[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47540-47546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19946]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-837]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: 
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 Taiwan. The

[[Page 47541]]

period of review (POR) is July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. This 
review covers respondents, Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation (SSFC) 
and Shinkong Materials Technology Co. Ltd. (SMTC) (collectively, 
Shinkong), and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd. (Nan Ya), producers 
and exporters of PET Film from Taiwan.
    The Department preliminarily determines that Shinkong and Nan Ya 
made sales of PET Film below normal value (NV) during the POR. The 
preliminary results are listed below in the section titled 
``Preliminary Results of Review.'' Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: August 5, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert or Emily Halle, 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) 428-
3586, or (202) 482-0176, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On July 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on PET Film from Taiwan.\1\ On July 1, 2010, 
the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order.\2\ In response, on July 30, 2010, 
the domestic interested parties DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi 
Polyester Film of America, SKC, Inc., and Toray Plastics (America), 
Inc. (collectively, Petitioners) requested that the Department conduct 
an administrative review of Nan Ya's and Shinkong's sales of PET Film 
from Taiwan to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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).
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation: Opportunity To Request Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 38074, 38075 (July 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 31, 2010, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of Shinkong and Nan Ya (collectively, the respondents).\3\ On 
September 27, 2010, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
questionnaire to the respondents. Nan Ya did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. Therefore, in accordance with section 
776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), for these preliminary results, the Department has applied facts 
otherwise available with an adverse inference when determining Nan Ya's 
rate.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Initiation of Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 53274, 53275 (August 31, 2010).
    \4\ See the section ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 
Adverse Facts Available,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between February 2, 2011, and June 9, 2011, the Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Shinkong requesting additional 
information. All of Shinkong's responses were submitted on a timely 
basis.
    On March 10, 2011, the Department extended the time period for 
issuing the preliminary results of this administrative review.\5\ We 
have not received comments from Petitioners for these preliminary 
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET 
Film) From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 13128 
(March 10, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the 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.

Scope Ruling

    On December 22, 2010, the Department issued a final scope 
determination stating that amorphous polyethylene terephthalate film 
that is not biaxially-oriented is not covered by the scope of the 
order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 
``Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: 
Final Scope Ruling on Amorphous Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,'' 
dated December 22, 2010. This public document is on file at the 
Department's Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Commerce 
Building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Review

    The POR for this administrative review is July 1, 2009, through 
June 30, 2010.

Collapsing of SSFC and SMTC

    The Department will treat two or more affiliated producers as a 
single entity where: (1) Those producers have production facilities for 
similar or identical product that would not require substantial 
retooling of either facility; and (2) there is a significant potential 
for manipulation of price or production pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.401(f)(1) and (2). Consistent with the most recently completed 
administrative review, the Department preliminarily determines that 
SSFC and SMTC should be treated as a single entity (i.e., Shinkong) for 
purposes of calculating an antidumping margin pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.401(f).\7\ SMTC was established in October 2004 and it is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of SSFC. SSFC and SMTC produce similar or identical 
merchandise. Evidence on the record shows that SSFC and SMTC both have 
similar production facilities to produce the subject merchandise. 
Additionally, the level of common ownership between SSFC and SMTC 
creates the fact that operations are intertwined to provide a 
significant potential for manipulation of price or production. SMTC is 
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of SSFC and, during the POR, almost all of 
the subject merchandise under review produced by SMTC was sold to SSFC 
for re-sale in the home market, United States market, and third country 
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum to Mark Hoadley, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, ``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 
2009-2010 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: 
Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation and Shinkong Materials 
Technology Co. Ltd,'' dated August 1, 2011 (Shinkong Calculation 
Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparisons to Normal Value for Shinkong

    Shinkong did not have affiliated U.S. customers. Therefore, to 
determine whether sales of PET Film were made at less than NV, we 
compared Shinkong's export price (EP) sales made to unaffiliated 
customers to NV, as described below in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP of individual transactions to 
monthly weighted-average NVs.

Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PET 
Film in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the volume of Shinkong's home market sales of the foreign 
like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject

[[Page 47542]]

merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.404(b), 
because Shinkong'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 of the subject merchandise, we have determined that the home 
market was viable for comparison purposes.

Product Comparisons

    Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, we determined that products 
sold by the respondents, as described in the ``Scope of the Order'' 
section above, in Taiwan during the POR are foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
For product comparisons, we have relied on five criteria to match U.S. 
sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales (in order of 
importance): Grade, Specification, Thickness, Thickness Category, and 
Surface Treatment.\8\ Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared 
U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the 
characteristics listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See the Department's September 27, 2010 Antidumping Duty 
Questionnaire to Shinkong, at sections B and C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    The Department normally uses invoice date as date of sale, 
consistent with 19 CFR 351.401(i). Shinkong reported that, on occasion, 
changes to the terms of sale occurred before subject merchandise was 
shipped due to the customer's request or because of Shinkong's 
production capacity. According to Shinkong, during the POR, the terms 
of sale changed for some home market sales after the initial sales 
agreements were made and that, therefore, the terms of sale were 
finalized in the Government Uniform Invoice (GUI).\9\ As such, we 
preliminarily determine that for sales in the home market, and for 
sales to the United States made through domestic trading companies, the 
GUI date, i.e., the date on which the terms of home market sales are 
finalized,\10\ is the most appropriate date to use as Shinkong's date 
of sale. For sales made directly to U.S. customers, Shinkong stated 
that it issues its commercial invoice after production of subject 
merchandise is completed, at which time the terms of sale have been 
finalized. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that, for sales made 
directly to the U.S. market, the commercial invoice date is the most 
appropriate date to use as Shinkong's date of sale in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.401(i). Evidence on the record also demonstrates that, with 
respect to Shinkong's sales to the United States, for some sales, the 
shipment date occurred prior to the invoice date.\11\ In such cases, we 
limit the sales date (i.e., invoice date) to no later than shipment 
date.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Shinkong's November 1, 2010 questionnaire response at 
17.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ See Shinkong's May 23, 2011 supplemental questionnaire 
response at Exhibit 2.
    \12\ See, e.g., Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 
FR 7244, 7251 (February 18, 2010), unchanged in Narrow Woven Ribbons 
With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 41808 (July 
19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin Calculation

Export Price

    In calculating the U.S. price (USP) for Shinkong, we used EP, as 
defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because sales to the first 
unaffiliated U.S. customer occurred before importation. We based EP on 
packed prices to customers in the United States. We made deductions 
from USP for the following movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: Domestic inland freight from plant to port of 
exportation, brokerage and handling incurred in the country of 
manufacture, marine insurance and international freight.

Normal Value

A. Quarterly Cost of Production (COP)

    Based on a review of record evidence, Shinkong did not appear to 
experience significant changes in cost of manufacturing (COM) during 
this POR. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of calculating 
an annual weighted-average cost in conducting the sales-below-cost test 
described below.

B. COP Analysis

    Pursuant to 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, because the Department had 
disregarded certain of Shinkong's sales in the most recently completed 
review of this order,\13\ the Department had reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that Shinkong made home market sales at prices below 
COP in this review. As a result, the Department was directed under 
section 773(b) of the Act to determine whether Shinkong made home 
market sales during the POR at prices below COP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 69 FR 18531, 18534 (April 8, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Shinkong's cost of materials and fabrication for 
the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative 
expenses (G&A), interest expenses and home market packing costs. These 
calculations include revisions by the Department to the COP information 
reported by Shinkong, consistent with Department practice, and previous 
reviews. Specifically, we adjusted the G&A ratios for SSFC and SMTC, 
applied the adjusted ratios to each company's COM, and then weight-
averaged the two COP databases into one set of cost data.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab 
Emirates: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than 
Fair Value, 73 FR 33985, 33988 (June 16, 2008) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11, and Silicomanganese 
From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 69 FR 13813, 13814 (March 24, 2004) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11. See also Memorandum to Mark 
Hoadley, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Results--Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation (SSFC) and Shinkong 
Materials Technology Co. Ltd (SMTC) (collectively, Shinkong),'' 
dated August 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. COP Test

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the revised COP figures to 
home market prices net of applicable billing adjustments, discounts and 
rebates, movement charges, selling expenses, and packing to determine 
whether home market sales had been made at prices below COP. In 
calculating product-specific costs, we ignored the Grade product 
characteristic reported by Shinkong, as Grade differences are the 
result of inadvertent errors in production that lead to different 
qualities of PET Film and not variances in production costs.\15\ In 
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Shinkong's March 4, 2011 submission at Exhibit 8. When 
producing PET Film, Shinkong's expectation is that the finished 
product will contain no flaws (i.e., Grade A). However, inadvertent 
production errors occur, giving way to the different Grades.

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

[[Page 47543]]

    In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 
20 percent of a given product was sold at prices less than COP, we did 
not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because the below-
cost sales were not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 
percent or more of a given product was sold at prices less than COP, we 
disregarded the below cost sales if: (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 weighted-average COP figures for the POR, they 
were made 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. Based on this analysis, we found that Shinkong 
did have below cost sales that must be disregarded. We used the 
remaining home market sales as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

E. Constructed Value

    After disregarding certain sales as below cost, as described above, 
there were home market sales of contemporaneous identical and similar 
products that remained, which allowed for price-to-price comparisons 
for all margin calculations. Therefore, the Department did not need to 
rely on constructed value for any calculations for these preliminary 
results.

F. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on packed prices (i.e., including costs for 
packing) to unaffiliated customers in the home market.\16\ We used 
Shinkong's adjustments and deductions as reported. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons involving similar 
merchandise, we made adjustments for cost differences attributable to 
the physical differences between the products compared, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made 
adjustments for differences in the circumstances of sale, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, 
specifically for imputed credit expenses. Finally, we deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Shinkong sold a small amount of foreign like product to its 
affiliates in the home market for consumption during the POR. These 
sales have failed the arm's-length test and therefore have been 
excluded from the calculation of NV. See ``Arm's Length Test'' 
section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Arm's-Length Test

    The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated 
party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is 
comparable to the prices at which sales are made to parties not 
affiliated with the exporter or producer; i.e., sales to home market 
affiliates must be at arm's-length.\17\ Sales to affiliated customers 
for consumption in the home market that are determined not to be at 
arm's-length are excluded from our analysis. To test whether sales are 
made at arm's-length prices, the Department compares the prices of 
sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated 
customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and 
packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c), and in accordance with the 
Department's practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party 
are, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to 
unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the 
affiliated party, we determine that the sales to the affiliated party 
are at arm's-length.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
    \18\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the 
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proceeding, Shinkong reported sales of the foreign like 
product to affiliated customers who consumed the purchased material. 
Shinkong's sales to these affiliated home market customers did not pass 
the arm's-length test, and were therefore excluded from our 
analysis.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See section 773(b)(1) of the Act; see also Shinkong 
Calculation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. 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 sales in the U.S. market. To determine 
whether NV sales are at a different LOT than U.S. sales, we examine 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the 
respondents and the unaffiliated customer for EP sales, and between the 
respondents and the affiliated U.S. importer for constructed export 
price sales. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, 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 an LOT adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    In implementing these principles, we examined information provided 
by Shinkong regarding the selling functions involved in its home market 
and U.S. sales, including a description of these selling functions, 
listed in Exhibit 8 of Shinkong's November 1, 2010 submission. Shinkong 
claims one LOT in both the U.S. and home market, and that the same 
selling functions were conducted in the U.S. and home market, leading 
Shinkong to claim the same LOT for the U.S. and home market.\20\ Based 
on our analysis, we preliminarily determine that Shinkong sold at one 
LOT in both its home market and the United States. We also 
preliminarily determine that both the home market and the U.S. LOTs are 
the same and that, therefore, an LOT adjustment is not warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) From 
Taiwan, 66 FR 65889, 65891 (December 21, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currency Conversions

    Pursuant to section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we made 
currency conversions for Shinkong's sales based on the daily exchange 
rates in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if: (1) Necessary information is not on 
the record; or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) 
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide 
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner 
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) 
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 
782(i) of the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse 
inference may include reliance on information derived from the 
petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or 
other information placed on the record.
    As referenced above, Nan Ya did not respond to the Department's 
initial

[[Page 47544]]

questionnaire in this administrative review.\21\ As a result, Nan Ya 
did not provide the requested information that is necessary for the 
Department to calculate an antidumping duty rate for the company in 
this administrative review. Therefore, in reaching these preliminary 
results, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department has 
based Nan Ya's antidumping duty rate on facts otherwise available on 
the record. Further, because Nan Ya did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, the Department determines that Nan Ya withheld 
information requested by the Department in accordance with sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, and significantly impeded this 
proceeding in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Thus, we 
find that Nan Ya failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to 
provide the Department with requested information. Therefore, pursuant 
to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined that, when 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse 
inference through selection of adverse facts available (AFA) is 
warranted with respect to Nan Ya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, 
Ltd. Non-Participation in the Administrative Review for the Period 
July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010,'' dated August 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of the AFA Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on 
information derived from four particular sources, including data 
related to cooperative interested parties placed on the record: (1) The 
petition; (2) a final determination in the investigation; (3) any 
previous review or determination; or (4) any information placed on the 
record. The Department's practice is to select an AFA rate that is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner,'' and that 
ensures ``that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' \22\ 
Specifically, the Department's practice in reviews, in selecting a rate 
as a total AFA rate, is to use the highest weighted-average margin on 
the record of the proceeding which, to the extent practicable, can be 
corroborated (assuming the rate is based on secondary information).\23\ 
The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit (CAFC) have each affirmed decisions to select the 
highest weighted-average margin from any prior segment of the 
proceeding as the AFA rate on numerous occasions.\24\ The Department 
also has the discretion of using a transaction-specific margin of a 
company to establish total AFA rates where it finds it to be 
appropriate under section 776(b) of the Act.\25\ In choosing the 
appropriate balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to 
respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to 
the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior 
weighted-average margin or, as in this case, one of the highest prior 
transaction-specific margins, reflects ``a common sense inference that 
the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current 
margins * * *'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See the Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreement Act, H.R. Rep. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 
870 (SAA) at 870 and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From 
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8911 (February 23, 1998); see also Brake Rotors 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of 
the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 
2005).
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ See, e.g., NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 
1335 (CIT 2004) (affirming a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the 
highest available dumping margin calculated for a different 
respondent in the investigation); see also Kompass Food Trading 
International v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 683-84 (2000) (affirming 
a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin 
for a different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen 
International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 
1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (affirming a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, 
the highest available dumping margin for a different respondent in a 
previous administrative review).
    \25\ See, e.g., iScholar, Inc., v. United States, 2011 Ct. Intl. 
Trade LEXIS 3, 9 (January 13, 2011) (affirming the application of a 
transaction-specific margin as AFA for a different respondent); see 
also Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 7563, 7563 
(February 22, 2010).
    \26\ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 
1190 (CAFC 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department must ``balance the statutory objectives of finding 
an accurate dumping margin and inducing compliance'' when selecting the 
appropriate AFA rate.\27\ At a minimum, an AFA rate must reasonably 
reflect an accurate estimate of the actual rate, ``albeit with some 
built-in increase intended as a deterrent to non-compliance.'' \28\ The 
estimated rate from the petition was 15.65 percent,\29\ and the highest 
weighted-average margin calculated for any party in these proceedings 
is 18.30 percent, which was calculated for Nan Ya during the most 
recently completed administrative review.\30\ As Nan Ya did not respond 
to the Department's antidumping questionnaire in this segment of the 
proceeding knowing that its current weighted-average margin is 18.30 
percent, we find that this margin would not be satisfactory as AFA to 
compel Nan Ya to participate in the Department's antidumping 
proceedings. As a result, the Department finds that it is not 
appropriate to apply any of the weighted-average margins calculated 
during the history of this proceeding as AFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334, 1345 (Fed. 
Cir. 2004).
    \28\ See F.lli de Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. 
United States, 216 F.3d 1027, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
    \29\ See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
(PET Film) From India and Taiwan, 66 FR 31888 (June 13, 2001).
    \30\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From 
Taiwan: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Review, 76 FR 
18519,18520 (April 4, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead, we have assigned to exports of subject merchandise 
produced and/or exported by Nan Ya the rate of 99.31 percent, which we 
preliminarily determine is the most appropriate transaction-specific 
rate that we calculated in the 2008-2009 administrative review of the 
order with respect to Nan Ya.\31\ We find that this rate is 
sufficiently adverse to serve the purposes of facts available and is 
reasonably related to the respondent's contemporaneous commercial, 
customary selling practices, because this AFA rate is a transaction-
specific rate determined for Nan Ya itself in the most recently 
completed administrative review of this proceeding.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Memorandum to The File, ``Transfer of Record 
Information from the Administrative Review for the Period July 1, 
2008 through June 30, 2009,'' dated August 1, 2011; see also 
Memorandum to Mark Hoadley, Program Manager, Office 6, ``Assignment 
of the Adverse Facts Available Rate for Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, 
Ltd.,'' dated August 1, 2011 (Nan Ya AFA Memorandum).
    \32\ See Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 39919 (August 10, 2009) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at 10-15 (in which the Department applied, as 
AFA, a transaction-specific margin calculated in a prior 
administrative review to the same respondent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration of Secondary Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources

[[Page 47545]]

that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined 
as information derived from the petition, the final determination 
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under 
section 751 of the Act concerning the subject merchandise.\33\ To 
corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value.\34\ To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
to be used.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See SAA at 870.
    \34\ See id.
    \35\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AFA rate of 99.31 percent selected for Nan Ya is based on 
information Nan Ya itself submitted in a previous segment of this 
proceeding, the 2008-2009 administrative review. Because: (1) The AFA 
rate of 99.31 percent is based solely on Nan Ya's questionnaire 
responses and accompanying data from the immediately preceding 
administrative review for the period 2008-2009; (2) this information 
was provided by Nan Ya; and (3) we used this information without 
objections to calculate margins for the previous review, we find that 
the rate is reliable and relevant for use in this administrative review 
and, therefore, it has probative value for use as AFA. As such, the 
Department finds this rate to be corroborated to the extent 
practicable, consistent with section 776(c) of the Act.
    Additionally, in selecting this particular transaction-specific 
margin to use as the AFA rate for Nan Ya, the Department has analyzed 
the underlying transaction to ensure that it is not inappropriate. 
Specifically, the Department examined the individual transaction-
specific margins for the entire 2008-2009 POR for sales to the United 
States by Nan Ya. Our review of the individual transaction-specific 
margins affirms that this rate is neither aberrational nor unusual in 
terms of transaction quantities or products. The details of the 
secondary information analyzed by the Department contain business 
proprietary information, and have been placed on the record in the Nan 
Ya AFA Memorandum.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following 
weighted-average antidumping duty margins exist for the period July 1, 
2009, through June 30, 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                     Producer/exporter                          margin
                                                               percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd...........................        99.31
Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation......................         6.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 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 Shinkong and Nan Ya. 
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the date of publication of the final results of review. For 
assessment purposes, where possible, 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.\36\ However, 
where the respondents do not report the entered value for their sales, 
we calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit duty 
assessment rates. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate 
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of PET Film from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication 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 companies under 
review will be the rate established in the final results of this review 
(except, if the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero 
cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 
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, (4) 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 for this proceeding, 2.40 percent. These 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Disclosure and Public Comment

    We intend to disclose the calculations used in our analysis to 
parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice 
in the Federal Register.\37\ If a hearing is requested, the Department 
will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 19 CFR 351.310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. The Department typically requests that 
interested parties submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. However, we plan to issue a post-
preliminary supplemental questionnaire and, therefore, will be 
extending the case brief deadline. The Department will inform 
interested parties of the updated briefing schedule when it has been 
confirmed. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in 
the case briefs, must be filed not later than five days after the time 
limit for filing case briefs.\38\ Parties who submit case briefs or 
rebuttal briefs in this review 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. Executive summaries should be 
limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d) (for a further discussion of 
case briefs and rebuttal briefs, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written 
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results 
in the Federal Register.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of

[[Page 47546]]

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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.

    Dated: August 1, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-19946 Filed 8-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P