[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