[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76365-76368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31428]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-520-803]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United 
Arab Emirates: 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 United Arab 
Emirates (UAE). This review covers the respondent, JBF RAK LLC (JBF), a 
producer and exporter of PET Film from the UAE. The Department 
preliminarily determines that sales of PET Film from the UAE have been 
made below normal value (NV) during the November 1, 2009, through 
October 31, 2010, period of review. 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: December 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Huston, or Jun Jack Zhao, 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-
4261 or (202) 482-1396, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 10, 2008, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on PET Film from the UAE. See 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Brazil, the 
People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Antidumping 
Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value for the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595 (November 10, 2008) 
(Order). On November 1, 2010, the Department published a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 
67079 (November 1, 2010). In response, on November 29, 2010, JBF 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its 
sales of PET Film in the U.S. market.
    On December 28, 2010, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of JBF. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 81565, 
81570 (December 28, 2010). On January 27, 2011, the Department issued 
an antidumping duty questionnaire to JBF. On April 6, 2011, JBF 
requested a 10 day extension to submit reconciliation information 
required by Sections B, C, and D of the initial questionnaire, which 
the Department approved by letter on the same date. JBF timely 
submitted its response to Section A of the questionnaire on March 10, 
2011, its response to Sections B, C, and D on April 11, 2011, and the 
reconciliation information on April 21, 2011. On May 20, 2011, the 
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to JBF, to which JBF 
timely responded on June 3, 2011.
    On June 20, 2011, JBF submitted information requested by the

[[Page 76366]]

Department regarding its submissions to United States Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP). On July 22, 2011, the Department issued a 
second supplemental questionnaire. JBF submitted its timely response to 
the second supplemental questionnaire on August 22, 2011. On July 29, 
2011, the Department extended the time period for issuing the 
preliminary results of this administrative review. See Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 45508 (July 29, 2011). On September 23, 
2011, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire, to 
which JBF submitted its timely response on October 11, 2011.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-
treated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, whether extruded or 
co-extruded. 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. 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 the order is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2009, through October 31, 
2010.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of PET Film were made at less than NV, 
we compared JBF's sales, which were all export price (EP) sales, made 
to unaffiliated customers in the United States to NV, as described 
below in the ``Normal Value'' section 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.

Product Comparisons

    Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, we determined products sold 
by JBF, as described in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, and 
sold in the UAE during the POR, to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
We have relied on five criteria to match U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise to comparison-market sales: Grade, specification, 
thickness, thickness category, and surface treatment. 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.
    In its first questionnaire response, JBF recommended two changes to 
our model matching criteria based on surface treatment. First, JBF 
proposed that the ranking values for surface treatment should be 
weighted to ensure that certain surface treatments are matched. We have 
not adopted this suggestion in the preliminary results. As a result of 
surface treatment being the least important characteristic in the 
ranking, the proposed change makes no difference in the matching, given 
that the preceding four factors (grade, specification, thickness, and 
thickness category) determine all matches. The Department, therefore, 
will not adopt this change, which would contradict the matching 
methodology used in the investigation, the previous review, and other 
PET Film cases. If JBF can demonstrate, subsequent to these preliminary 
results, that this change is justified based on the physical properties 
of surface treatments and that it would also affect matching, we will 
reexamine the suggested change to model matching criteria in the final 
results. We note in this regard that even if JBF's proposed change 
affected our calculations, the current basis for its proposal is not 
detailed and relies only on a few brief assertions. Second, JBF 
recommended changing the ranking of values for surface treatment to 
account for a new surface treatment which was not listed in the 
original questionnaire. JBF suggested this surface treatment be ranked 
between two existing categories with which it is most physically 
similar. Based on our analysis of the similarity of surface treatments, 
we have adopted JBF's suggestion to change the ranking of surface 
treatment values so that this new type of surface treatment will be 
matched to products with the most similar surface treatment, if 
identical matches are not available. See Memorandum to Mark Hoadley, 
``Preliminary Analysis for JBF RAK LLC,'' dated November 30, 2011, (JBF 
Analysis Memo) and attached SAS programs.

Arm's-Length Test

    In this proceeding, JBF did not report sales to affiliates in the 
home market; therefore the arms length test was not necessary.

Level of Trade

    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
(LOT) than U.S. sales, we examine selling functions along the chain of 
distribution between the respondent and the unaffiliated customer for 
EP sales and between the respondent and the affiliated U.S. importer 
for CEP 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 JBF regarding the selling functions involved in its home market and 
U.S. sales, including a description of these selling functions, listed 
in Exhibit A-5 of JBF's March 10, 2011 submission. Our analysis 
revealed that there were not any significant differences in selling 
functions between different channels of distribution or customer types 
in either the home or U.S. markets. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that JBF made all home-market sales at one level of trade. 
Moreover, we preliminarily determine that all home-market sales by JBF 
were made at the same level of trade as its U.S. sales. Accordingly, a 
LOT adjustment is not warranted.

Date of Sale

    The Department will normally use invoice date, as recorded in the 
exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the 
invoice date if it better reflects the date on which the material terms 
of sale are established. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). For JBF, we 
preliminarily determine that no departure from our standard practice is 
warranted. JBF reported invoice date as date of sale, and the record 
does not indicate that material terms of sale are established at a 
later date or earlier date in the sales process.

Margin Calculation

Export Price

    The Department based the price of all U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise by JBF on EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act 
because the merchandise was sold

[[Page 76367]]

by JBF to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States before 
importation. We calculated EP based on the packed price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made 
adjustments to price for billing adjustments, where applicable, and 
deducted all movement expenses reported by JBF.

Normal Value

A. 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 respondent's 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) of the Act. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.404(b), 
because JBF'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 find that the home market was 
viable for comparison purposes.

B. Calculation of Cost of Production (COP)

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of JBF's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and 
administrative expenses, interest expenses, and home market packing 
costs. Details regarding calculation of COP, as well as other 
calculation detail can be found in the JBF Analysis Memo, and attached 
SAS programs.

C. Cost of Production 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 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.
    In accordance with section 773(b) 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.'' However, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales that: (1) Have been made within an 
extended period of time (within six months to one year) in substantial 
quantities (20 percent or more), as defined by section 773(b)(2)(B) and 
(C) of the Act; and (2) were not made at prices which permit recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time, as prescribed by 
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Accordingly, we determined to 
disregard certain of JBF's sales in the determination of NV because (1) 
20 percent or more of a given product was sold at prices less than COP 
and (2) based on our comparison of prices to weighted-average COP 
figured for the POR, they were made at prices that would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We used the 
remaining home market sales as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Constructed Value

    After disregarding certain sales as below cost, as described above, 
home market sales of contemporaneous identical and similar products 
existed that 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.

E. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers 
in the home market. We used JBF'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. 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. In so doing, we made COS adjustments for the cost of providing 
samples to customers. Finally, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted 
home market packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 
(B) of the Act, respectively.

Currency Conversions

    Pursuant to section 773(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we made 
currency conversions for JBF'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.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following 
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period November 1, 2009, 
through October 31, 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                 Manufacturer/exporter                   average margin
                                                            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JBF RAK LLC...........................................              3.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. 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 JBF 
reported the entered value for its sales, we calculated importer-
specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem assessment rates based on 
the ratio of the total amount of the antidumping duties calculated for 
the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. See 
19 CFR 351.212(b). However, where JBF did not report the entered value 
for its sales, we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-
specific) per unit duty assessment rates.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ JBF notified CBP in a ``prior disclosure'' letter that some 
entries of subject merchandise were misidentified as ``free and 
dutiable'' entries at the time of entry. These entries were not 
corrected by CBP as they had already been liquidated. JBF states in 
its letter to CBP that it will pay the entire amount of antidumping 
duties due on both correctly and incorrectly classified entries at 
the time the Department issues its liquidation instructions. A 
``prior disclosure'' letter is provided for in CBP's regulations (19 
CFR 162.74). The letter allows importers to correct mistakes made 
during the entry process on their initiative, thus avoiding possible 
sanctions or penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of PET Film from the UAE 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 the company 
under review will be the rate established in the final results of this 
review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 
percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed 
or investigated companies not listed above, the cash

[[Page 76368]]

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, 4.05 percent.\2\ These 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Order, 73 FR at 66597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comment

    We will 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.\3\ If a hearing is requested, the Department will 
notify interested parties of the hearing schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c); Parties submitting written comments 
must submit them pursuant to the Department's e-filing regulations. 
See https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/IA%20ACCESS%20User%20Guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. Unless extended by the Department, interested 
parties must submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. 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. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) 
and (d) (additional discussion on case briefs and rebuttal briefs, 
respectively). 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.
    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, unless otherwise extended. See section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

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 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: November 30, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-31428 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P