[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 87 (Monday, May 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24560-24565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9846]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-351-841)
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily
determines that polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET
film) from Brazil is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). The estimated
margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to
comment on this preliminary determination. Accordingly, we will make
our final determination not later than 75 days after the signature date
of
[[Page 24561]]
the preliminary determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney, or Robert James,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4475, or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background:
On October 26, 2007, the Department initiated the antidumping duty
investigation of PET film from Brazil. See Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet, and Strip 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). The
petitioners in this investigation are DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi
Polyester Film Inc., SKC Inc, and Toray Plastics (America) Inc.
On November 13, 2007, the United States International Trade
Commission (the Commission) preliminarily determined there is a
reasonable indication that imports of PET film from Brazil, the
People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates are
materially injuring the U.S. industry and notified the Department of
its findings. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
From Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates Case Number.
731-TA-1131-1134 (Preliminary), 72 FR 67756, (November 30, 2007).
On November 15, 2007, Avery Dennison Fasson Roll North America
(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 the investigations. Petitioners objected to Avery
Dennison's request on November 29, 2007; petitioners re-submitted their
objections with amended bracketing on December 14, 2007, and the
document was accepted for the record on that date. Petitioners insist
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(1) of the Tariff Act, we have
determined that the descriptions of the merchandise contained in the
petition and the Notice of Initiation support the conclusion that
release film is of the same class or kind of merchandise covered by the
proposed antidumping order. See also generally 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1).
The product descriptions in the petition and in the Department's Notice
of Initiation specifically exclude finished films with a ``performance
enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches
thick.'' There is nothing in the proposed scope language of either the
petition or our Notice of Initiation that excludes products bearing a
performance enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of less than 0.00001
inches from the scope of the order. Moreover, there is no language in
either the proposed scope language of the petition or our Notice of
Initiation that limits the scope of the investigation to ``PET base
film'' (i.e., PET film prior to the application of in-line coatings),
as Avery Dennison suggests. In addition, release liner shares the
chemical composition of PET film described in the proposed scope of the
petition and Notice of Initiation.
One of the purposes of a less than fair value investigation is to
decide the class or kind of merchandise specifically covered by the
scope of the ultimate antidumping order. Based upon the foregoing, we
have preliminarily determined that release film is of the same class or
kind of merchandise covered by the scope of the AD investigation of PET
film from Brazil. Thus, we have determined that release film is covered
by the scope of the AD investigation of PET film from Brazil. 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, and issued concurrently with this
notice.
On January 23, 2008, the petitioners requested the Department
postpone the preliminary determination by 50 days. The Department
published a notice of postponement on February 11, 2008, which set the
new deadline for the preliminary determination at April 25, 2008. See
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, the
People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates:
Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 73 FR 7710, (February 11, 2008).
In their September 28, 2007 petition, Petitioners identified one
respondent, Terphane Ltda. (Brazil) (Terphane). See Antidumping
Petition: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from
Brazil, People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab
Emirates at 11. See also, October 18, 2007, Initiation Checklist:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil
(Initiation Checklist) at 2.
We issued our antidumping questionnaire to Terphane on November 21,
2007. Terphane submitted its section A response on December 21, 2007.
The Department received Terphane's response to sections B, C, D, and E
of our questionnaire on January 15, 2008. Our analysis of Terphane's
section A, B, C, D, and E responses indicated numerous areas requiring
additional information and clarification from Terphane. Those areas
which required additional information and clarification from Terphane
included: 1) whether affiliated parties provided any of the sales or
production inputs used in the sale of PET film, 2) how the United
States and home market sales totals shown in Terphane's response relate
and reconcile to Terphane's financial statements, 3) the allocation
method used by Terphane to derive U.S. ocean freight, warehousing, and
U.S. inland freight charges, and 4) how Terphane derived the cost of
production (COP) and constructed value (CV) data reported in its
section D response. Petitioners provided comments on Terphane's
response on February 19, 2008. On February 13, 2008, we sent a
supplemental questionnaire to Terphane requesting additional
information concerning its January 15, 2008 Section D Response. See the
Department's February 13, 2008, letter to Terphane Ltda. (February 13
letter). On February 29, 2008, we issued a supplemental questionnaire
covering Terphane's Section A, B, and C responses. See February 29,
2008 letter to Terphane Ltda., (February 29, 2008 letter). However, on
March 26, 2008, Terphane submitted a letter indicating that it was
withdrawing from the investigation, and thus would no longer
participate or cooperate with the Department's request for information.
As a result, the home market and U.S. sales and cost data submitted
by Terphane are incomplete, and as noted above, there are still
significant deficiencies in Terphane's Section A, B, C, D and E
responses that require additional information and/or clarification. In
addition, we cannot verify Terphane's responses. Thus, because we are
unable to trust the reliability of the information conveyed in
Terphane's questionnaire responses, Terphane's questionnaire responses
[[Page 24562]]
cannot serve as the basis of Terphane's margin calculation. See Section
below entitled, ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available.''
Period of Investigation:
The POI is July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007.
Scope of Investigation:
The products covered in this investigation are all gauges of raw,
pre-treated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or co-extruded.
Excluded are metalized films and other finished films that have had at
least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a
performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001
inches thick. Also, excluded is Roller transport cleaning film which
has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5
micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded.
PET film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Model Match:
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, all products
produced by the respondent covered by the description in the Scope of
Investigation section, above, and sold in Brazil during the POI are
considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise
issues regarding model match and encouraged all parties to submit
comments concerning our model-match procedures. See October 30, 2008,
letter from Robert James to All Interested Parties. We received model-
match comments from petitioners on November 7, 2007. In their comments,
petitioners suggested that we employ each of the model match criteria
used in the Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances Review of
PET film from Korea. See, Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Changed
Circumstances Review and Intent to Reinstate Kolon Industries Inc. in
the Antidumping Order, 72 FR 56048 (October 2, 2007) Korean CC Review.
The model-match criteria employed in the Korean CC Review were: 1)
specification, 2) thickness, 3) surface treatment, and 4) grade. Id.,
at 56049. In addition to 1) specification, 2) thickness, 3) surface
treatment, and 4) grade. In addition, petitioners suggested that we
also consider a fifth criteron: whether the product has been extruded.
See Petitioners November 7, 2007, letter at 1-2. For purposes of this
preliminary determination, the Department has determined that it is
unnecessary to change the proposed product characteristics and model
matching methodology with regard to coextrusion. For purposes of
distinguishing subject merchandise, the Department will take into
account the grade of PET film, as advocated by petitioners in their
submission.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available:
For the reasons discussed below, we determine the use of facts
available is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect
to Terpane. As noted in the Supplementary Information section above,
Terpahne has withdrawn from the proceeding. Additionally, Terphane
failed to respond to our supplemental questionnaires of February 13,
2008 and February 29, 2008. As such, Terphane has withheld information
necessary to calculate a margin for Terphane.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides that if an interested
party withholds information requested by the administering authority,
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of
the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, significantly impedes a
proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the
information cannot be verified as provided in 782(i), the administering
authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Tariff Act, facts
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section
782(d) of the Tariff Act provides that if the administering authority
determines a response to a request for information does not comply with
the request, the administering authority shall promptly inform the
responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient
submission. Section 782(e) of the Tariff Act states further the
Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all
of the following requirements are met: (1) the information is submitted
by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3)
the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
In this case, Terphane has withdrawn from the proceeding, and,
thus, has determined not to participate further or to cooperate with
the Department's requests for information. Moreover, as noted
previously, the U.S., home market, and cost information provided by
Terphane in its December 21, 2007, Section A response and its January
15, 2008, Section B, C, D, and E responses is substantially deficient.
Terphane also failed to provide requested information by the
established deadlines. Additionally, Terphane's decision to withdraw
from this investigation has precluded the Department from conducting
the verification of Terphane's questionnaire responses required by
Section 782(i)(1) of the Act, and has demonstrated its failure to act
to the best of its ability in responding to our requests for
information.
Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available
Section 776(b) of the Act stipulates that if the Department finds
an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may use
an inference adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from
the facts otherwise available. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,
70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). It is the Department's
practice to apply adverse inferences to ensure that the party does not
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully. See, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea:
Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
72 FR 69663 (December 10, 2007). Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of
bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the
Department may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997);
see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon); and Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from
Korea: Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 69663 (December 10, 2007).
Although the Department provided Terphane with notice informing it
of the consequences of its failure to fully
[[Page 24563]]
respond to sections A through E of our antidumping questionnaire,
Terphane has withdrawn from this investigation and has failed to
provide complete responses to the Department's requests for
information. This constitutes a failure on the part of Terphane to
cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information by the Department, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Tariff
Act. Moreover, because Terphane has withdrawn from the proceeding and
did not provide the information requested in our supplemental
questionnaires of February 13, 2008, and February 29, 2008, the
requirements of section 782(e) of the Tariff Act have not been
satisfied.
Based on the above, the Department has preliminarily determined
that Terphane has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and,
therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an
adverse inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless
Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000)
(the Department applied total adverse facts available (AFA) where the
respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire).
Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available
Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act authorizes
the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a
final determination, a previous administrative review, or other
information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the
SAA at 829-831. It is the Department's practice to use the highest rate
from the petition in an investigation when a respondent fails to act to
the best of its ability to provide the necessary information and there
are no other respondents. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 69
FR 77216 (December 27, 2004) (unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified
Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)).
Therefore, because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned
to Terphane the highest margin alleged in the petition, as referenced
in the Initiation Notice, or 44.36 percent. See Initiation Notice at
60806.
When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Tariff
Act provides that where the Department relies on secondary information
(such as the petition) rather than information obtained in the course
of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent practicable,
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its
disposal.
The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means the Department will
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative
value. See SAA at 870. As stated 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; 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, 11843
(March 13, 1997)), to corroborate secondary information, the Department
will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance
of the information used. The Department's regulations state that
independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for
example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs
data, and information obtained from interested parties during the
particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and the SAA at 870.
For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate
information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the
information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis and for
purposes of this preliminary determination. See Initiation Checklist at
pages 8 through 10. See also Initiation Notice at 60803 and 60806. We
examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition to
determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the petition
for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary determination. During
our pre-initiation analysis we examined the key elements of the
constructed export price (CEP) and normal-value calculations used in
the petition to derive margins. During our pre-initiation analysis we
also examined information from various independent sources provided
either in the petition or in supplements to the petition that
corroborates key elements of the constructed export price and normal-
value calculations used in the petition to derive estimated margins.
Id.
The petitioners calculated CEP from information regarding a
representative sale of 48-gauge packaging film by Terphane to an
unaffiliated customer in the United States. See Initiation Checklist at
6. Petitioners made deductions from CEP for a distributor mark up and
for international freight and insurance, U.S. customs duties, inland
freight from the U.S. warehouse to the U.S. customer and credit
expenses. Id. at 6-7. We adjusted petitioner's calculation of the
distributor mark-up to exclude certain charges covered in separate
deductions from U.S. price (i.e. inland freight from the U.S. port to
the distribution warehouse and brokerage charges. Id. at 6.
The petitioners based normal value on a sale of 48 gauge packaging
film by Terphane to a customer in Brazil during the POI. Id. at 8.
Petitioners made an adjustment to home market price for credit. Id.
Based upon the Department's deficiency questions, petitioners revised
their calculation of normal value by eliminating deductions from the
home market price for advertising, slitting, and material losses. Id.
Petitioners also alleged that Terphane made sales below the home
market below its cost of production. Id. Petitioners calculated
constructed value (CV) as the cost of manufacture (COM); selling
general and administrative expenses (SG&A) expenses; packing expenses,
and profit. In calculating CV, we recalculated factory overhead based
upon the financial statements of a Brazilian thermoplastic resin
producer. (The resins manufactured by this Brazilian producer include
PET film.) Id. at 9. Based upon the methodology described above, the
estimated dumping margins for Brazil ranged from 13.08 percent (price-
to price margin) to 44.36 percent (price-to CV margin). Id. at 10.
Based on our examination of the aforementioned information, we
consider the petitioners' calculation of normal value based both upon a
sale of 48 gauge packaging film by Terphane to a customer in Brazil and
constructed value to be corroborated. Therefore, because we confirmed
the accuracy and validity of the information underlying the derivation
of margins in the petition by examining source documents as well as
publicly available information, we preliminarily determine the margins
in the petition are reliable for the purposes of this investigation.
[[Page 24564]]
In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of
corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at
its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a
margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate the selected margin
is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example,
in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department
disregarded the highest margin as ``best information available'' (the
predecessor to ``facts available'') because the margin was based on
another company's uncharacteristic business expense that resulted in an
unusually high dumping margin.
In the pre-initiation stage of this investigation, we confirmed the
calculation of margins in the Petition (e.g., prices, expenses,
adjustments, etc.) reflects the commercial practices of the particular
industry during the period of investigation. See Memorandum to the
File, ``Telephone Call to Market Research Firm,'' dated July 17, 2007.
No information has been presented in the investigation that calls into
question the relevance of this information. As such, and as established
during our pre-initiation analysis, we preliminarily determine the
highest margin in the petition was based on adequate and accurate
information. Accordingly, we consider that highest margin corroborated
for purposes of this preliminary determination. Therefore, it is
relevant as the adverse facts-available rate for Terphane.
Similar to our position in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 53405 (September 11, 2006) (unchanged in Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982 (January 17, 2007)), because this is
the first proceeding involving this company, we find there are no
probative alternatives to the margins alleged in the petition.
Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated in the pre-
initiation stage of this investigation and preliminarily determining it
to be relevant for the uncooperative respondents in this investigation,
we have corroborated the adverse facts-available rate ``to the extent
practicable.'' See section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d).
Therefore, we find that the estimated margin of 44.36 percent in the
Initiation Notice has probative value. Consequently, with respect to
Terphane, we have applied the margin rate of 44.36 percent, the highest
estimated dumping margin set forth in the notice of initiation. See
Initiation Notice at 60806.
All-Others Rate:
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act provides that, where the
estimated weighted-averaged dumping margins established for all
exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de
minimis or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Tariff Act,
the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated
all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually
investigated. Our recent practice under these circumstances has been to
assign as the all-others rate the simple average of the margins in the
petition. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Glycine from Japan, 72 FR 67271, 67272 (November 28,
2007). See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia, 69 FR
34128, 34129 (June 18, 2004). Consistent with our practice we used the
rates in the petition that were considered in the Department's
initiation to calculate a simple average to be assigned as the all-
others rate. That simple average, 28.72 percent, is derived from the
following petition rates: 13.08 (price to price margin) and 44.36
percent (price to CV margin). This 28.72 percent rate will be applied
to all Brazilian producers and exporters of PET film other than
Terphane.
Preliminary Determination:
We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping
margins exist for the period April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terphane............................................ 44.36
All Others.......................................... 28.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspension of Liquidation:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we are
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend
liquidation of all entries of PET film from Brazil that are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct
CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the
weighted-average margins, as indicated in the chart above, as follows:
(1) the rate for Terphane will be the rate we have determined in this
preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified
in this investigation, but the producer is, the rate will be the rate
established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate
for all other producers or exporters will be 28.72 percent. These
suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until
further notice.
Commission Notification:
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Tariff Act, we have
notified the Commission of the Department's preliminary affirmative
determination. If the Department's final determination is affirmative,
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination
whether imports of PET film from Brazil are materially injuring, or
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment:
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the
Department no later than fifty days after the date of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, limited to
the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days
from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(d)(1) and (2). A list of authorities used, a table of contents,
and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs
submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to
five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties
submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a
copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette.
In accordance with section 774 of the Tariff Act, the Department
will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties
an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal
briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested
party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the
hearing will be scheduled two days after the deadline for submitting
rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room
to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time,
and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in
a hearing if one is
[[Page 24565]]
requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, APO/Dockets, Room
1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should
contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed.
See 19 CFR 351.310(c). At the hearing oral presentations will be
limited to issues raised in the briefs.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: April 25, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-9846 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S