[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40325-40329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17210]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-807]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the 
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene 
terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET film) from the Republic of 
Korea (Korea). This review covers one company, Kolon Industries Inc. 
(Kolon) for the period of review (POR) of June 1, 2009, through May 31, 
2010. We preliminarily determine that Kolon has made sales below normal 
value (NV). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the 
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by 
the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated 
duties, where applicable.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: July 8, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Weinhold 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-
1121 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On, June 1, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 30383 (June 1, 
2010).
    In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on June 30, 2010, Kolon 
requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET 
film from Korea, and requested that the Department revoke the 
antidumping duty order with regard to Kolon.
    On July 28, 2010, the Department initiated an administrative review 
for Kolon for the POR. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocations in Part, 75 FR 
44224 (July 28, 2010).
    On August 9, 2010, we issued our antidumping questionnaire to 
Kolon. We received Kolon's response to section A of our questionnaire 
on September 14, 2010 (Kolon's section A response). We received Kolon's 
response to sections B, C, and D of our questionnaire on October 4, 
2010 (Kolon's section B, C, and D response). On January 14, 2011, we 
issued a supplemental questionnaire to Kolon which covered sections A 
through C. Kolon responded to this supplemental questionnaire on 
February 22, 2011 (Kolon's February 22, 2011 response). On June 21, 
2011, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Kolon which covered 
elements of section B. Kolon responded to this supplemental 
questionnaire on June 27, 2011
    On January 25, 2011, we extended the deadline for the preliminary 
results of this review until no later than June 30, 2011. See 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of 
Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 4288 (January 25, 2011).

Verification

    Between March 23, 2011 and March 25, 2011, the Department verified 
Kolon's questionnaire responses at Kolon's U.S. reseller, Kolon USA, at 
Kolon USA's headquarters in Fairfield, New Jersey. See Memorandum from 
Tyler Weinhold and Scott Hoefke to Richard Weible Regarding 
``Verification of the Cost of Production and constructed Value Data 
Submitted by Kolon industries, Inc. in the Review of Polyethylene 
Terephalate (PET) Film from South Korea,'' which will soon be released. 
Between April 4, 2011, and April 8, 2011, the Department verified 
Kolon's questionnaire responses at Kolon's headquarters in Kwachon, 
Kyonggi-Do, Korea. See Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold and Scott Hoefke 
to Richard Weible Regarding ``Verification of the Cost of Production 
and constructed Value Data Submitted by Kolon industries, Inc. in the 
Review of Polyethylene Terephalate (PET) Film from South Korea,'' which 
will soon be released. Between April 25, 2011, and April 29, 2011, the 
Department also verified Kolon's questionnaire responses regarding its 
costs of production and constructed value data at Kolon's

[[Page 40326]]

headquarters in Kwachon, Kyonggi-Do, Korea. See Memorandum from 
Christopher Zimpo and Theresa Deeley to Neal Halper, regarding 
``Verification of the Cost of Production and constructed Value Data 
Submitted by Kolon industries, Inc. in the Review of Polyethylene 
Terephalate (PET) Film from South Korea,'' dated June 30, 2011 (Cost 
Calculation Memorandum).

Requests for Revocation, In Part

    In its request for this review, Kolon requested that the order be 
partially revoked with respect to Kolon. Kolon argued that assuming 
that it had maintained three consecutive years of sales at not less 
than NV, the company would be eligible for revocation under section 
751(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). We preliminarily determine 
not to revoke the order with respect to Kolon. 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) 
sets out rules and procedures for possible partial revocation of a 
dumping order under section 751(d) of the Act if a respondent has 
maintained three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV. In its 
request for revocation, Kolon argued that with the completion of this 
review, it would have maintained three consecutive years of sales at 
not less than NV and would, therefore, be eligible for revocation under 
section 751(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). Kolon was found 
to have had de minimus margins of dumping (below 0.5 percent) in the 
two administrative reviews immediately prior to the instant 
administrative review. However, for these preliminary results, based on 
sales and production data provided by Kolon, and as adjusted by the 
Department, we have calculated a non-de minimis margin for Kolon, i.e., 
0.81 percent. Therefore, under section 751(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2), we have preliminarily determined not to revoke the order 
with respect to Kolon.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by this order are shipments of all gauges of raw, 
pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 
strip, whether extruded or coextruded. The films excluded from this 
review 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 (0.254 micrometers) thick.
    PET film is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3920.62.00. The HTSUS 
subheading is provided for convenience and for customs purposes. The 
written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product 
coverage.

Period of Review

    The POR is June 1, 2009, to May 31, 2010.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of PET film from Korea to the United 
States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared Kolon's 
constructed export price (CEP) or export price (EP) sales made in the 
United States to unaffiliated purchasers to NV, as described in the 
``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, 
below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared 
the CEP and EP of individual transactions to monthly weighted-average 
NVs.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act we considered all 
products produced by Kolon covered by the description in the ``Scope of 
the Order'' section, above, and sold in the home market during the POR, 
to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. We first attempted to compare 
contemporaneous U.S. and comparison-market sales of products that are 
identical with respect to the following characteristics: (1) 
Specification; (2) thickness; (3) surface treatment; and (4) grade. 
Consistent with the methodology employed in the 2008 to 2009 
administrative review of this order, and in the less than fair value 
(LTFV) investigation of PET film from Thailand, we used the actual 
thicknesses of the film rather than a range of thicknesses for product 
comparison purposes. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 40784 (July 14, 2010) (unchanged in 
the Final Results, 75 FR 70901 (November 19, 2010)) and Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Thailand, 73 FR 
24565, 24567 (May 5, 2008) (unchanged in the Final Determination, 73 FR 
64912 (October 31, 2008)). Where we were unable to compare sales of 
identical merchandise, we compared U.S. sales to home market sales of 
the most similar merchandise based on the above characteristics. Where 
there were no sales of the foreign like product of the identical 
merchandise in the ordinary course of trade in the home market to 
compare to a U.S. sale, we compared the price of the U.S. sale to 
constructed value (CV).

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we base NV on sales made in the home market at the same 
level of trade (LOT) as the CEP or EP sales in the U.S. market. The NV 
LOT is defined as the starting-price sales in the home market or, when 
NV is based on CV, as the sales from which selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit are derived. See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(1). The EP LOT is defined as the starting price in the 
United States to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. See id. With respect 
to CEP transactions in the U.S. market, the CEP LOT is defined as the 
level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. See 19 
CFR 351.412(c)(1)(ii).
    To determine whether home market sales are at a different LOT than 
CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the home-market 
sales are at different LOTs, and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the 
NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there 
is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels 
between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., 
Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from 
Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005); unchanged in Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 58683 
(October 7, 2005). For CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. 
v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect 
that if the LOTs claimed by the respondent are the same, the functions 
and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party 
claims that the LOTs are different for

[[Page 40327]]

different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: 
Final Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and 
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 6.
    We obtained information from Kolon regarding the marketing stages 
involved in making its reported foreign market and U.S. sales to 
unaffiliated customers. Kolon provided a description of all selling 
activities performed, along with a flowchart and tables comparing the 
LOTs among each channel of distribution and customer category for both 
markets. See Kolon's section A response at Exhibit A-12.
    For the home market, Kolon identified two channels of distribution 
described as follows: (1) Direct shipments (i.e., products produced to 
order); and (2) warehouse shipments from inventory. Id. Within each of 
these two channels of distribution, Kolon made sales to unaffiliated 
customers. Id. We reviewed the level at which Kolon performed each of 
these selling functions with respect to each claimed channel of 
distribution and customer category. For all of the activities listed 
(which included sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, sales 
promotion, packing, inventory maintenance, order input/processing, 
direct sales personnel, sales/marketing support, market research, 
technical assistance, warranty service, and freight and delivery), the 
level of performance for both direct shipments and warehouse shipments 
was identical across all types of customers. Based on our analysis of 
all of Kolon's home market selling functions, we find all home market 
sales were made at a single LOT, the home market LOT. We also found 
that Kolon provided a similar level of selling functions on all of its 
EP sales, and that the level of these EP selling functions was 
comparable to the level of selling functions Kolon performed on its 
home market sales. Based on the foregoing, we determine there is one 
LOT for Kolon's EP sales and that the EP LOT is comparable to the home 
market LOT.
    Kolon also indicated it made CEP sales through its U.S. affiliate, 
Kolon USA. Id. We then compared the CEP LOT to the NV LOT. The CEP LOT 
is based on the selling activities associated with the transaction 
between Kolon and its affiliated importer, Kolon USA, whereas the NV 
LOT is based on the selling activities associated with the transactions 
between Kolon and unaffiliated customers in the home market. Our 
analysis indicates the selling functions performed for sales to 
unaffiliated home market customers are either performed at a higher 
degree of intensity or are greater in number than the selling functions 
performed for sales to Kolon USA. For example, in comparing Kolon's 
selling activities, we find there are several functions performed in 
the home market which are a performed to a lesser degree for CEP 
transactions. For selling activities performed for both home market 
sales and CEP sales (which included sales forecasting, strategic/
economic planning, sales promotion, packing, inventory maintenance, 
order input/processing, direct sales personnel, sales/marketing 
support, market research, technical assistance, warranty service, and 
freight and delivery), we find Kolon performed each activity except 
packing, order input/processing, and freight and delivery at a higher 
level of intensity in the home market.
    We note that CEP sales from Kolon to Kolon USA generally occur at 
the beginning of the distribution chain, representing essentially a 
logistical transfer of inventory that resembles ex-factory sales. In 
contrast, all sales in the home market occur closer to the end of the 
distribution chain and involve smaller volumes and more customer 
interaction which, in turn, require the performance of more selling 
functions. Id. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the NV LOT is 
at a more advanced stage than the CEP LOT. Because we found the home 
market and CEP sales were made at different LOTs, we examined whether a 
LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may be appropriate in this review. As we 
found only one LOT in the home market, it was not possible to make a 
LOT adjustment to home market prices, because such an adjustment is 
dependent on our ability to identify a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the home market sales on which NV is based and home 
market sales at the LOT of the export transaction. See 19 CFR 
351.412(d)(1). Furthermore, we have no other information that provides 
an appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment. Because the data 
available do not form an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, 
and because the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than 
the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

United States Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ``the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the 
date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject 
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 
the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c) of this section.'' 
Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as ``the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United 
States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of 
the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise or by a seller 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 
with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections (c) and 
(d).'' For purposes of this administrative review, Kolon classified all 
of its U.S. sales invoiced by Kolon and shipped directly from Korea to 
the unaffiliated U.S. customer as EP sales. Kolon reported all sales 
that were invoiced through its U.S. subsidiary Kolon USA as CEP 
transactions. For these preliminary results, we have accepted these 
classifications. The merchandise shipped directly to unaffiliated 
customers in the U.S. market was not sold through an affiliated U.S. 
importer, and we find no other grounds for treating these transactions 
as CEP sales. We, therefore, preliminarily determine that these 
transactions were EP sales. We have classified as CEP transactions the 
merchandise invoiced through Kolon USA because these sales were ``sold 
in the United States'' within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Act.

Export Price

    We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We 
based EP on packed prices to customers in the United States. We made 
adjustments for the following movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight from plant to 
port of exportation, brokerage and handling incurred in the country of 
manufacture, and international freight. Finally, we made an addition to 
U.S. price for duty drawback in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of 
the Act based upon Kolon's demonstration that it received duty drawback 
on imported materials used in the production of PET film. See Kolon's 
sections B and D responses, and section C response at C-34 to C-35 and 
Exhibit C-16.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, for those sales to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser that took place after importation into 
the United States, we calculated CEP. We based CEP on packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments for 
billing adjustments. We

[[Page 40328]]

made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight from 
plant to port of exportation, brokerage and handling incurred in the 
country of manufacture, international freight, marine insurance, 
brokerage and handling incurred in the United States, U.S. customs 
duties, other U.S. transportation port storage charges, U.S. 
warehousing expense, and U.S. inland freight from port or warehouse to 
customer. As further directed by section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we 
deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activity in 
the United States including direct selling expenses (i.e., commissions, 
U.S. credit expenses, and bank charges), inventory carrying costs, and 
other U.S. indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for 
profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Finally, we 
made an addition to U.S. price for duty drawback in accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act based upon Kolon's demonstration that 
it received duty drawback on imported materials used in the production 
of PET film. See Kolon's section B, C, and D response at C-34 to C-35 
and Exhibit C-16 and Kolon's February 22, 2011, response at SC-37.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is 
greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared Kolon's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because Kolon's 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for 
subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. See 
Kolon's section A response at Exhibit A-1.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    Pursuant to 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, because the Department had 
disregarded certain of Kolon's sales in the most recently completed 
review in which Kolon participated, the Department had reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that Kolon made home market sales at 
prices below Kolon's costs of production (COP) in this review. See 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of 
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
57993 (November 10, 2009). As a result, the Department was directed 
under section 773(b) of the Act to determine whether Kolon made home 
market sales during the POR at prices below its COP.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Kolon's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and 
administrative expenses (SG&A), interest expenses, and home market 
packing costs. We relied on the COP information provided by Kolon, 
except for an adjustment to cost of manufacturing (COM) related to 
losses sustained by its affiliate for processing PET film, and for an 
adjustment to the financial expense ratio. See Cost Calculation 
Memorandum.
    To determine whether Kolon's home market sales had been made at 
prices below the COP, we computed weighted-average COPs during the POR, 
and compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales 
prices of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of 
the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home 
market prices net of billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, any 
applicable movement charges, selling expenses, and packing expenses.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether, within an extended period of 
time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such 
sales were made at prices which did not permit the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. 
Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a 
given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any 
below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-
cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in 
``substantial quantities.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Where 
20 percent or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given 
model were at prices less than the COP, we normally disregard the 
below-cost sales because: (1) They were made within an extended period 
of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our comparison of 
prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices 
which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    We examined the cost data and determined that our quarterly cost 
methodology is not warranted and, therefore, we have applied our 
standard methodology of using annual costs based on the data Kolon 
reported, adjusted as described in the ``Cost of Production'' section 
above. Because we are applying our standard annual-average cost test in 
these preliminary results, we have also applied our standard cost-
recovery test with no adjustments.
    Our cost test for Kolon revealed that, for home market sales of 
certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were 
at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sales in our 
analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test 
also indicated that for home market sales of other models, more than 20 
percent were sold at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from 
our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for 
determining NV.

C. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers in 
Korea. We used Kolon's adjustments and deductions as reported. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight from plant to 
distribution warehouse, warehousing expense, and foreign inland freight 
from plant or distribution warehouse to customer. Kolon incurred 
commission expenses in the United States but not in Korea. Accordingly, 
pursuant to 19 CFR section 351.410(e) of the Department's regulations, 
we made an offset to normal value for selling expenses that Kolon 
incurred in Korea. As directed by 19 CFR section 351.410(e), we limited 
the offset to the amount of the commissions that Kolon incurred in the 
United States. In addition, for comparisons involving similar 
merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable 
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise compared 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We 
also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses. As noted

[[Page 40329]]

above in the ``Level of Trade'' section of this notice, we also made an 
adjustment for the CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) 
of the Act. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added 
U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of 
the Act.

Currency Conversion

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

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping 
margin exists for the period June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted
                                                              average
                  Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
                                                           (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kolon Industries, Inc...................................            0.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit case briefs not later 
than 30 days after the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later 
than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who 
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief 
summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
    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, Room 1870, within 30 days of the 
date of 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). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the case briefs.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the publication of this 
notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and 
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The 
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this 
review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific ad 
valorem assessment rates for PET film from Korea 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).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Kolon will be 
the rate established in the final results of review; (2) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the LTFV 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate 
will be the all-others rate of 21.50 percent from the LTFV 
investigation. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
From the Republic of Korea; Notice of Final Court Decision and Amended 
Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 62 FR 50557 
(September 26, 1997).

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and 
this notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 30, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-17210 Filed 7-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P