calculated rate from the petition. The Department 
preliminarily determines that this information is the most appropriate 
from the available sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA. The 
Department's reliance on the petition rate to determine an AFA rate is 
subject to the requirement to corroborate secondary information.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China, 
73 FR 6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008).
    \13\ See the ``Corroboration'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the 
SAA as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.''\14\ The SAA explains that to ``corroborate'' 
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value. Id. The SAA also explains 
that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See SAA at 870.
    \15\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part:, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).

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

[[Page 24558]]

    The AFA rate that the Department used is from the petition.\16\ 
Petitioners' methodology for calculating the export price (``EP'') and 
NV in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice.\17\ To 
corroborate the AFA margin we have selected, we compared that margin to 
the margins we found for the respondent. We found that the margin of 
76.72 percent has probative value because it is in the range of margins 
we found for the cooperating mandatory respondent. Accordingly, we find 
that the rate of 76.72 percent is corroborated within the meaning of 
section 776(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See ``Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's 
Republic of China'' at 9. See also Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 
60806.
    \17\ See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 60803-60804 and 60806.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, we are applying 76.72 percent as the single 
antidumping rate to the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide rate applies to 
all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries 
from DTFC, and the separate rate applicants receiving a separate rate.

Margin for the Separate Rate Applicants

    The Department received timely and complete separate rates 
applications from the SR Applicants, who are all exporters of PET Film 
from the PRC, which were not selected as mandatory respondents in this 
investigation. Through the evidence in their applications, these 
companies have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, as 
discussed above. Consistent with the Department's practice, as the 
separate rate, we have established a margin for the SR Applicants based 
on the rate we calculated for the cooperating mandatory respondent, 
DTFC.\18\ Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged 
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
19690 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that, 
``{i{time} n identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or 
foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of 
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the 
ordinary course of business.'' However, the Secretary 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. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); 
see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 
2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001) (``Allied Tube''). The date of sale is 
generally the date on which the parties agree upon all substantive 
terms of the sale. This normally includes the price, quantity, delivery 
terms and payment terms. In Allied Tube, the Court of International 
Trade (``CIT'') noted that a ``party seeking to establish a date of 
sale other than invoice date bears the burden of producing sufficient 
evidence to satisf{y{time} ' the Department that a different date 
better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes 
the material terms of sale.''' Allied Tube 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 
(quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)). In order to simplify the determination of 
date of sale for both the respondent and the Department and in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be 
the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's 
records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless satisfactory 
evidence is presented that the exporter or producer establishes the 
material terms of sale on some other date. In other words, the date of 
the invoice is the presumptive date of sale, although this presumption 
may be overcome. For instance, in Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, 61 FR 
14064, 14067 (March 29, 1996), the Department used the date of the 
purchase order as the date of sale because the terms of sale were 
established at that point.
    After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales 
documentation that the DuPont Group placed on the record, we 
preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most appropriate date 
of sale for all CEP sales made by DTFC. See DuPont Group February 8, 
2008, Section C questionnaire response at C-13 and March 17, 2008, 
supplemental response at C-3-4.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PET Film to the United States by DTFC 
were made at less than fair value, we compared the constructed export 
price (``CEP'') to normal value (``NV''), as described in the ``U.S. 
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price on CEP because all of these sales were first made to unaffiliated 
U.S. customers by DTFC's U.S. affiliate. In accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting, where 
applicable, the following expenses from the gross unit price charged to 
the first unaffiliated customer in the United States: foreign movement 
expenses, international freight, discounts, and United States movement 
expenses. Further, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.402(b), where appropriate, we deducted from the starting 
price the following selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States: credit expenses, direct 
selling expenses, and indirect selling expenses. In addition, pursuant 
to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment to the starting 
price for CEP profit. Where foreign movement or international ocean 
freight was provided by PRC service providers or paid for in Renminbi 
(``RMB''), we valued these services using surrogate values (see 
``Factors of Production'' section below for further discussion).
    For a complete discussion of the calculations of the U.S. price for 
DTFC, see Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal, Senior 
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 
``Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated April 25, 2008 (``DTFC 
Analysis Memorandum'').

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported 
from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV 
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value 
under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP 
because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non-
market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by DTFC's affiliated producers for the POI. 
To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption 
rates by publicly available surrogate values (except as

[[Page 24559]]

discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the 
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, 
we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them 
delivered prices. Specifically, we added to the Indian surrogate values 
a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance 
from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the 
nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in 
accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision 
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 
1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for DTFC can 
be found in the Surrogate Value Memorandum and DTFC Analysis 
Memorandum. Additionally, for detailed descriptions of all actual 
values used for market-economy inputs, see DTFC Analysis Memorandum 
dated April 25, 2008.
    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics 
and other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate 
surrogate values for DTFC's affiliated producers' FOPs (direct 
materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain movement 
expenses. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs 
in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's 
practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values 
which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, 
product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that data 
in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as those from the other Indian 
sources, represent data that are contemporaneous with the POI, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. In those instances where we could not 
obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POI with 
which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where 
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in 
the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary 
Fund.
    Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate 
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to 
believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or 
suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand 
may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television 
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 
2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 
(``CTVs from the PRC''). Further, guided by the legislative history, it 
is the Department's practice not to conduct a formal investigation to 
ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 
590 (1988). Rather, the Department bases its decision on information 
that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. 
Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in 
calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in calculating 
market-economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input 
was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used 
Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive 
Replacement Glass Windshields From The People's Republic of China, 67 
FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME 
countries. Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an 
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because 
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an 
NME country or a country with general export subsidies.
    DTFC reported that its affiliated producers purchased an input, 
which was consumed in the production of the merchandise under review, 
from a market economy (``ME'') supplier and paid for in a market 
economy currency. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department 
normally will accept input prices to value the factors of production of 
inputs purchased from a ME supplier and paid for in a ME currency. 
Furthermore, consistent with the Department's stated policy reflected 
in Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-
Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 FR 
61716 (October 19, 2006) (``2006 Statement of Policy''), when a 
sufficient proportion of an input is purchased from a market economy, 
the Department will use the reported market economy prices to value 
that input when the item was paid for in a market economy currency. For 
purposes of the preliminary determination, we have determined that 
DTFC's reported market economy purchases accounted for a significant 
portion of total purchases of that input and, therefore, have used the 
reported purchase prices to value the input in the Department's normal 
value calculation. See DTFC Analysis Memorandum.
    The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that DTFC's affiliated producers 
used to produce the subject merchandise during the POI, except where 
listed below.
    For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported 
on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in January 2007, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these wage-rate data on the Import 
Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2004, 
ILO (Geneva: 2004), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this 
regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into 
different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage 
rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. 
See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses, and profit, we averaged the audited 2006-2007 financial 
statements from Jindal Poly Films Limited, Garware Polyester Limited, 
Polyplex Corporation Ltd., and UFlex Limited, four large producers of 
PET Film in India.
    For a detailed discussion of all surrogate values used for this 
preliminary determination, see Surrogate Values Memorandum.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

[[Page 24560]]

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR 
at 60806. This practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available 
at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.

Preliminary Determination

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

                                              PET Film from the PRC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Weighted-
                 Exporter                                        Producer                         Average Margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd............                   DuPont Hongji Films Foshan Co. Ltd.  46.82[percnt]
DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd............           DuPont Teijin Hongji Films Ningbo Co., Ltd.  46.82[percnt]
Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd..........                      Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd.  46.82[percnt]
Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd..              Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd.  46.82[percnt]
Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co.,        Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd.  46.82[percnt]
 Ltd.....................................
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd..................                              Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd.  46.82[percnt]
Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd..................        Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd.  46.82[percnt]
Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd..................            Shanghai Xishu Electric Material Co., Ltd.  46.82[percnt]
PRC-wide (including Jiangyin Jinzhongda    ....................................................  76.72[percnt]
 New Material Co., Ltd.).................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of PET Film from the PRC as 
described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from DTFC, Fuwei Films, Green 
Packing, Tianjin Wanhua, Sichuan Dongfang, Shanghai Uchem, and the PRC-
wide entity 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 amount by which the 
normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than 
fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its 
final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United 
States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by 
reason of imports of PET Film, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) 
for importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final 
determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date of the final verification report is issued in this 
proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs 
no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs (see 19 
CFR 351.309(c)(i) and (d)). A list of authorities used and an executive 
summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the 
Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, 
including footnotes.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, and if requested, we 
will hold a public hearing, to afford interested parties an opportunity 
to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing shortly after the 
deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, 
at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before 
the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
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 after the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, 
and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 25, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-9845 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S