[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18519-18520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7929]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-837]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: 
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Review

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On February 22, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the final results of the antidumping duty 
administrative review of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 
strip (PET Film) from Taiwan.\1\ The period of review (POR) is July 1, 
2008, through June 30, 2009. We are amending the Final Results to 
correct a ministerial error that was made in the calculation of the 
antidumping duty margin for Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd. (Nan Ya), 
pursuant to section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From 
Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 
FR 9745 (February 22, 2011) (Final Results) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum (IDM).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: (February 22, 2011)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 8, 2011, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(1), Nan Ya filed a 
timely submission alleging ministerial errors with respect to the 
Department's use of sales datasets and matching of CONNUMs in the 
antidumping duty margin calculation for Nan Ya in the Final Results.\2\ 
On March 14, 2011, DuPont Teijin Films; Mitsubishi Polyester Film Inc.; 
SKC, Inc.; and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. (collectively, 
Petitioners) provided timely rebuttal comments to Nan Ya's model 
matching allegation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Nan Ya's Letter to the Secretary of Commerce dated March 
8, 2011 (Allegation of Ministerial Errors).
    \3\ See Petitioners' Letter to the Secretary of Commerce dated 
March 14, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping order are all gauges of 
raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, whether 
extruded or coextruded. 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. Imports of PET Film are currently 
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the 
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Ministerial Error Allegation

    A ministerial error is defined in section 751(h) of the Act as ``* 
* * errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, 
clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the 
like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering 
authority considers ministerial.'' \4\ In its Allegation of Ministerial 
Errors, Nan Ya alleged that: (1) The Department inadvertently used the 
incorrect U.S. and home market sales datasets to calculate Nan Ya's 
antidumping duty margin for the final results; and (2) the Department 
erroneously matched similar home market subject merchandise to U.S. 
sales where there was no identical sale during the comparison 
period.\5\ Specifically, Nan Ya argues that the last criteria in the 
Department's model matching hierarchy, surface treatment, has a greater 
impact on the sales price and the production costs of PET Film compared 
to the other criteria in the hierarchy, and that it should receive more 
weight during the model matching process. Petitioners commented only on 
Nan Ya's model matching allegation, contending that the Department did 
not commit a ministerial error. According to Petitioners, the 
Department acted in accordance with its well established methodology 
with respect to model matching.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See also 19 CFR 351.224(f).
    \5\ See Allegation of Ministerial Errors at 1-3.
    \6\ See Petitioners' Rebuttal Comments at 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Allegations

    After analyzing the interested parties' allegations and rebuttal 
comments, we find, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.224(e), that with respect to Nan Ya's first allegation, the 
Department did, indeed, inadvertently use the incorrect sales datasets 
to calculate Nan Ya's antidumping duty margin for the Final Results. In 
its May 27, 2010 supplemental questionnaire to Nan Ya, the Department 
requested that Nan Ya and its three U.S. affiliates provide a single, 
consolidated constructed export price (CEP) sales dataset to report 
their sales in the U.S. market.\7\ However, the three U.S. affiliates 
stated that they are not affiliated with Nan Ya, and each submitted an 
individual CEP sales dataset.\8\ Subsequently, the Department requested 
that Nan Ya and its three U.S. affiliates provide several revised sales 
datasets for home market, export price (EP) and CEP sales. While the 
correct datasets were used for the CEP sales for the Final Results, we 
erroneously used an older version of the home market and U.S. EP sales 
datasets submitted by Nan Ya. Thus, the Department has determined that 
the use of the wrong datasets constitutes a ministerial error, in 
accordance with section 751(h) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e). For 
these amended final results, we recalculated Nan Ya's antidumping duty 
margin using the correct sales datasets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the Department's Letter to Nan Ya dated May 27, 2010 at 
1.
    \8\ See, e.g., Letters to the Secretary of Commerce regarding 
the section C questionnaire responses of Forplax LLC and Forplax Los 
Angeles, Inc. dated July 7, 2010 at C-2, and Letter to the Secretary 
of Commerce regarding the section C questionnaire response of 
Rocheux International dated July 9, 2010 at C-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Nan Ya's second allegation with respect to model 
matching, the Department disagrees that it made a ministerial error as 
defined by section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

[[Page 18520]]

The model matching hierarchy methodology used for the Final Results 
consists of four criteria (in order of importance): Specification; 
thickness in microns; thickness code; and surface treatment.\9\ The 
model matching hierarchy used by the Department does not fall under the 
``ministerial error'' definition because it is a methodology that the 
Department applied correctly. It did not involve any incorrect copying, 
duplication or unintentional error of any type. This hierarchy 
methodology is consistent with the hierarchy as described in the 
Department's initial questionnaire to Nan Ya regarding this 
administrative review,\10\ and used for the preliminary results. We 
note that Nan Ya did not comment on the model matching hierarchy in its 
case brief regarding the preliminary results. We also note that in the 
Final Results, based on the information placed on the record by the 
other respondent in this administrative review, Shinkong Synthetic 
Fibers Corporation and Shinkong Materials Technology Co., Ltd., we 
determined that there are little or no cost differences between surface 
treatments,\11\ which is contradictory to Nan Ya's argument. As such, 
we find that, for the Final Results, the Department relied upon its 
intended model matching hierarchy and, thus, determine that the 
Department did not commit a ministerial error in accordance with 
section 751(h) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., the Department's September 3, 2009 Initial 
Questionnaire to Nan Ya Plastics Corporation at B-9.
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ See IDM at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results of this administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on PET Film from Taiwan. The 
revised weighted-average dumping margin for Nan Ya as a result of these 
amended final results is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Original     Amended
                                                 weighted-    weighted-
             Manufacturer/Exporter                average      average
                                                   margin       margin
                                                 (percent)    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd..............        20.76        18.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 
the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We 
will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise produced and/or 
exported by Nan Ya. For assessment purposes, where the respondent 
reports the entered value for their sales, we calculate importer-
specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem assessment rates based on 
the ratio of the total amount of the dumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. See 19 
CFR 351.212(b). However, where the respondent does not report the 
entered value for their sales, we calculate importer-specific (or 
customer-specific) per unit duty assessment rates. The Department 
intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 
days after the date of publication of these amended final results of 
review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification applies to entries of subject merchandise during the POR 
produced by the companies included in the final results of review for 
which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was 
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate non-reviewed entries at the all-others rate of 2.40 
percent from the investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction. See Notice of Amended Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip (PET Film) from Taiwan, 67 FR 44174 (July 1, 2002), as corrected 
in 67 FR 46566 (July 15, 2002).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for any 
entries made on or after February 22, 2011, the date of publication of 
the Final Results, for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of the Final Results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 
Act: (1) For Nan Ya, the cash deposit rate will be the amended 
weighted-average margin rate shown above in the ``Amended Final 
Results'' section of this notice; (2) for previously investigated or 
reviewed Taiwanese and non-Taiwanese exporters of subject merchandise 
not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) for all Taiwanese exporters of subject merchandise which 
have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit 
rate will be the Taiwan-wide rate of 2.40 percent; and (4) for all non-
Taiwanese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received 
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to 
the Taiwanese exporters that supplied that non-Taiwanese exporter. 
These deposit requirements will remain in effect until further notice.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed for these amended final 
results within five days of the date of publication of this notice to 
interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of 
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction 
of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation that is subject to sanction.
    These amended final results are published in accordance with 
sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 29, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-7929 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P