[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